We Are Now Hitting 200 Comments a Day

April 22, 2026 X.T.M 7 Comments filed under Precedent, X.T.M

And Why We Use the Word “We”. A BP Precedent Post (our 40th one).

We begin with the constitutional question. Why is BP’s editorial voice plural?

“We” depersonalises the view. A plural voice separates the ruling from the individual. When a comment is moderated, a post is Precedented, or a thread is steered, the call is not a private preference dressed up as authority. It is the house speaking, on the record, under rules that must survive this case and govern the next.

200 a Day

Daily comment volume has risen sharply and is now nudging 200. Active commentators have expanded from a handful to around twenty. Removal rates are running at an estimated ten to twenty percent of all comments. The more we prune, the faster the diversity of commentators grows.

The BP Factions Continue reading We Are Now Hitting 200 Comments a Day

Does the average muslim ‘dislike hindus’?

April 22, 2026 RecoveringNewsJunkie 71 Comments filed under Popular, Precedent, RecoveringNewsJunkie

Admin Note: This is a Precedent Post.

“You seem to be underestimating how much the average Muslim dislikes Hindus (and vice versa). This is a sad reality.”

This comment on a thread conversation – yet again discussing partition on BP, jumped out at me. And I think it deserves to be dissected.

I for one, strongly disagree with the projection of personal animus, extrapolated all the way into the ‘average muslim’. And vice versa. I’m going to assume that Kabir is ‘only’ deigning to speak on behalf of the ‘average muslim’ of the subcontinent, and not beyond. But even then, I think this assertion is utterly inaccurate.

I do not believe that ‘disliking Hindus’ is baked into the character or mindset of the muslims of the subcontinent, whether in India, or beyond it, into Bangladesh of Pakistan. Now, I am aware of the ‘kufr’ attack lines that those suffering from Islamophobia often deploy and may even believe. But I am confident that this is the usual weaponization of the fringe by those with ignorant, or intentionally jaundiced agendas.

The Problem with Monolithic Thinking

To say that “Muslims dislike Hindus” is to treat over 500 million people across multiple countries as if they share a single mindset. This kind of thinking ignores differences in geography, class, education, political views, and personal experiences.

Communities are not monoliths. A Muslim family in Kerala may have vastly different social interactions and attitudes compared to one in Lahore or Dhaka. The same is true for Hindus across regions. Reducing such diversity to a single emotional stance erases individual agency and lived reality.

Historical Context Matters—but So Does Interpretation

It’s true that the subcontinent has witnessed periods of conflict, most notably during the Partition of 1947. That traumatic event left deep scars and continues to influence inter-community perceptions. However, it is a mistake to project historical violence onto present-day relationships without acknowledging the decades of peaceful coexistence that have followed.

In fact, millions of Hindus and Muslims continue to live side by side, working together, forming friendships, and even intermarrying. Everyday life in much of the subcontinent is not defined by hostility but by routine interaction.

The Role of Politics and Media

Modern tensions, where they exist, are often amplified by political rhetoric or media framing. Narratives that emphasize division can serve specific agendas, making it appear as though distrust is more widespread than it actually is.

It’s important to distinguish between politically motivated discourse and the attitudes of ordinary people. The loudest voices are not always the most representative.

Lived Reality: Coexistence Over Conflict

Walk through neighborhoods in cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Karachi, or Dhaka, and you’ll find markets, schools, and workplaces where Hindus and Muslims interact daily. Festivals are sometimes shared, businesses are jointly run, and friendships cross religious lines.

These everyday examples rarely make headlines, but they represent the true fabric of society.

Why Generalizations Are Harmful

Broad claims about mutual dislike do more than misrepresent reality—they can actively contribute to division. When people are told repeatedly that another group harbors negative feelings toward them, it can create suspicion where none existed.

Challenging such narratives is not about denying that tensions exist, but about refusing to let those tensions define entire populations.

A More Nuanced Understanding

A more accurate perspective acknowledges that:

Historical conflicts exist, but so does long-term coexistence
Political narratives can distort social realities
Individual experiences vary widely
Cultural interdependence is a defining feature of the region

If we are to understand the subcontinent honestly, we must move beyond simplistic narratives and recognize the complexity—and humanity—of its people. Resorting to ignorant tropes about ‘muslims dislike hindus and vice versa’ not only should be avoided, but deserves to be countered forcefully.

Men of State, and the Great Mahatma

April 22, 2026 X.T.M 79 Comments filed under Precedent, X.T.M

A Precedent Post on Gandhi, Ambedkar, and the Authority to Speak

Kabir is right to push back on the deliberately provocative, “pure evil.” It misses what QeA & Nehru were and what Gandhi & Ambedkar were.

This post sets four Precedents.

One. QeA and Nehru were men of state. Neither evil, neither saint. To be evaluated by the standards appropriate to men who build and run states.

Two. Gandhi was a man of Dharma. He is a saint. Comparing him with QeA and Nehru on their terms is a category error.

Three. Ambedkar is the fourth figure. Not a man of state in the QeA or Nehru sense; not a man of Dharma in the Gandhian sense. He is a constitutional saint, in the Mahatma’s register.

Nehru and QeA may be criticised. They may not be disrespected. Gandhi and Ambedkar are a different order. Discussion of them on this blog proceeds from profound respect for their achievement: the redemption of the soul of India after a thousand years of slavery.

*Thousand years of slavery is not Precedent but rhetorical flourish. It is worth noting that all of the Pakistani commentators on BP would be subordinated “Hindustani Muslims” in the hierarchical world of the Mughals, who explicitly favoured foreign-born Turani and Irani nobles over the converted Indian majority.

Four. SD is not to be quoted on this blog. Initials only where strictly necessary. Reasons at section XII.

Part I. The Distinction

I. The Man of State

The modern state is a Westphalian inheritance: territory, a monopoly of violence, legal personality. A man of state operates inside that frame. He does not step outside it.

QeA was a man of state. He was perhaps the finest constitutional negotiator the subcontinent produced in the twentieth century. He read the Government of India Act the way a master reads a score. In his Fourteen Points of 1929, drafted in response to the Nehru Report’s dismissal of the Muslim minority, he foresaw with brutal clarity that a Westminster majority in a plural society could become a permanent tyranny once the demographic count was fixed.

According to Mohammad Ali Jinnah, “The Committee has adopted a narrow minded policy to ruin the political future of the Muslims. I regret to declare that the report is extremely ambiguous and does not deserve to be implemented.”

There is a reason Pakistanis venerate him to the extent they do. Without QeA, the Muslims of the subcontinent would have remained a set of regional identities & class interests: Punjabi, United Provinces aristocrats, Bengali. He forged a single Islamicate identity out of them and politicised it into a state. In the history of the Ummah, and indeed the world, this is almost unique.

The Two Nation Theory was not his starting point. In 1916, at Lucknow, Sarojini Naidu called him the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity, and the phrase was earned. He reached for the Two Nation Theory two decades later, when the softer constitutional instruments had been closed off by Congress intransigence and Viceregal haste.

The tragedy of QeA is that the state he called into being never settled its founding question. A secular Muslim who ate pork and drank whisky summoned an Islamic state and then, on 11 August 1947, tried to unsummon it in a speech that Pakistan has spent the rest of its history editing out of its school curriculum. The confusion was structural from day one. It is structural still.

II. The Architect and the Scaffold

Nehru was a man of state of a different temperament. Harrow, Cambridge, Inner Temple. Fabian socialist. Scientific temper. Where QeA built a state around a community, Nehru built one around an idea: that a civilisation as old as India could be poured into a parliamentary republic and would accept the mould. It largely did. We owe him this.

Continue reading Men of State, and the Great Mahatma