I’ve often wondered — do people change when they come to power, or does power simply reveal what they already are?
What is the mentality of a head of a country? Why do most of them are different than what people expect? Can we genuinely find fault in them? Or are we placing completely wrong expectations on them? Are they fundamentally different from one another when they fight with each other?
Let me pen down my thoughts as I reflect.
Heads of state — whether of a country or a kingdom — are people who inherently like to lead. That is fundamental. And why they like to lead is similar to a tiger standing atop a high rock, wanting a better view and a position above others. These people want to be the best.
Someone who becomes a leader for a cause does not necessarily end up in political power. We have examples like Mahatma Gandhi and leaders from movements such as Telangana, who fought for a purpose but did not pursue governing roles.
People with a deep drive to lead and hold power may have certain internal drivers — perhaps biological, perhaps psychological — that keep them at a heightened state. Just as in physical attraction, where emotion can override rational thinking, the pull of power may be too strong for pause, reflection, and balanced judgment.
In the animal world, some creatures risk injury or even death in the pursuit of mating. In that moment, survival instinct itself takes a back seat. Similarly, when it comes to holding power, leaders may not be able to clearly distinguish right from wrong in a calm, rational way.
Be it Trump in the US, Netanyahu in Israel, Modi in India, or Khamenei in Iran — nothing seems to stop them from holding on to their positions. Such people may not think philosophically, spiritually, or ideologically in the way we expect. To them, staying in power comes first.
Epstein files have revealed a great deal to us now. Perhaps such things existed earlier too — only we did not know. The presence of several powerful figures from both India and the West suggests that, much like in monarchial times, people with immense power — whether through position, money, or influence — have continued to pursue women in ways similar to kings of the past.
It also points to something deeper: that those at the helm of power may feel fewer restraints, and may not hesitate to cross moral boundaries in that pursuit. In that sense, time has not fundamentally altered human nature at the top. The Epstein files are, in many ways, a reflection of that continuity.
Even when they appear in religious settings, power takes priority. Religious expressions may sometimes serve as a means of visibility or personal positioning rather than genuine spiritual intent.
Given their position, even war and the loss of civilian lives may be seen as unavoidable overheads. In that context, debating which country or leader is right may not even matter.
History also tells us stories of kings who had multiple wives, who took women by force, or kept them for pleasure or possession. That behavior may not simply be about opportunity — it may reflect an inherent nature tied to power, control, and desire.
It is not necessarily that they act this way because they can — but because their nature inclines them that way.
Some actions come to light over time; many never do.
I see this as a pattern that has existed for centuries.
Electing someone democratically does not change the underlying nature of the person who reaches the top. It is part of a larger package — the same traits that help someone rise to power may also shape how they behave once they are there.
To hold on to that position, they may, incidentally, provide security and stability to the country. But that may not be the primary driver.
I don’t know if all these thoughts are entirely true. But when I think deeply about why some people behave in ways that seem mindless or merciless, this is what comes to my mind.
Comments