Friends,
The spirit of Brown Pundits has always been dialogue — open, searching, and at times, fierce. But dialogue only flourishes when it is consistent and principled.
Recently, a contradiction has emerged in Kabir’s contributions: applying one set of standards to India and Pakistan, and a different set to Israel. This has led to repeated cycles of disruption, rather than genuine exchange.
To preserve the integrity of our space, Kabir’s participation will be paused until this inconsistency is clarified (we will remove any of his comments that do not address and acknowledge the contradiction; we will also remove any replies to his comments). This is not censorship, but stewardship. Free speech here is not about endless repetition; it is about coherence, accountability, and respect for the whole.
🕊️ On Confirmation, Coincidence, and the Return of Brown Pundits
Exactly one year ago today, 17 September 2024, I published a piece titled “The Battle for the Taj Mahal: India’s Sacred Lands & Waqf Boards Under Fire”.
At the time, Brown Pundits was stirring from hibernation. Readership had dwindled to near-zero, the commentariat was dormant, and the site, once lively and interrogative in its heyday, felt like a forgotten archive. That post, like so many others before it, was written in solitude. There was no traction, no expectation. Just thought, laid down with care.
And yet here we are, one year to the day, and the blog has roared back to life.
📿 What the Baháʼí Tradition Calls “Confirmation”
In the Baháʼí tradition, we don’t reduce these moments to mere coincidence. Instead, we speak of confirmation; divine endorsement coupled with meaningful alignment. A subtle assurance that what was offered in silence may still echo in relevance.
Sometimes, truth takes time. It must be planted, and it must ripen. And then, if the conditions are right, it re-emerges at the very moment it’s needed again.
🏛️ Revisiting the Taj & the Sacredness of Land
That post, exploring Waqf Boards, sacred lands, and the Taj Mahal’s place in India’s civilizational memory, was written in a moment of saturation. Too many headlines, too little context. My intention wasn’t to settle the argument, but to recast it: What makes land sacred? Who has the right to remember? Who gets to reclaim?
Reading it now, what’s striking is not just how relevant it remains, but how the same debate has reassembled; not just thematically, but almost ritually, with new voices circling back in familiar orbits.
🌀 Same Debate, Same Deflection
And so we arrive back, with uncanny symmetry, to Kabir. He’s long argued that nations must be judged by their own internal frameworks:
India by its Nehruvian ideals, Pakistan by its Islamic identity. And yet, when it comes to Israel, the logic crumbles.vHe reject the term “Israeli Arabs” (a legal and domestic classification) and insist instead on “Palestinian citizens of Israel,” while simultaneously claiming they are “oppressed” despite full citizenship, political representation, and democratic protection under Israeli law.
He cites Haneen Zoabi as understandable evidence of systemic oppression. By the same token what happened to Asia Bibi, imprisoned for years under Pakistan’s blasphemy law, menaced by mobs, and left stateless within her own homeland is far far worse.
If one’s framework is:
“India must be judged by its stated ideals,”
“Pakistan (& Iran) must be judged by its religious charter,”
But “Israel must be judged by emotional grievance, not law” —
Then we’re not engaged in intellectual inquiry. We’re navigating selective outrage posing as critique.
🧭 Free Speech Requires Coherence
This isn’t about censorship; it’s about consistency.
When contradictions like these go unresolved, one’s contributions begin to feel less like principled disagreement and more like rhetorical sabotage. We don’t need agreement, but we do need logic.
This discussion is about Israel proper, not the occupied territories. And his refusal to apply his own framework of “domestic constitutional judgment” is noted. He must clarify his position. Otherwise, I’ll have to consider a moderation pause.
Free speech, after all, is a pillar of this space but not when it’s wielded to derail dialogue with bad-faith inconsistency.
🌱 Final Thought
That this post — one year old to the day — has circled back into relevance feels like more than coincidence. It feels like confirmation. That truth, once written, waits. That arguments, once made, still matter. That Brown Pundits, once dormant, still has a role to play.
BRAHM Newsletter | Stories | LinkedIn
I stand by what I wrote about Israel. I’ve deeply researched the Israel-Palestine conflict. That piece that I linked was from 2014. Those were not my personal opinions by the way. The piece was a review of Max Blumenthal’s book. Blumenthal is a Jewish-American journalist.
“Palestinian Citizen of Israel” is the preferred term. Many of the people concerned deeply resent the term “Israeli Arab”.
“Free speech requires consistency”– It actually doesn’t. That’s not how free speech law works. People have the right to argue whatever opinions they want, whether they are consistent or not.
For the record, I have never defended Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law. I’ll link to something I wrote that is publicly available. I can be accused of a lot of things, but please let’s be factually correct.
https://thehumanist.com/news/hnn/the-assassination-of-salman-taseer-and-the-pakistani-blasphemy-law-debate/
Kabir — the commentariat will not engage further with you (& vice versa) until we disentangle your apparent contradiction.
You insist India must be judged by Nehruvian ideals, and that Iran and Pakistan are constrained by their Islamic charters. Fine — consistency demands we apply the same standard across the board.
Yet you refuse to treat Israel by its own legal framework (the Basic Laws and Knesset) and instead insist we judge it by Max Blumenthal and the subjective claims of some Palestinian commentators. That is not argument; it is selective outrage.
This glaring inconsistency suggests your presence here is disruptive rather than constructive. Either clarify and reconcile your position now, or I will impose a moratorium on your posting. We do not tolerate trolling dressed as principled debate.
I stand by my views on Israel. You happen to disagree with them. That’s fine.
You accused me of not criticizing Pakistan’s blasphemy law. I posted a piece where I have publicly done so.
It’s your blog. You can moderate however you like. But I am not a “troll”. I am a patriotic Pakistani. And I’m entitled to my views.
You called me an “Islamist” in one of your comments. I find that personally very offensive. It’s also completely inaccurate since I have never in my life advocated for Shariah Law.
Kabir; I’ll acknowledge one point straightaway. You’re correct that the word “Islamist” was unfair. I should not have used that label for you personally. For that, I apologise (and thank you for your clarification on Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law). You have every right to reject that description of yourself.
That said, the concern I’ve raised remains: the pattern of argumentation — applying one selective framework to India and Pakistan, and a different one to Israel — is inconsistent. Whether or not you identify as an Islamist, the effect of this inconsistency is to derail threads and reduce discussion to selective outrage.
I’m asking you to clarify your position, not to defend your patriotism. If you can reconcile this contradiction, your contributions will be much stronger. If not, it becomes difficult for the commentariat to engage productively.
the difference with linear interpolation: Pak-Saudi alliance https://x.com/AnasMallick/status/1968378083007938877/photo/1
I stand by my views on Israel. I’m not going to apologize for them or retract them. They come after deep research over many years.
People on this forum have the right to criticize Pakistan. I have not asked for them to be censored (If it sounds like I have in the past, I will retract that now). I have objected to calling Pakistan a “Nazi state” which I think is gratuitous and over the top. I will stand by that opinion.
I do think it is intellectually foolish to judge “Islamic Republics” or “Hindu Rashtras” by the standards of secular states. I criticize Israel because it calls itself “Jewish and Democratic”. If they drop “Democratic” and call themselves simply a “Jewish state”, I will certainly not criticize how they treat their non-Jewish citizens within Israel proper. This of course doesn’t apply to the Occupation of Palestine or the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
I just want to quote very briefly from the piece I wrote about Salman Taseer:
It is striking how secular and humanistic Jinnah sounds in this speech. Though he fought for Pakistan as a homeland for the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent, he never intended the country to become a theocratic state. Citizens were to be free to hold their individual religious beliefs and to practice them as they saw fit, yet in the political sphere they were all equal and were to be defined only in their identity as citizens. Sixty years on, Pakistan has shifted 180 degrees from the vision of its founding father. It is high time for the country’s citizens to reflect on how this shift occurred and what can be done to prevent their country from becoming a theocratic state that squashes all dissent.
This paragraph (and the whole piece) is actually quite critical of Pakistan. I will stand by this piece that I wrote way back in 2011. These are not the views of an “Islamist”. “Islamist” Pakistanis love the Blasphemy Law.
So can we please settle that debate once and for whole. I’m on the centre-left of Pakistan’s political spectrum.
You have the right to moderate however you like. But you can’t force me to adopt different views on Israel.
How is Islamic Republic different from Jewish and Democratic
Do Israeli Arabs have the right to vote and sit in Knesset seats.
How is the situation of Israeli Arabs different, in a meaningful sense, from Pakistani minorities.
My point is only that if “Jewish and Democratic” is fine with you than “Islamic Republic” should also be fine with you.
Palestinian Citizens of Israel do have the right to vote and get elected to the Knesset. However, I have already given you the example of how Haneen Zoabi (an elected member of the Knesset) was treated.
Non-Muslim Pakistanis also have the right to vote and to be elected to Pakistan’s parliament. In fact, some are even appointed on reserved seats to ensure minority representation.
The only rights that Pakistani non-Muslims don’t have is the right to be appointed Prime Minister, President or Army Chief. You are free to criticize that. But again, Pakistan’s not a secular state and nor has it ever claimed to be one.
Ahmedis don’t have the right to call themselves Muslim. For the record, I have never defended that. I don’t believe it is the place of a country’s parliament to decide who is Muslim or not.
Palestinian Citizens of Israel (“Israeli Arabs” if you prefer) also cannot become President, Prime Minister or Army Chief of Israel.
So let’s hold Israel and Pakistan to the same standards.
Also, as previously noted, Pakistan is not Occupying anyone else’s territory. AJK and GB are Disputed. India claims they are “Pakistan Occupied” but the rest of the world uses “Pakistan Administered”. In contrast, the entire world agrees that the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Pakistan is also not conducting a genocide as we type this.
I don’t want to belabor this point. My views on Israel are well-considered and no one can force me to change them.
Kabir, this is the only discussion you and I will be having on BP. The rest of the commentariat will not engage you, nor you them, further until this contradiction is resolved.
You argue that states must be judged by their own charters: India by its Nehruvian ideals, Pakistan by its Islamic constitution. If that is your framework, then consistency requires that Israel also be judged by its own charter — its Basic Laws as a “Jewish and Democratic” state. That makes Pakistan and Israel proper morally equivalent: both define themselves through a majority identity and both subordinate their minorities accordingly. You cannot hold Pakistan blameless for this structure while condemning Israel for the same. Until this contradiction is clarified, further engagement is not productive.
This discussion has nothing to do with the occupied territories of West Bank (Judea & Samaria) & Gaza.
Israel’s post-1967 position came after being attacked on all fronts — in much the same way that India’s hold on Kashmir solidified after incursions by Pathan tribesmen at QeA’s instigation in 1947. The point here is simple: just as Kashmir and 1967 are not the subject of this thread, neither are the broader claims of occupation or genocide (both of which I condemn). They are not up for discussion in this context. What we are examining is the internal consistency of standards — how states treat citizens within their own recognized borders.
Kabir, what I need from you here is clarity and consistency. You argue India must be judged by its constitutional ideals and Pakistan by its Islamic basis, yet you judge Israel by different, shifting standards rather than by its “Jewish” standard? Please explain the framework you are using to evaluate states and minorities. If you can’t set out a consistent logic, the discussion risks becoming disruption rather than debate.
I have no issues with judging all countries according to their constitutions. You can argue that Pakistan and Israel proper are morally equivalent.
My point is not specifically directed at you but more generally. Do those who hold that it is not acceptable for Pakistan to chose to be an “Islamic Republic” hold that it is acceptable for Israel to be “Jewish and Democratic”?
Also, Israel Proper (forget the Occupation) was founded on land that was non-Jewish majority in 1948. Pakistan was founded only on Muslim-majority land. That’s why we didn’t even get all of Punjab province. That is an important difference.
You can moderate however you like (I keep repeating that). You, however, have no right to force me to articulate views I don’t want to articulate.
Also, while it is fine for you to insist that I be consistent in my views, this standard also needs to be applied to other people. I am getting the feeling that I am being made the “scapegoat” on this blog. I don’t like that.
Kabir, your argument is historically incorrect — Pakistan only became “Muslim majority” by forcibly expelling its Hindu and Sikh populations, just as India simultaneously lost millions of Muslims. Neither state emerged “pure.”
The core issue remains your double standard: you accept Islamic identity for Pakistan and Iran, but deny equivalent legitimacy to India or Israel. That’s not liberalism; that’s selective justification.
If your position is that Muslims deserve different standards whether in majority or minority, then please say so openly. But to claim liberal consistency while applying rules unevenly is what I am challenging.
Finally, you are not being scapegoated. You are simply the most persistent and vocal participant. That visibility naturally draws scrutiny. Engagement is welcome — but not if it means endless deflection rather than intellectual clarity.
My argument is not incorrect. Partition was done on the basis of giving Muslim majority provinces to Pakistan. All the provinces that went to Pakistan were Muslim majority prior to August 15, 1947. Punjab as a whole (including Indian Punjab) was Muslim majority. We still only got half the province.
I just wrote above that I am fine with you judging all countries according to their constitutions. India as of today is a constitutionally secular state. When it becomes a “Hindu Rashtra” I will not judge it by the standards of a secular state.
I’m not Iranian. I have no interest in defending Iran on anything. But I am a patriotic Pakistani so I will defend Pakistan.
I have substantially conceded your argument. Can we please drop this now?
It’s fine for you to state that I’m not being scapegoated. But my perception is that you are trying to bully me into changing my views. Equivalent attention is not given to other commentators. You can moderate or even ban me but my views are not going to change.
Cheers.
If you want to write an entire post comparing Pakistan to Israel, go for it.
Professor Faisal Devji wrote an entire book called Muslim Zion: Pakistan as a Political Idea arguing that Israel is Pakistan’s closest ideological parallel. I haven’t read the book–nor am I particularly inclined to do so considering that it seems to be an anti-Pakistan work. But I have never argued that he didn’t have the right to express these views.
That’s the last I’m going to say on this topic.
Pakistan only became “Muslim majority” by forcibly expelling its Hindu and Sikh populations,
XTM
Your claim did not sound right so checked.
Prior to the partition of India, according to the 1941 census, Hindus constituted 14.6% of the population in West Pakistan (contemporary Pakistan)
1941 figure taken from census data by combining the total population of all administrative divisions that compose the region of contemporary Pakistan, including Punjab,: Sindh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan#cite_note-Pakistan1941-8
My point is broader – the Hindu & Sikhs of West Punjab were indigenous.
So Pakistan went from being 100% indigenous to being maybe 60% indigenous since the Hindus & Sikhs were exchanged for Muslims from East Punjab, UP & Bihar.
So Pakistan really isn’t an “indigenous Indus” state.
East Punjab had very different characteristics to the West. But anyway I don’t want to divert the question as I want Kabir to address my central question.
The ethnic cleansing (on both sides) happened after Pakistan was formed. The provinces given to Pakistan were Muslim majority before Partition.
European Jews came and settled in Palestine and took land to form their state there. The situation after the Partition of British India was not analogous.
Pakistan is not an “Indus state”. It is the homeland of the Muslims of British India. That’s why it was formed.
Kabir please answer this question:
“If your position is that Muslims deserve different standards whether in majority or minority, then please say so openly. But to claim liberal consistency while applying rules unevenly is what I am challenging.”
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I am fine with judging all states (including Israel) by what is written in their constitutions. That’s as much as I’m going to concede to you–no more.
I don’t need a certificate of liberalism from you. I know that I’m a centre-left Pakistani. That’s all that matters to me.
This conversation is rapidly becoming repetitive. I’m not going to be responding further on this issue.
If I sound frustrated, it’s because I’m making the same point over and over and it doesn’t seem to make any difference.
I am not engaged in special pleading for Muslims. I’m consistently saying that all states must be judged by the standards that they have agreed to abide by (and that are articulated in their constitutions). Pakistan never claimed to be a secular state so it is foolish to hold it to that standard.
My views on Israel are very well-considered and principled. I’ve done research over years. They are not going to change because people on this blog (including the Admin) don’t agree with them. I’m not a hypocrite and I’m not going to pretend to hold views that I don’t genuinely hold.
In case you care (this comment will probably be deleted), I wrote an entire review of Professor Shira Robinson’s book Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel’s Liberal Settler State. Not only is she a professor but she happens to be Jewish. Therefore she cannot be accused of Pakistani or Muslim bias.
https://kabiraltaf.substack.com/p/citizen-strangers-palestinians-and
just curious,
i) it is said that zionist jews purchased marsh land from absentee ottoman land lordsbefore 1948, is it true?
ii) if jewish state is a settler entity, why are the indigenous bedouins supporting them and not supporting the palestinians?
iiI) if all settlers are ‘bad’ why are bengali speaking rohingyas getting support of the same liberal groups?
iv) the canal colonies of pakistan punjab also is settler dominated from east punjabis. so is that also wrong?
I think u r welcome to get into a quagmire with Kabir but it is better you acknowledge his “Muslim nationalism” and let him say what he wants to say.. so caveat emptor btw
Buying land from absentee landlords doesn’t justify the Nakba. Those Ottoman landlords had no idea that European Jews would eventually steal half of Palestine (when they weren’t even half of the population).
The Rohingyas are a minority in Myanmar and they are currently being genocided. I don’t know why you are making this comparison.
East Punjabi “settlers” are South Asian. Nothing that happened in the India-Pakistan case is equivalent to a population moving from a different continent and getting rid of the natives of the land.
that is not the point.
this is your contention; we must judge a state by its charter. So Pakistan is no better or no worse than Israel Proper.
do not bring the occupation in
X.T.M: Please remove the line in your main post where you say: “He refuse[s] to mention Asia Bibi, imprisoned for years under Pakistan’s blasphemy law, menaced by mobs, and left stateless within her own homeland”. I have given you evidence that I wrote about the Blasphemy Law and mentioned Asia Bibi by name way back in 2011.
I cannot be accused of defending Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law. This is inaccurate and defamatory.
Thanks.
Amended – kindly do not threaten please.
Where did I threaten you?
You misrepresented my views. I mentioned Asia Bibi by name in the linked piece.
Defamation is a threat.
I didn’t say I was going to sue you.
Anyway, if you don’t like the word “defamation” it was clearly a misrepresentation.
I don’t even think the example of Israel needs to be raised to see how patently absurd it is to hold countries to their own professed ideals without interrogating the merits of those ideals. If the ideal is bad, why bother holding them to it? The more they adhere to it the worse off the world is.
I removed your comment to Kabir. I want Kabir to respond to me.
We’ll be removing all engagement between Kabir and the commentariat (so either his replies or replies to him).
He has every right to define himself as he chooses. I don’t see him as particularly religious, but his arguments often lean toward a kind of Muslim exceptionalism (cloaked by liberalism) — and the Israel example brings this out most clearly.
In his framework, “Palestinian brothers” appear to carry more weight than his non-Muslim Pakistani fellow citizens, who are treated almost instrumentally. That imbalance says less about personal faith and more about a worldview that prioritises grievance abroad over coherence at home.
This is the inconsistency that must be addressed if the debate is to move forward.
I will object to the statement that “Palestinian brothers” carry more weight for me than non-Muslim Pakistanis. This is inaccurate.
First of all, not all Palestinians are Muslim. For me, Palestine is not an Islamic cause but a human rights one. Many people all over the world are against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians– and even against the treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Just look at 972 Magazine. Those are Israeli citizens who are much more critical of their state than I have ever been.
Secondly, I have the deepest respect for my non-Muslim co-citizens. I want them to have all the rights promised them by the Constitution of Pakistan. They cannot have all the rights of a secular state because Pakistan is not one.
But let’s be clear: The Constitution of Pakistan gives non-Muslim citizens all the rights of Muslim citizens. Of course, non-Muslims cannot be President, Prime Minister or Army Chief. One can certainly criticize this. But again, Pakistan is an “Islamic Republic”. I don’t think the biggest issue faced by non-Muslim citizens is that they cannot aspire to be PM or Army Chief.
Thank you for calling this out. This specific inconsistency is just one instance of a bunch of bad faith assertions and arguments that I have been sucked into. Earlier, I almost felt obligated to call such blatantly biased comments out, even though I realized that I was being baited by trolling. Simply because I felt it was important that by allowing such comments to go unchallenged would be an implicit endorsement or acceptance of them.
This allows me to not get sucked into the same circular nonsense and we can actually have some meaningful discussions. Disagreements are fine, but bad faith isn’t.
What exactly does this mean? The ideals of the Nehruvian elite were quite different from the ideals of today’s dominant Hindutva elite (BJP, its affiliates, and its fellow travelers). Then you can’t judge the actions of the latter by the standards of the former.
He means constitutionally stated ideals. To be fair that is iffy too, as Indira Gandhi threw in Secular & Socialist in the middle of her Autocratic Emergency. Does everyone need to then abide and be judged by then?
Secularism one of those concepts which are impossible to actually implement in practice anyway. Good luck separating cultural from religious Hinduism.
Gandhi and Nehru weren’t secular enough for him, and he’s 1000x more interested in denying Indian attempts at secularism, and is happy to provide covering fire and justify overt discrimination and apartheid like treatment of Pakistani minorities. Simply put, its a very obvious bad-faith malicious one-note agenda.
There simply is no point in engaging with him. My primary motivation in doing so, was highlighting his bigotry so that it somehow doesn’t get “mainstreamed” on a site that I enjoy. Now that it has been spotlighted, I’m happy to ignore the… bulldust and engage with other more meaningful discussions…
I have immense respect for Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru. Mahatma Gandhi was murdered by RSS supporters partly because he insisted on giving Pakistan the money that was due to it.
I have said many many times that I deeply admire Pandit Nehru’s vision of India as a state of all its citizens.
I would be delighted if India actually held to Pandit Nehru’s secular ideals. It is not doing so. You cannot deny the cases of Muslims lynched for transporting beef or for not saying “Jai Shree Ram”. Such things weren’t acceptable in Nehru’s India. Now you rarely find members of the ruling party even bothering to condemn them.
Using the word “Apartheid” in reference to Pakistan is inflammatory.
Your real problem with me is that you don’t like the Pakistani point of view being represented on this blog. So you’re being passive aggressive about it.
My very high-level 2 cents:
I don’t think it is particularly controversial to judge countries by the standards of their own constitutions.
It doesn’t make sense to hold “Islamic Republics” or “Hindu Rashtras” to the standards of secular states since those states don’t claim to be secular and have no interest in being so. The reason why I continue to hold India to the standards of a secular state is because according to its Constitution, India is a secular state.
I think the Commentariat have to be aware you are a Muslim nationalist who employs liberalism rather than a Liberal upholding Liberals ideals
I think once that is understood among the Commentariat
I am not a “Muslim nationalist”. Please do not misrepresent my views. It is really not nice to describe people in ways that they repeatedly object to.
If Pakistan were a secular state I would judge it on the standards of secularism. But it is not a secular state nor has it ever been one.
I conceded your argument that Israel proper has a right to be “Jewish and Democratic”. Can we please drop this now?
The real issue that people on this blog (include you it seems) have with me is not with my religious views (or lack thereof) but of my political views as a patriotic Pakistani.
Plenty of people on this blog are strongly Indian nationalist (see their interactions with sbarrkum) but somehow Indian nationalism gets a pass that Pakistani nationalism doesn’t get.
You are a Muslim nationalist, who values that over liberal ideals.
That is important for the Commentariat to understand and caveat.
This is not a misrepresentaiton.
It is a misrepresentation. Every time you call me that I will have to push back on it.
If I am anything, I’m a Pakistani nationalist.
Muslim – Pakistani
Sem 2 Sem
Not at all.
I’m not personally very religious and you know that. I sing bhajans for god’s sake. No religious Muslim would be caught dead doing that.
I wrote an entire essay about being a centre-left Pakistani.
I will admit to being a Pakistani nationalist. I think most people on this site are defensive when they perceive their country is under attack– just take a look at Hoju’s latest response to sbarrkum.
If we accepted that most people here are patriotic about whichever country they happen to come from, there would be much less friction.
Anyway, I don’t want to belabor this point further.
Give it up Kabir, your heart is really only deeply entwined with muslim causes. Theosophically you might be easy going with the Bhajans and the essay writing but emotionally you are pretty hardcore. As evidenced by short lived brotherhood with BB.
You also keep dumping Pakistan and turning American at the drop of a hat.
It’s quite entertaining.
yes I agree with you; I don’t want the Commentariat being tripped up by Kabir, who seems intent on muzzling important discussions ..
for instance it is for Indians to decide on the shape of India
as a Pakistani nationalist he should focus on Pakistan.
I am an intellectual. Don’t tell me what I should or should not focus on. That’s very condescending.
You are in our Blog – we have a right to determine as we see fit?
You can choose not to engage with BP or the comment threads should you so wish..
But Indosaurus hit the nub on the head
You don’t have a right to tell me what I should or should not comment on. That’s interfering with my freedom of speech.
Yes, it’s your blog. You can moderate or delete comments as you wish. I can’t do anything about that.
“You can choose not to engage”– That’s all well and good. But then you can’t take my name in your main posts. That’s passive aggressive behavior.
Please don’t psychoanalyze me. Or do you have a license to practice psychology that you’ve been hiding from all of us?
When I said “my brother in Islam” to BB I was being sarcastic.
“You also keep dumping Pakistan and turning American at the drop of a hat”– What part of dual nationality do you not understand?
I already debunked that, you were waxing eloquent about Indian muslims being your brothers, hardly sarcastic to call him brother immediately after.
Deny, delude, lie. Theres a word for this, but you get all upset when it’s used in an Islamic context.
Thats fine. He keeps telling others what not to do. I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy, see something, say something 🙂
yes you & Nivedita are Editors after all.
yes I was going to reply to K but I give up 🙂
OK, clearly you don’t understand sarcasm.
And since you don’t understand the concept of dual nationality, I guess you just dropped that point. Being Pakistani-American is a thing. People do have hyphenated identities.
Also, you’re the one who said that we should focus on ideas and not on people. Yet you seem to be inordinately focused on my personality.
I did, let me know when you have some ideas of your own that we can talk about.
Meanwhile here’s a little more free psychoanalysis.
Your personality fixation years were post 9-11 where the liberal (& democratic) america really allied with the persecuted muslim minority and trumpeted their cases.
This has the dual effect of fostering a deep sense of Muslim brotherhood (shared victimhood) and your complete self identification as a ‘liberal’.
Being part of the rainbow troupe this is the psychological trough you inhabit. A happy space so to say.
Unfortunately it’s not a philosophically consistent zone. Ideological incongruities abound, especially when it comes to other nations and cultures. But the spots are part of the leopard now and will never change.
Unless you are a licensed psychoanalyst, your psychoanalysis is neither here nor there.
You have a personal animus towards me because I am left-wing and also because I dare to express a Pakistani POV.
You don’t demonstrate this kind of obsession with any other commenter.
“Being part of the rainbow troupe”– Ah, subtle homophobia! I see what you did there!
Where is the homophobia? Your psychoanalysis would be incomplete without mentioning it.
On the balance, it’s probably holding you back from radicalising, so I’m happy for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLNDqxrUUwQ
Clayton Bigsby in real life.
I’m not an “Islamist”. That word is a red line. I have never in my life advocated for Shariah Law.
I’m not going to discuss my sexuality here.
Don’t worry Kabir – I understand as a member of a beleaguered minority, you feel the need to be more loyal than the king. Maybe if you’re not Islamist enough, someone will lynch you.
Don’t recognise it? Those are your words buddy, not mine.
I just copy pasted, you can even see the grey copy paste lines.
https://www.brownpundits.com/2025/09/13/the-pakistani-inferiority-complex/#comment-117848
Don’t even realise what you are saying until it is turned back on you.
It’s your comment Kabir. Your comment. Not mine. All yours.
If you feel inclined to apologise for it please do.
I have no interest in your sexuality, never have, if anything, good on you for it.
No bullying, just holding up a mirror.
This is like when you accused people of disparaging Islam.
I challenge you to find one comment actually doing any of the things you accuse me of.
Read this again.
https://www.brownpundits.com/2025/09/17/%f0%9f%97%93%ef%b8%8f-one-year-ago-today-the-taj-mahal-sacred-lands-and-the-power-of-timing/#comment-118350
I do agree it was an appalling comment, you should never have said it. An Indian muslim would have been as enraged as you to be on the receiving end of such a statement.
Don’t worry about my moderation so much, it isn’t something I asked for, or do.
Honey – I will ban this handle again in its entirety if you go down the line.
There is not a single comment by HS on this site. I have let you have a new start as BB.
After reading this you won’t be made Author. And I am putting you on notice.
Why though?
The only animus I have is with Kabir because he represents a demographic I loathe – The soft Islamist
The “liberal” English-speaking version who whitewashes his more hardcore cousins’ atrocities.
Actual people have died due to Islamists which Kabir downplays (Pahalgam, October 7th). Some ribbing online is nothing in comparison.
And I haven’t even said anything insulting.
To be fair, he did ask you to stop engaging with Kabir. Don’t worry about Kabir, leave his provocations alone. You just fuel the attention seeking cycle.
I know how this sounds after just engaging with Kabir, but we’re trying to get the commentariat to a better place, the self hypocrisy is very ironic but hopefully I can explain it away with good intent.
Leave Kabir alone BB, it always spirals down and someone is forced to step in and moderate. Ideally commit to not doing so.
wonderful expression!
run with the hare and hunt with the hound 🙂
I am starting to see evidence XTM is running with the Hare and Hounds.
Says is a Bahai (peaceful) and a Zionist (violent).
To me I dont see much difference between Pakistan and Israel.
Israel much much worse, bombing every country around it, and supporting Terrorists.
Hi Sbarrkum –
let me be clear. I don’t condone the Genocide in Gaza.
All Human Life (and Life in general) is sacred.
I am Zionist in that I do believe the Jewish people have a right to their Homeland but not at the expense of the Right of Return of the indigenous Palestinian people.
I believe in a binational State that accommodates both Palestinian and Israeli identities.
I was querying Kabir’s contradictions hence my queries.
But please don’t presume my ideologies or thoughts as I try to be as consistent as I can be.
I believe in a binational State that accommodates both Palestinian and Israeli identities
Your “beliefs” contradict each other. i.e. Zionism (which no better than Radical Islam) and the Bahai Faith,
Zionism says “The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews’ historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs”
Note they are being called Arabs, They Palestinians
Mandate for Palestine, governed by Britain, explicitly privileged Jewish settlers over the local Palestinian population. In 1948, the State of Israeldeclared its independence and the first Arab-Israeli war broke out. During the war, Israel expanded its territory to control over 78% of Mandatory Palestine.
My impression is that you dont know what is Zionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
there are many types of Zionism btw
Incidentally the game of Hares and Hounds is mentioned in Tom Browns School Days.
Long book about school days in Rugby,
My father bought me the book when I was a bout 12. He too had read it as school boy. I identified with much of a the book as I attended school modeled on English Boarding schools. Carved my name on the Chapel Belfry. Prefects who were allowed to cane younger student, play rugger (rugby) and cricket. Tough upbringing but if one survives, can face the realities of a tough world. Quite useful for a skinny small made chap like me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brown%27s_School_Days
The Hares and Hounds starts at page 147
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tom_Brown%27s_School_Days_(6th_ed)/Chapter_7
like your previous avatar, HS, you started getting personal.
Why is there no Bahai temple in even one Muslim country?
Colombia, PNG, Samoa, Malawi, even Cambodia but no love for Pakistan, Iran, UAE or even Indonesia?
Is it because of the beauty of Islam?
U do realise I’m pretty Saffron?
I think you’ve misunderstood the intent of NP. Why is it that Bahai, a religion with Islamic roots preaching universal peace and brotherhood does not have temples in Islamic countries? Doesn’t seem aimed at you XTM
We have Bahá’í centres in various Muslim countries (Pakistan, UAE) but no Mashriqu’l-Adhkár (House of Worship).
But that is understandable because we are an offshoot of Islam; it’s a key relationship struggle for us.
You think globalization and the hardening of Islamic lines has changed that relationship a lot nowadays?
You should do a piece on it. It would be good to get an inside perspective.
perhaps I tend to be more sensitive writing on it since it can actually endanger people (I wrote a very good piece on it but then had to pull it down alas) ..
Ugh