Lessons on Reducing Toxic Polarization: From India to the U.S.

Pratyush Rawal is a Harvard Kennedy School graduate and dialogue facilitator with a passion for bridging divides. He has led initiatives like Sadbhavna.in in India and the Candid and Constructive Conversations (CCC) team at HKS, fostering conversations that promote empathy and understanding.

Over two years ago, I moved to the U.S. from India to pursue a Master’s in Public Administration at the Harvard Kennedy School. Before coming here, I had been working at Sadbhavna.in, an initiative I launched to foster dialogue and to counter toxic polarization in India. My work coincided with deeply divisive moments such as the farmers’ protest and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) demonstrations — events that laid bare the stark polarization in Indian society and that inspired me to act.

Here in the U.S., I’ve observed similar fractures — whether in the heightened tensions on the Middle East conflict following the October 7 attacks or the heated Republican-Democrat divides. Despite the differing contexts and issues, the polarization patterns in both countries feel strikingly familiar.

Our inability to engage constructively across differences strains relationships — whether at the dinner table, in family social media groups, or among friends. Too often, disagreements escalate into personal animosity, as opposing someone’s ideas takes precedence over respecting their humanity. Triggered and offended, we find it easier to dismiss or attack than to engage meaningfully.

In India, words like liberandus (a derogatory term for liberals) and bhakts (a derogatory term for supporters of Prime Minister Modi) are used as shorthand insults, reinforcing stereotypes and dismissing nuance. In the U.S., also, I often see nuance and curiosity take a back seat to people’s hostility toward the “other side.” I’ve seen liberals unfairly label conservatives as racists and misogynists — while some conservatives unfairly dismiss liberals as motivated by Marxism or hatred of their country. The silos in U.S. society are particularly stark; many of my friends were genuinely shocked when Donald Trump won the 2024 election (and similarly in 2016), unable to understand the perspectives of half of their fellow citizens.

In both countries, polarization empowers the furious while silencing the curious. When I reached out to a conservative friend in India who supported the building of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya (one of the most polarizing issues in Indian politics) to understand his views, some liberal peers accused me of “infantilizing” the other side and being blind to their “vicious” politics. Similarly, in the U.S., I’ve seen friends chastised for trying to understand opposing viewpoints. Too often, conversations across divides devolve into debates, with participants focused on delivering the perfect argument to change their opponent’s mind. Listening, when it happens, is not to understand but mainly to plan one’s rebuttal.

Amid this climate of anger and dismissal, I’ve noticed a troubling trend: Gen Z, overwhelmed by the toxicity, are increasingly disengaging from politics altogether.

How do we begin to untangle this web of division and foster a civic culture rooted in dialogue and respectful engagement? Sally Kohn, in her book The Opposite of Hate, offers a compelling insight: the opposite of hate isn’t love — it’s connection. Our lack of connection is what makes it easy to dehumanize others, reducing them to caricatures instead of recognizing our shared humanity. 

Kohn says that building connection requires action on four levels:

1. Connection thinking: Seeing people with opposing views not as enemies but as individuals with different worldviews, deserving of engagement and respect.
2. Connection speech: Developing skills for constructive dialogue — listening actively, asking genuine questions, sharing stories (instead of bombarding with facts), and speaking without antagonizing.
3. Connection spaces: Creating environments — whether in schools, colleges, workplaces, faith-based organizations, community hubs, or online — where people can come together across divides.
4. Connection systems: Building opportunities for dialogue into our institutions and culture through systemic changes.

Polarization is not an insurmountable force — it is a solvable challenge. While the scale and complexity of the problem can feel overwhelming, the growing momentum of bridging work offers hope. Every meaningful conversation, every connection built across differences, chips away at the walls dividing us. Both nations, India and the U.S. — each rich in diversity and cultural resilience — have the potential to lead by example, showing the world how to navigate differences with respect, curiosity, and humanity.

Here’s my request: no matter where you stand, take a small step toward connection. Find someone who sees the world differently — whether politically, culturally, or ideologically — and invite them for a meal or coffee. Approach the conversation with genuine curiosity and a willingness to listen, not to argue. Share your story, and truly hear theirs.

You don’t need to agree on everything. But by understanding their perspective, you contribute to a more empathetic and cohesive society. It’s in these small acts of connection that we begin dismantling toxic polarization—one conversation, one relationship at a time.

Pratyush Rawal has led initiatives like Sadbhavna.in in India and the Candid and Constructive Conversations (CCC) team at Harvard Kennedy School. 

Join the Builders Movement! buildersmovement.org/invite