The assassination of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk sent shockwaves through the political arena in the country and made news all over the world, including in India. But why should we, thousands of miles away from the shooting, be bothered about it? It should, because the political conditions in our country are as bad as those in the United States. After all, any political debate in India is also extremely toxic and vicious, and there is an evident connection between political discourse and the murder of the 31-year-old activist. We cannot ignore the fact that the 22-year-old assassin, Tyler Robinson, was a brilliant student and a well-behaved youngster till very recently; it was only in the last two years that he reportedly became very political and agitated. In the intervening years, he was reportedly exposed to Leftist literature and theories, including transgenderism. Importantly, his boy/girlfriend was a man transitioning to female. It is a well-known fact that Leftwing thought is historically associated with equality and justice for the working class; its extreme manifestations like Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China—result in massive violence.

After many socialist experiences failed, and particularly after the fall of the Soviet Union, Leftwing thinkers came up with weird postmodern doctrines like critical race theory and transgenderism. One must realise that political beliefs other than the New Leftist also have the potential of becoming toxic. The kind of things some of the votaries of Hindutva say are also problematic. Many anti-Hindutva politicians and activists also come up with deplorable remarks. Overall, in our country, the quality of both political debate and public discourse has been on a steady decline. This deterioration in political culture is not merely rhetorical.

The line between verbal aggression and physical violence is thin. When young minds are constantly exposed to vitriol, conspiracy theories, and absolutist ideologies, the chances of some individuals crossing the threshold into violence rise sharply. In that sense, Robinson’s act is a warning for all of us: a glimpse of what can happen when toxic politics combines impressionable youth. The steady collapse of civility in public discourse is a dangerous trend. Democracy depends on debate, disagreement, and dissent, but it also requires respect for opponents and adherence to peaceful means of contestation.

When politics becomes a zero-sum game where rivals are depicted not as competitors but as enemies, the seeds of violence are sown. In India, we have already seen outbreaks of political violence in various states, often at the grassroots level. Student groups clash violently on campuses. Political workers beat each other up on the streets; even important politicians are slapped. Activists and journalists are harassed, sometimes attacked, for their views. These incidents may not yet have reached the scale of an assassination of a national-level figure, but they point in the same troubling direction.

Ultimately, the responsibility for reversing this dangerous spiral lies with political and intellectual elites. Leaders must recognize that their words carry weight. Rhetoric that dehumanizes opponents or frames politics as an existential battle not only poisons public life but also emboldens extremists. Similarly, intellectuals and academics must resist the temptation to promote rigid, exclusionary doctrines in the name of progress. This does not mean abandoning strong opinions or robust debate; this means rejecting demonisation of the adversary. The adversary should not be seen as an enemy.