The Trust Trap: How the People Closest to Us Fool Us the Most

 

The Trust Trap: How the People Closest to Us Fool Us the Most

In a world overflowing with information, misinformation, and outright deception, we’d like to believe that our inner circle — friends, family, and those who share our worldview — serves as a reliable shield against falsehoods. After all, these are the people we trust implicitly. Yet, paradoxically, it’s often these very individuals who fool us the most. Not necessarily through malicious intent, but because our defenses drop when information comes from familiar sources. We accept their words at face value, bypassing the critical thinking we reserve for outsiders. This blind spot isn’t just a personal quirk; it’s a cognitive vulnerability that permeates our relationships, politics, and society at large.

The Psychology of Unquestioned Trust

At the heart of this phenomenon lies a simple truth: we don’t question what aligns with our existing beliefs. When a friend shares a story that reinforces our views — whether it’s about a cultural tradition, a political scandal, or even a health tip — we let it slide through our mental filters unchallenged. Why? Because it feels right. It echoes our biases, providing that comforting sense of validation. Seeking a second opinion feels unnecessary, even disloyal. After all, if they’re like us, how could they be wrong?

Contrast this with how we respond to information from “the other side.” If someone with an opposing ideology or political leaning makes a claim, our skepticism kicks into overdrive. Driven by the innate human desire to be right (and to prove them wrong), we dig deep — scouring articles, fact-checking sources, and dissecting arguments until we find even a shred of evidence to dismiss it. This selective scrutiny creates an imbalance: we’re hyper-vigilant against external threats but blind to internal ones.

This dynamic plays out vividly in personal relationships. Friends and family, sharing similar values and backgrounds, become unwitting carriers of misinformation. A relative might pass along a family myth or a biased anecdote without verification, and we absorb it as gospel. Over time, these unchallenged narratives shape our worldview, entrenching biases we might otherwise question.

The Political Echo Chamber: Fooled by Our Own Side

Nowhere is this trust trap more evident than in politics. Supporters of a particular party or ideology are most susceptible to deception from within their own ranks. Right-wing individuals, for instance, often get fooled by right-wing sources precisely because those narratives bolster their preconceptions. False claims about immigration, economic policies, or cultural threats circulate freely in these circles, unchecked by criticism. Why bother fact-checking when it feels so affirming?

Meanwhile, the same people will scrutinize left-wing information relentlessly. Every statement from the opposing side is dissected, often until a minor inconsistency allows for outright dismissal. This isn’t unique to one side; it’s a universal bias. Left-leaning individuals fall prey to their own echo chambers just as easily. The result? Polarization deepens, and truth becomes secondary to tribal loyalty.

In India, this issue is amplified by the country’s diverse social fabric. Many live in self-imposed bubbles — offline and online — surrounded by people who mirror their religious, caste, or gender identities. Hindus in predominantly Hindu circles rarely engage with Muslim perspectives, leading to unchecked stereotypes and Islamophobia. Conversely, those immersed in Muslim communities might develop Hinduphobic views without exposure to counter-narratives. Upper-caste groups, insulated from lower-caste experiences, perpetuate casteist attitudes, while male-dominated friend circles foster resistance to feminism.

Social media exacerbates this. Algorithms feed us content that aligns with our likes, creating digital silos where diverse voices are algorithmically excluded. The more time we spend in these bubbles, the harder it becomes to escape. Obnoxious, narrow-minded views thrive in isolation, unchallenged and self-reinforcing.

Breaking Free: The Power of Diversification

The antidote to this deception isn’t cynicism toward those we trust — it’s a deliberate pursuit of diversity. Just as diversification in investing spreads risk and yields better returns, applying it to our social and informational diets builds resilience against bias. This means actively seeking opinions that differ from our own, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Cognitive dissonance — the mental discomfort of holding conflicting ideas — will arise, but it’s a necessary growing pain. Start small: If your network is mostly Hindu, befriend Muslims and listen to their stories. Upper-caste individuals should connect with those from lower castes to understand systemic inequalities. Men in male-heavy circles ought to engage with women to grasp feminist perspectives. And vice versa — the principle applies universally.

In politics, follow sources from across the spectrum. Read critiques of your favorite party; they might reveal blind spots you didn’t know existed. Offline, step out of homogeneous groups: attend interfaith events, join mixed-caste discussions, or participate in gender-diverse forums. Online, curate your feed to include opposing viewpoints rather than muting them.

This isn’t about abandoning your beliefs but enriching them. By exposing ourselves to “the other,” we sharpen our critical thinking, reduce susceptibility to deception, and foster empathy. In a divided world, especially in multicultural societies like India, this diversification isn’t just wise — it’s essential for personal growth and societal harmony.

Stepping Out of the Bubble

Ultimately, the people we trust fool us not because they’re inherently untrustworthy, but because we let them. Our biases create the perfect environment for unchallenged ideas to flourish. Recognizing this is the first step toward liberation. The next is action: break the cycle of narrow-mindedness by embracing discomfort and seeking diverse perspectives.

In doing so, we don’t just avoid being fooled — we become wiser, more compassionate versions of ourselves. After all, true wisdom isn’t found in echo chambers; it’s forged in the friction of differing worlds. So, reach out, listen, and question — even those you hold dear. Your mind, and your relationships, will thank you.

The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

 

The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

In Hindu philosophy, karma represents the universal law of cause and effect, where an individual’s actions in one life determine their fate in subsequent rebirths. This concept, intertwined with the caste system (varna), has historically served as a mechanism to rationalize social hierarchies and discrimination. The caste system divides society into four primary varnas: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers and servants), with those outside often labeled as Dalits or “untouchables.” Proponents argued that one’s birth into a specific caste reflects accumulated karma from past lives — good deeds leading to higher castes and bad deeds to lower ones. This framework not only perpetuated inequality but also discouraged social mobility, framing discrimination as a form of cosmic justice.

While ancient texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita provide scriptural backing for this view, modern interpretations and societal attitudes reveal how these ideas remain deeply ingrained, despite legal prohibitions on caste discrimination in India.

Historical Justification Through Scriptural Texts

Ancient Hindu scriptures explicitly link karma to caste, portraying social status as a direct outcome of past actions. This interpretation justified discrimination by suggesting that lower castes deserved their plight as penance for previous sins, while higher castes enjoyed privileges as rewards for virtue.The Manusmriti, a foundational Dharma Shastra text dated between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE, is particularly explicit. In Chapter 12, it details how actions (karma) dictate rebirth into various forms, including castes. For instance, Manusmriti 12.9 states: “In consequence of (many) sinful acts committed with his body, a man becomes (in the next birth) something inanimate, in consequence (of sins) committed by speech, a bird, or a beast, and in consequence of mental (sins he is re-born in) a low caste.”

This verse directly ties moral failings to rebirth in a “low caste,” implying that Shudras or outcastes are paying for past transgressions.

Further, Manusmriti 12.3 explains: “Action, which springs from the mind, from speech, and from the body, produces either good or evil results; by action are caused the (various) conditions of men, the highest, the middling, and the lowest.”

Here, “highest” and “lowest” conditions refer to caste positions, with virtuous actions leading to elevated rebirths and sinful ones to degradation. Manusmriti 12.40–41 elaborates on the three gunas (qualities): “Those endowed with Goodness reach the state of gods, those endowed with Activity the state of men, and those endowed with Darkness ever sink to the condition of beasts; that is the threefold course of transmigrations. But know this threefold course of transmigrations that depends on the (three) qualities (to be again) threefold, low, middling, and high, according to the particular nature of the acts and the knowledge (of each man).”

Sudras are associated with the middling state of Darkness (Manusmriti 12.43: “Elephants, horses, Sudras, and despicable barbarians, lions, tigers, and boars (are) the middling states, caused by (the quality of) Darkness”), reinforcing their inferior status as karmic punishment.

The Bhagavad Gita, part of the Mahabharata (circa 400 BCE–200 CE), also connects karma and guna to caste duties. In Gita 4:13, Lord Krishna declares: “I created mankind in four classes, different in their qualities and actions; though unchanging, I am the agent of this, the actor who never acts!”

This verse attributes the four varnas to divine creation based on gunas and karma, not birth alone, but it has been interpreted to justify hereditary castes. Gita 18:41–44 outlines duties: “The actions of a brahmana arising from his own nature are serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honest, knowledge of the Vedas, wisdom and firm faith… The actions of a sudra born of his own nature consists in service to brahmana, ksatriyas and vaisyas.”

Gita 18:47 reinforces adherence: “It is better to engage in one’s own svadharma (occupation), even though one may perform it imperfectly than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.”

Such passages encouraged acceptance of one’s caste role as karmically ordained, perpetuating discrimination.

Justification of Brahmin Privilege

Brahmins, positioned at the apex of the varna system, were granted extensive privileges, justified as rewards for superior karma from past lives. Texts portray them as spiritually elite, with their high status reflecting accumulated merit.

Manusmriti I-31 states: “For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet.”

This origin myth elevates Brahmins symbolically and karmically. Manusmriti VIII-20 to 22 asserts: “Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed.”

Privileges include exemptions from harsh punishments and rights over others; Manusmriti VIII-50,56 and 59 allows Brahmins to enslave Shudras without remuneration, as “the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins.”

Karma theory amplifies this: Being born a Brahmin indicates “good past life karma,” granting “direct access to religious learning and to the Law (Dharma).”

Manusmriti 12.48 places Brahmins in the highest rank of Goodness: “Hermits, ascetics, Brahmanas, the crowds of the Vaimanika deities, the lunar mansions, and the Daityas (form) the first (and lowest rank of the) existences caused by Goodness.”

This karmic justification framed Brahmin supremacy as divine and unassailable, allowing them to monopolize knowledge, rituals, and social power.

Justification for Shudra Oppression

Conversely, Shudras were depicted as the lowest varna, their status rationalized as punishment for poor karma, condemning them to servitude and exclusion.

Manusmriti 1–91 declares: “God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling.”

Education was forbidden; Manusmriti IV-78 to 81 states: “A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra… Violators will go to as amrita hell.”

Punishments were severe and discriminatory: Manusmriti VIII. 270: “A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.”

Intercourse with higher castes invited death (Manusmriti VIII. 374).

Karma provided the rationale: “A person of bad deeds [is reborn] as a dog or a Chandala (a lower caste).”

Manusmriti 12.9 and 12.43 link sins to rebirth as Sudras or worse, justifying their subjugation as self-inflicted through past actions.

This discouraged resistance, as enduring hardship was seen as a path to better rebirth.

Persistence in Modern India

Though India’s 1950 Constitution outlawed caste discrimination and implemented affirmative action, karma-based justifications remain embedded in cultural attitudes. Surveys show belief in karma correlates with support for caste hierarchies, including opposition to inter-caste marriages and reduced aid for the poor.

In rural areas, lower castes face exclusion from jobs, education, and neighborhoods, often rationalized as “karmic fate.”

Critics argue karma is “fundamentally casteist,” blaming victims while absolving systemic oppression.

Reform movements, like those led by B.R. Ambedkar, challenge these views, but ingrained beliefs perpetuate subtle discrimination in marriage, employment, and social interactions.

Conclusion

The use of karma to justify caste discrimination, as enshrined in texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita, created a resilient ideological framework that privileged Brahmins while oppressing Shudras. This not only historical but persists today, hindering social equality. Addressing it requires reevaluating scriptural interpretations through a lens of justice and humanity.

How Indians Can Use the Socratic Method

 In a country as diverse as India, religion holds a significant place in the lives of many. It shapes our culture, traditions, and even our daily decisions. However, it’s also true that many religious beliefs are often followed without much questioning, passed down through generations as a matter of tradition. The Socratic method, an approach that promotes critical thinking and self-reflection through questioning, can be an effective tool for encouraging individuals to examine their religious beliefs more deeply.

The Socratic method involves asking thoughtful questions that encourage individuals to reflect on their beliefs, explore their reasons for holding them, and recognize any inconsistencies. This method doesn’t aim to ridicule or attack people’s faiths but to help them understand why they believe what they believe and whether their beliefs stand up to scrutiny. Here’s how Indians can use the Socratic method to question religion:

---

1. Ask Open-ended Questions

The Socratic method begins with open-ended questions that don’t have simple “yes” or “no” answers. These questions encourage people to think critically about their beliefs.

Example:
“What makes you believe that this religious teaching is the truth?”
“Have you ever thought about why this belief is considered sacred? What makes it different from other beliefs?”

By asking these types of questions, you prompt others to reflect on their religious beliefs more deeply, moving beyond the surface level of tradition or cultural upbringing.

---

2. Encourage People to Clarify Their Beliefs

Once someone shares a belief, it’s important to ask them to clarify their reasoning. This forces the individual to articulate their thought process, which can reveal any gaps or contradictions in their beliefs.

Example:
“Can you explain why you think this particular tradition is true? What makes this belief stand out from others?”

By asking for clarification, you help others critically examine the foundation of their beliefs. Sometimes, people may realize that they’ve never questioned the reasons behind their religious practices or ideas.

---

3. Challenge Assumptions Gently

The Socratic method involves asking questions that challenge the assumptions underlying a person’s beliefs. Rather than outright rejecting the belief, you encourage them to reflect on whether the assumptions are valid.

Example:
“If this religious text is truly divine, why do different religions have different interpretations of what is sacred? How do we determine which one is the ‘true’ teaching?”

These types of questions encourage individuals to explore the possibility that their beliefs might not be as absolute or universal as they might have assumed.

---

4. Ask About the Consequences of Beliefs

Helping people think about the real-world consequences of their beliefs can lead to self-reflection. Asking about the implications of a belief can sometimes reveal uncomfortable truths or inconsistencies.

Example:
“If everyone followed this religious teaching, how would it impact the way we interact with people from other faiths?”
“How would society look if we applied this belief in all situations? Would it lead to peace or conflict?”

These questions can lead to meaningful discussions about the practical effects of religious beliefs on society and personal behavior, sometimes making individuals reconsider extreme or harmful interpretations.

---

5. Explore the Role of Faith vs. Evidence

Faith often plays a key role in religious beliefs, but it’s important to ask whether faith is enough to justify a belief or whether other forms of evidence should be considered.

Example:
“Is it possible that some beliefs are accepted purely on faith, without any concrete evidence to support them? How do you distinguish between faith-based beliefs and those supported by reason or evidence?”

This can help individuals reflect on whether their beliefs are grounded in empirical evidence or if they are simply accepted due to tradition or authority.

---

6. Prompt Self-Examination of Doubts

Many people have doubts about certain aspects of their religion but may be afraid to voice them. By using the Socratic method, you can help individuals explore these doubts in a safe, non-judgmental way.

Example:
“Have you ever questioned any of the teachings or practices in your religion? Why or why not?”
“Is there anything about your religious tradition that doesn’t quite make sense to you?”

This allows the individual to recognize and address any doubts they may have, leading to a more honest and open conversation about their beliefs.

---

7. Be Patient and Respectful

It’s important to remember that the Socratic method is not about winning an argument but about encouraging open reflection. People may not be ready to change their views immediately, and that’s okay. The goal is to spark curiosity and allow them to explore their beliefs more deeply.

Example:
“I’m just curious to understand your perspective better. I’d love to hear more about why you believe this.”

Respecting the other person’s viewpoint while gently encouraging critical thinking helps keep the conversation constructive, not confrontational.

---

8. Avoid Personal Attacks or Insults

The Socratic method should never be used to belittle or attack someone’s faith. It’s about promoting reflection and understanding, not judgment. People are more likely to engage in meaningful dialogue when they feel respected and heard.

Example:
Instead of saying, “Your religion is wrong,” you could say, “That’s interesting. What led you to this conclusion? Have you considered this perspective?”

By keeping the conversation respectful and focused on understanding rather than winning, you create an environment where people feel safe to explore their beliefs.

---

Conclusion

The Socratic method is a powerful tool for encouraging self-reflection and critical thinking about religious beliefs. By asking thoughtful, open-ended questions, challenging assumptions, and promoting respectful dialogue, you can help others examine their religious beliefs more deeply. This method fosters understanding, tolerance, and a willingness to question long-held beliefs—leading to more thoughtful and introspective individuals.

In a diverse country like India, where religion plays such an influential role, using the Socratic method can be a constructive way to promote open-mindedness and understanding, allowing individuals to examine their beliefs and perhaps come to new insights about the world around them.

The Role of Hindu Nationalism in Shaping India's Global Image: A Cycle of Misrepresentation and Prejudice

 India, a nation celebrated for its cultural diversity and historical richness, has increasingly faced accusations of racism and stereotyping abroad. While these perceptions are often rooted in misinformation and generalizations, they are exacerbated by specific actions and ideologies within India, particularly those associated with Hindu nationalism. The propagation of practices like consuming cow urine and dung, alongside the suppression of minorities, especially Muslims, has fueled cringe-worthy narratives that dominate foreign media and social platforms. These elements, amplified by viral videos and news reports, contribute significantly to the negative stereotyping of Indians as a whole, despite such behaviors being far from representative of the country's 1.4 billion people.

Hindu Nationalism and the Cow Worship Narrative

Hindu nationalism, often encapsulated under the ideology of Hindutva, promotes a vision of India as a Hindu-centric nation. This ideology, championed by groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political affiliate, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has led to the aggressive promotion of practices tied to Hindu religious traditions, including the veneration of cows. While cow worship is a legitimate aspect of Hindu culture for many, the fringe practice of consuming cow urine (gomutra) and dung has been sensationalized by Hindu nationalist groups as a health cure or spiritual ritual.

In January 2025, a controversy erupted when the director of IIT Madras, V. Kamakoti, commented on the medicinal properties of cow urine, sparking a debate among scientists. The Hindu reported that while the research was merely an analysis of bovine urine, its promotion as a health benefit was criticized by experts like Dipshikha Chakravortty, who warned that consuming any urine is "detrimental and dangerous". Similarly, in April 2025, the principal of Delhi University’s Laxmibai College faced backlash after sharing a video of classroom walls being coated with cow dung to "beat the heat," a move that went viral and drew mockery online. One X user sarcastically remarked, “If drinking cow urine is made compulsory in colleges, then no one can stop the country from becoming a Vishwa Guru,” highlighting the ridicule such actions invite.

These incidents are not isolated. In August 2023, Union Minister Parshottam Rupala suggested that cattle owners could profit from selling cow urine and dung, further mainstreaming these practices. Such endorsements from public figures lend credibility to fringe behaviors, which are then amplified by social media. Videos of Hindu nationalists consuming cow urine or promoting dung-based products have become fodder for foreign content creators, who use them to paint Indians as backward or superstitious. A 2024 report by The Wire noted that such practices are often mocked globally, contributing to a narrative that all Indians engage in these rituals.

International Incidents and the Amplification of Stereotypes

The global reach of these practices has been further highlighted by incidents involving Indian travelers. In 2019, The Times of India reported that Indian passengers were detained at international airports, including in the United States and Australia, for carrying cow dung cakes and bottles of cow urine in their luggage. These items, often intended for religious or medicinal use, violated biosecurity laws and led to headlines like “Indian Passengers Caught Smuggling Cow Dung” in foreign tabloids. Such stories, while affecting a minuscule fraction of travelers, are disproportionately amplified by foreign media, reinforcing stereotypes about Indian hygiene and cultural practices.

Social media platforms like YouTube and TikTok have worsened this trend. Videos titled “Indians Drink Cow Urine” or “Cow Dung Medicine in India” garner millions of views, often posted by foreign influencers who cherry-pick extreme examples to generate clicks. A 2023 analysis by The Hindu noted that such content, devoid of context, shapes foreign perceptions, leading to comments like “This is why India will never progress” or “All Indians are cow worshippers”. These generalizations ignore that the majority of Indians, including Hindus, do not engage in these practices, but the damage is done when such content goes viral.

Suppression of Minorities and Its Global Fallout

Beyond cultural practices, the suppression of minorities, particularly Muslims, under Hindu nationalist policies has provided further ammunition for foreign critics. Since the BJP came to power in 2014, reports of anti-Muslim violence and discriminatory policies have surged. A 2025 report by India Hate Lab documented a 74% increase in anti-minority hate speech in 2024, with 75% of incidents occurring in BJP-ruled states. The report highlighted conspiracy theories like “love jihad,” which falsely claim Muslim men seduce Hindu women to convert them, as tools to demonize Muslims. Such rhetoric has led to vigilante violence, including lynchings over alleged cow slaughter, as noted in a 2024 Journal of Democracy article comparing Hindu nationalist tactics to Jim Crow-era oppression.

High-profile policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Waqf Amendment Bill have also drawn international condemnation. The CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim refugees while excluding Muslims, was criticized by the Council on Foreign Relations as discriminatory. In March 2025, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemned the Waqf Bill as “severely harming the rights of the Muslim community,” accusing the BJP of “systematic discrimination”. These policies, coupled with events like the 2002 Gujarat riots under then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi, have cemented India’s image in some foreign circles as a nation hostile to minorities. A 2024 Salon article warned that Modi’s Hindu nationalist agenda threatens not just India’s Muslims but also global perceptions of India, as Indian-American communities advocating for the BJP inadvertently legitimize this narrative.

Foreign media outlets like Al Jazeera and CBC News have extensively covered these issues, often framing India as a hotbed of religious intolerance. A 2024 Al Jazeera report noted that the Indian government’s blocking of India Hate Lab’s website under the IT Act signaled an attempt to suppress evidence of anti-Muslim hate. Such actions reinforce perceptions of India as an authoritarian state, further fueling anti-Indian sentiment. On platforms like X, posts criticizing Modi’s policies, such as one from April 2025 stating that “Hindutva has grown more radical under Modi, targeting minorities,” reflect global unease.

The Cycle of Misrepresentation and Racism

The combination of sensationalized cultural practices and minority suppression creates a vicious cycle. Hindu nationalist actions—whether promoting cow-based rituals or enacting discriminatory policies—generate domestic controversy that is picked up by international media. These stories are then exaggerated or decontextualized, leading to racist tropes about Indians being “cow fetishists” or “religious extremists.” A 2025 Firstpost article lamented that the “instantaneous dissemination of images of attacks on Hindus” fails to garner sympathy, while negative stereotypes dominate. This selective outrage means that while Hindu nationalists may intend to assert cultural pride, they inadvertently invite mockery and prejudice.

Foreign perceptions are further skewed by a lack of nuance. A 2024 BBC report on migration noted that Hindus make up 80% of India’s population but only 41% of its emigrants, while Muslims are overrepresented among emigrants due to discrimination. This suggests that minorities face pressures that drive them abroad, yet foreign narratives often lump all Indians together, ignoring the diversity of experiences. The result is a blanket racism that targets Indians regardless of their beliefs, as seen in online comments calling Indians “dirty” or “backward” based on cow-related content.

Breaking the Cycle

To counter this, India must address the root causes of these perceptions. Hindu nationalist groups need to recognize that promoting fringe practices like cow urine consumption invites global ridicule, overshadowing India’s scientific and cultural achievements. The government must also curb hate speech and violence against minorities, as these not only violate India’s secular ethos but also provide fodder for anti-Indian propaganda. A 2024 The Hindu report on AI misuse highlighted how technology disproportionately targets Muslims and Dalits, suggesting that ethical governance is crucial to improving India’s image.

Moreover, Indians abroad can play a role by challenging stereotypes and showcasing the nation’s diversity. Community leaders should counter the influence of BJP-aligned diaspora groups that amplify Hindutva abroad, as noted in a 2025 Al Jazeera article. Finally, foreign media and influencers must be held accountable for perpetuating racist tropes without context, as their selective reporting fuels prejudice.

Conclusion

The racism India faces globally is not a vacuum but a reflection of specific actions amplified out of proportion. Hindu nationalist practices like promoting cow urine and dung, combined with the suppression of minorities, provide easy targets for foreign critics. While these behaviors are not representative of most Indians, their visibility—through viral videos, news reports, and travel incidents—shapes a distorted narrative. By addressing these issues domestically and advocating for a more nuanced global discourse, India can begin to dismantle the stereotypes that fuel anti-Indian racism, reclaiming its image as a diverse and dynamic nation.