Aggression as default | Why India risks burning from within?

What works on the cricket pitch becomes dangerous when normalised in public life

Aggression is part of the sports vocabulary, describing tactics in everything from sedentary chess to the adrenalin-pumping football pitch. An attacking game can unsettle opponents.

Outside of the sports field, however, India has witnessed national levels of aggression for more than a decade. It has been expressed through derogatory name-calling, blatant disregard for accountability, and public disrespect for truth. Today, aggression in the social-political field is understood as the ability to thrive from being unsociable and unconstitutional, inspiring others to follow suit. This unhinged belligerence stems from the knowledge that, for some, there are no consequences.

Fast-paced and gladiatorial, T20 cricket demands fitness and entertainment. This robust attacking game paralleled a national socio-political paradigm new to India. Both thrived with the spread of the Internet, social media, and streaming platforms, blurring the lines between spectators, electorates, and eyeballs. Socio-political events and games alike could be live-streamed, edited, and consumed.

However, aggression as a cricketing tactic is very different from aggression in the socio-political sphere.

Cricketers are trained, skilled, and perform in a regulated, short-lived environment. Society does not enjoy such safeguards. Here, aggression based on half-truths and perceived slights becomes long-lasting, divisive, and deleterious. At the individual level, aggression feeds fragile egos that constantly seek validation.

This performative toughness is socio-politically demanded, justified, and celebrated. It is perceived as reclaiming a lost narrative and making a well-deserved, albeit late, mark on the world. Unapologetic machismo is displayed in international relations, in the armed processions through localities dominated by minorities, and even in Bollywood films such as Kabir Singh, Animal, and Dhurandhar.

While India’s international posturing politically benefits its leaders domestically, the same cannot be said about how the world sees us. The government has struggled to handle Trump’s tariff shenanigans and his Operation Sindhoor narrative, while China remains a bugbear. Has India’s machismo gained friends and fans in the neighbourhood? It sure has not silenced Pakistan.

Despite India’s celebrated closeness with global leaders, the February 28 US-Israel attack on Iran caught New Delhi unawares. Even with its Vishwaguru bravado, India has been excluded from ongoing peace talks, while Pakistan plays a central role. The much-touted US-India trade deal underscores that India’s value lies primarily in its market potential.

Domestically, aggression has contributed to what resembles social ‘enshittification’, a term coined by author-journalist Cory Doctorow to describe the slow decline of online platforms. This three-stage process begins with user benefits, then user abuse to benefit business customers, and finally exploits both to multiply profits.

Applying this to Indian society, the process begins with instilling victimhood, then providing bigoted solutions, and, finally, reaping the socio-political dividends. Patriotism morphs into nationalism, religiosity into fundamentalism, respect into hate and schadenfreude, and criticism into treachery. These are trends seen today in Trump’s America.

Aggression becomes a default response, irrespective of the target. Verbal and physical theatrics overshadow knowledge and debate. By focusing on perception and performance, people are kept busy and entertained, accelerating social fragmentation. Respect and patience are dismissed as weaknesses.

The question remains: which is worse — recognising the hollowness of this muscularity yet playing along, or responding to aggression with more of the same, as society increasingly does?

On the sports field, aggression serves many purposes. As an international strategy, posturing is ultimately unmasked. Aggression turns individuals into fragile kindling and keeps society on tenterhooks. Small altercations risk becoming conflagrations. Nations cannot thrive if their citizens are at war with each other.

Samir Nazareth is a journalist focusing on society, environment, and politics.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH