The Indian men’s cricket team has lost its unbeaten streak in domestic Test cricket. A streak that started when smartwatches did not exist, Manmohan Singh was still the Prime Minister, Donald Trump was still just a businessman, and phone calls were still in fashion. Virat Kohli was a fresh-faced player, still two years away from taking over the Test captaincy, and no one had heard of Jasprit Bumrah. People were still doubting Ravichandran Ashwin’s abilities as a bowler, and Ravindra Jadeja was ‘just a fit fielder who can bowl a bit’.
Much has changed in these 12 years but perhaps the most noticeable change is the return of populism. When political leaders present themselves as the voice of the people against something, typically a discriminatory elite, they are being populist. The ‘other’ is the most important element here. Trump's recent election campaign successfully positioned him as the opposite of the “unenergetic” Joe Biden. In the infancy of Indian men’s cricket team’s golden home run, media outlets and fans saw the aggressive Kohli as the opposite of M.S. Dhoni’s ‘Captain Cool’ brand. And then, as much as now, Bollywood star kids were perceived as villains standing in the way of more deserving actors becoming stars. Populism is not just about policies, politics or slogans. It taps into the profound psychological mechanisms of group dynamics.
Us vs them
Humans are hardwired to form groups and bonds that establish identity, security, and social belonging Getty Images
Psychologically, humans are hardwired to form groups and bonds that establish identity, security, and social belonging. Known as ‘social identity theory’, this idea was first introduced by psychologist Henri Tajfel, who argued that our self-esteem and identity are closely linked to our group memberships. Simply put, we naturally seek to protect our ingroups and distance ourselves from those perceived as outgroups. This inclination isn’t inherently problematic; it underpins family loyalty, cultural pride, and even national solidarity. Left wing vs right wing, tea vs coffee, Delhi vs Mumbai, vada pao vs chhole bhature, Messi vs Ronaldo… The list can go on. In most cases, it provides great material for standup comics. When manipulated, however, it can become a great divisive force.
Populism capitalises on this psychological divide by creating a compelling narrative of us vs them, positioning “the people” as an ingroup and framing elites, foreigners or any perceived outsiders as threats. This framing amplifies psychological tendencies to defend one’s group against perceived outgroups, providing a simple explanation for complex social or economic anxieties: blame the outgroup.
Populism, the simple solution to complexity
All populist leaders have a singular appeal: the promise of easy and decisive solutions Wikimedia Commons
But why does it work? All populist leaders have a singular appeal: the promise of easy and decisive solutions. In challenging times (higher cost of living, inflation, thug culture, social disagreements, etc.), people gravitate towards leaders who have convincing clarity. The phenomenon is well-explored in psychology, which indicates that people under duress are more likely to favour leaders who provide firm, simple answers. Basically, “Tell me how to solve this”. By defining the outgroup as the root of society’s issues — whether they be elites, immigrants, or intellectuals — populist leaders capitalise on this psychological craving for certainty and protection.
How does it work? By creating a powerful feedback loop: the leader identifies an outgroup to blame, thereby simplifying the narrative; and supporters internalise this message, which fuels their sense of belonging and security within the group. The result is often an intensifying suspicion or even hostility towards the outgroup. For example, messages about job loss might focus on blaming ‘foreign competition’ or ‘out-of-touch elites’, with little discussion about the complex economic forces behind these issues. Because the ingroup identity is so strong, it leads to ingroup loyalty and outgroup hostility.
Is this the only way?
It’s not. But it feels like that when there is ‘relative deprivation’, a feeling that one’s group is being unfairly treated or deprived of resources compared with another group. Research shows that even when the absolute levels of prosperity or freedom are high, feelings of relative deprivation can be a powerful catalyst for group conflict. Fundamentally, humans perceive things differently from what they are in reality.
In Bollywood, because of the enormous rewards of ‘making it big’, people who have an existing presence are vilified for being ‘nepo-kids’ Instagram
Populist movements leverage these feelings of deprivation by asserting that the ingroup is oppressed or left behind by the outgroup, usually portrayed as elites or outsiders who manipulate power structures. In the US, Republicans were united against liberals and illegal immigration. In Bollywood, because of the enormous rewards of ‘making it big’, people who have an existing presence are vilified for being ‘nepo-kids’. The end result is an attempt to restore balance: the ingroup must ‘take back control’ from the outgroup, thus justifying exclusionary policies or actions against those perceived as threats.
The solution isn’t simple. But it is not too complicated, either. It is somewhere in the middle. All of us have a natural tendency to protect what we feel is ours and vilify everything that threatens it. Sometimes this is needed as well. All we need to do is understand when this is warranted and when we are walking into the trap of populism. And never forget that social media is not always right. It is, in fact, one of the biggest promoters of populism.
Dr Sahen Gupta is a Kolkata-born, India- and UK-based psychologist who divides his time between mental health support and high-performance coaching. As the founder of Discovery Sport & Performance Lab, he works not only with Olympians and other top-level sportspersons, but also with CEOs and other professionals striving for excellence. Dr Gupta’s mission is to simplify complexities of the mind into actionable and simple ‘doables’ that allow individuals to be mentally fit.
