A single label can end a conversation before it even begins. In today’s political climate, terms such as ‘andhbhakt’, ‘anti-national’, ‘tukde-tukde gang’, and ‘dimagi naxal’ are increasingly replacing arguments with assumptions. As political identities become shorthand for entire viewpoints, an important question emerges: are these labels helping people understand each other, or are they making meaningful democratic debate more difficult? Saachi Shinde and Satya Tirtharaj Ghosal moderate a debate.
Sourja Sarkar, 23, Professional Photographer
Labels like "anti-national", "andhbhakt", or "dimagi naxal" might feel satisfying to type, but they rarely simplify anything. They compress sensitive topics into insults, making real conversation nearly impossible. As many of us hesitate before posting political opinions online, not because we lack views, but because we know disagreement often invites mockery rather than debate, and nobody wants to spend their evening fielding abuse from strangers.
This dynamic doesn't draw young people into public discourse, it drives us towards silence or, worse, towards echo chambers where we only speak among the like-minded. Once someone is labelled, they stop being a person with reasons and become a caricature, easy to dismiss but impossible to persuade.
Short-form content accelerates this by creating a ten-second reel with a punchy title that travels further than a ten-minute explainer with facts, because outrage is more shareable than accuracy and platforms are built to reward exactly that.
Reversing this needs effort on all sides, younger generation needs to choose curiosity over contempt, influencers should resist the temptation to farm engagement through division, and platforms must redesign algorithms that currently profit from conflict. Respectful disagreement isn't a weakness, it's the only way democracy actually functions instead of just performing itself online.
Minesh Raja, 45, Founder, Carmine Communications LLP
Over the past decade, political conversations in India have become increasingly dependent on labels and stereotypes. Supporting or opposing a political party is a natural part of democracy. The problem arises when political identities are reduced to simplistic tags. Supporters of the BJP are often dismissed as “andhbhakts,” while critics of the government are branded “anti-national” or anti-Hindutva. Such labels can shut down discussion before it even begins.
This leaves little room for those who do not view politics in black and white. Many citizens may support the government on certain issues while questioning it on others. Their focus is not party loyalty but the country’s progress. They evaluate governments on factors such as economic growth, national security, infrastructure, education, employment, corruption, India’s global standing, and its ability to manage relations with neighbouring countries. At the same time, they should be able to demand accountability on issues such as governance, public services, jobs, and favouritism without being pushed into a political camp.
The impact of political name-calling extends beyond public debate. It increasingly affects personal relationships, with friends, colleagues, and family members avoiding political conversations for fear of arguments or labels. When long-time friends feel the need to declare politics “off limits” simply to preserve a reunion, it reflects a broader change in the tone of public discourse.
A healthy democracy depends on the ability to disagree without hostility. Political leaders can help by setting a more constructive tone, while media organisations can focus on facts and issues rather than provocative labels. Citizens, too, have a responsibility to challenge ideas without attacking identities. Democracy is strengthened when disagreements encourage thoughtful discussion and better questions, rather than deeper divisions.
Bhakti Bharat Redkar, 54
Having witnessed political discussions evolve over the years, I believe labels and name-calling have become far more common today. Differences of opinion have always existed in a democracy, but public discourse was often more measured and focused on issues. Today, television debates and social media amplify harsh language, causing attention to shift from policies and ideas to personal attacks.
The growing use of political labels can create distance between people, including friends, colleagues, and family members. There is nothing wrong with holding different political views, but disagreements should not turn into hostility. While labels may strengthen group identities, they can also deepen social divisions and make meaningful dialogue more difficult.
There is an important distinction between criticism and name-calling. In a democracy, citizens should be free to question decisions, policies, and actions of political leaders and institutions. However, criticism loses its value when it becomes a personal attack. Respectful disagreement is essential for healthy democratic debate.
Social media has made it easier for opinions, information, and misinformation to spread rapidly. This makes it even more important for people to verify information before sharing it and to engage with differing viewpoints responsibly. Political differences should not determine how we treat one another.
Ultimately, good political discussion should be about people's problems and solutions, not about creating hatred between people. A democracy functions best when citizens debate ideas vigorously while continuing to respect those who think differently.
