1. The Return of Loki
Loki is the harbinger of RagnarΓΆk. Even Iβm surprised β but perhaps it was inevitable. The Saffronite dialectic on caste had become too self-referential, too performative. The same arguments recycled endlessly, as if volume were a substitute for depth.
Girmit wasn’t speaking on national unity; only perceptions. So any analysis of the structure of society is now to be replaced by moral superiority onto their counterparts. It has become, in short, a perpetual three-minute hate, directed outward at βthe Other.β That is not intellectual inquiry; itβs emotional exorcism.
2. The Editorial Shift
So, to reset the balance and an apology, Iβve made Kabir an editor. He now has the rights to create and onboard new authors β part of what I call the Crescentisation of the blog. Think of Brown Pundits as a Saffron-hued Moon, where all Desi identities can find their place. In terms of editorial hierarchy:
-
Kabir is answerable only to me. I expect fresh content, unemotional comments (if there is a triggering comment, remove it). If Kabir hyper-posts as he did before as author; I’ll simply remove it without warning.
-
Dr. Vβs identity (IHS) still takes precedence over mine (BPB); that remains the structure. So I want Kabir to avoid making any Hinduphobic or Indophobic comments (remove them instead).
-
There are now three editors, and I expect all to avoid flame wars with each other. If disputes arise between, Iβll mediate fairly between them. But stay in your lanes. I will not look kindly on others intruding on the other’s thread; my threads are free for all and I grant Nivedita & Indosaurus, primus inter pares on them (I rarely read comment threads).
- Editors outrank Authors (whose status is actively reviewed)
This is not about sides β itβs about integrity. If we are to discuss civilization, faith, caste, or identity, then intellectual honesty must be our first sacrament.
3. A Word to the Saffroniate
I was unimpressed by the cheap comment that βBP needs more views.β This space isnβt monetized, and it isnβt a brand campaign. We are not here to please algorithms or echo chambers. We are here to preserve one thing; truth, however uncomfortable.
Caste discrimination is not a talking point; it is structural, perennial, and pervasive. The quieter it gets, the deeper it runs. Hinduism must reckon with that. It can, and should, without fear.
That is the only reason I have let Loki out of RagnarΓΆk and empowered him to act. So that intellectual balance is the fixed principle of Brown Pundits. If Honey | Bombay Badshah or anyone else crosses into personal animus, Kabir can remove his comments. If Qureshi asks, he can be made author, under his old or new handle.
4. On Authorship and Accountability
We currently have 15 registered authors. I have written to each. Only two have replied. Let me be clear: if administrative emails are ignored, authorial privileges will be revoked. This is not punishment; itβs maintenance. Brown Pundits must remain a high volume, high-signal, not high-noise space.
If you wish to participate, answer the call. If not, the gates of Asgard will close quietly behind you.
5. The Principle
I donβt get paid for this. I gain nothing materially. But ideas, honestly handled, are worth defending. We can disagree, even vehemently, but we cannot descend into tribal reflex. If that is what passes for dialectic now, then let Ragnarok burn the old world down. The Golden Age, after all, only begins after RagnarΓΆk is done.
Thanks for your apology. However, I am not actually interested in being an editor.
Your decision to do an “Interdiction” was your prerogative but having my freedom of speech arbitrarily clamped down on is not acceptable to me.
More importantly, I am not interested in participating in what is frankly an Indian Right-Wing space (you have admitted this yourself by naming them the “saffroniate”). People are free to have whatever biases they like, but it’s way too exhausting trying to counter them. I don’t like the hostile and passive aggressive tone many of your commenters (especially your “editors”) have taken with me. So I will choose to disengage.
My suggestion– and you are of course free to ignore it– would be to find some actual left-wing Indians (like the two Manavs for example) who could provide POVs that counter the pervasive right-wing bias.
I do find it very funny that the same people who get so offended by being called “Brahmins” have absolutely no issue calling other people “Islamists”. Clearly, lack of introspection is a problem. They apply different standards to themselves than they do to their “enemies”.
Your position is respected; you are welcome to keep your editorial rights.
And also you can choose the manner of your engagement.
BP is an evolving space.
Welcome back. I highly doubt you can stay away. For long. π
That is a snarky comment – beware Kabir outranks u so he can delete what he likes..
Welcome back Kabir.
We will continue to disagree on some and agree on some.
cheers
+1
Didn’t get an email.
can you email brownpundits19@gmail.com
It was in spam. Replied.
thanks..
Good you are back. In your absence, XTM was torturing himself…just see the number of posts about you from him π
this blog is a meditation on pan South Asian unity ultimately
That is a laudable goal. But in practice, it would require absolutely no tolerance for comments calling Pakistan a “Nazi state”. That kind of thing is not going to lead to productive Pakistani participation on this forum.
I allow each editor full access over their threads.
BP is successful because we are a Broad Church and I tend to annoy both the Commentariat (And the Saffroniate), since I find “via media.”
Being a broad church is good. But I think that there do need to be some basic minimum standards that everyone operates by.
I don’t expect the “Saffroniate” to like Pakistan. Many Indians (not all of whom are right wing) dislike Pakistan. Many Pakistanis dislike India. However, if someone insists on calling Pakistan a “Nazi state”, that is gratuitous and offensive. It’s not going to lead to productive discussions.
As I said, people on this site have not demonstrated a good grasp of argumentation. BP is not Twitter but a lot of people seem to treat it like is. I will admit that I have also been obnoxious but I only respond to people in the same tone that they use towards me.
I am sensitive about Dr. V’s identity matrix and my Faith.
For som e reason; I’ve lost that identification with Pakistan.
“Nazistan” doesn’t seem offensive to me but of course I know it is to Pakistanis. It’s very interesting when and how I lost that..
The Saffroniate’s sensitive over caste was a huge draw in “rebalancing” Brown Pundits rather than the Pakistani phobia
I also feel the Pakistan & Islamophobia is used as a way to gel natural divisions.
We all have our sensitivities and civilized behavior entails that those sensitivities are respected.
I am not at all here to shut down criticism of Pakistan. But that criticism can be expressed without calling it a “Nazi state”. Asides from being offensive, that is an a-historical argument which would not be taken seriously by any intellectual.
The “Saffroniate’s” views are actually very typical of upper-caste Hindu right-wing views. They are not really all that special. And of course in today’s India, Islamophobia and anti-Pakistan views are very popular and useful to get votes. It is what it is. To be honest, Pakistani politics doesn’t revolve around India in the same way (except of course during times of heightened conflict and war)
I’m not actually all that keen to constantly defend Pakistan. I have a life as well and varied intellectual interests. But the “Saffroniate” does need to introspect. When their sensitivities are violated, they are quick to jump down people’s throats (particularly sbarrkum and I). But they get very upset when their own biases are called out. This is not intellectual objectivity.
Your comments have become very elevated post Interdiction.
Touche
Agreed it is not ur βburdenβ to bear.
I don’t really have the energy to keep fighting with people. It’s very tiresome.
I’m glad you realized about the “three minute hate”. The other side does need to introspect as well.
Just for the record: the decision to do an “Interdiction” was XTM’s. The decision to “unban” me was also XTM’s. I didn’t ask for it.
I actually don’t like being set up as a foil for the “saffroniate”. I don’t think that that is the most productive framing. Personally speaking, this forum has become a bit of a hostile environment for me so I’m not planning on participating much. It’s an Indian right-wing space and that’s fine. We all should recognize it. There’s a reason that even left-wing Indians don’t comment.
I’m also not impressed by the argumentation abilities of most people on here. They reflect a lack of training in the humanities and a lack of skill in debating without becoming nasty or passive aggressive. To be clear: this is not an India-specific problem. The rise of social media seems to have eroded people’s abilities to actually debate in a civilized manner. It’s easy to attack a person based on their identity and much harder to actually rebut ideas.
In case you want to learn about some actual scholarship that doesn’t fit the Indian right-wing view, feel free to check out my review of Amar Sohal’s The Muslim Secular: Parity and the Politics of India’s Partition.
https://kabiraltaf.substack.com/p/review-the-muslim-secular-parity
good post; maybe expand on what your father (?) commented about expanding what you took away from it.
Thanks. It is a very dense and academic book so I really only managed to hit the main points from the introduction and conclusion.
My main takeaway really is that there were alternate visions being discussed in the 1930s and 1940s that would have avoided the partition of British India. Muslim nationalism won the day and led to a separate nation-state called Pakistan but this didn’t have to be the case. The tragedy (for those who believe the Partition shouldn’t have happened) is that Maulana Azad’s vision didn’t win the day. I have a feeling that even Maulana Azad is not looked on all that highly in today’s Hindu nationalist India.
Sheikh Abdullah is also an interesting case. He was mainly concerned with the rights of his own people (Kashmiri Muslims) and thought that they would be best served by autonomy within a secular India rather than joining an Islamic Pakistan. It’s ironic that he found himself jailed relatively quickly and Article 370 whittled away. His grandson (Omar Abdullah) has barely any actual power.
As a Pakistani, I’m obviously happy that we do have a separate nation-state. I would hate to live as a minority in a country where the majority population is openly hostile to me. But the point is that both Indian and Pakistani nationalists believe that the Partition was inevitable which it wasn’t.
Lastly, the book goes into why the whole idea of the “nation-state” is problematic since it leads to permanent majorities and minorities. And in most countries around the world, it’s not really any fun being the minority. Theoretically, a country like the USA believes in the rights of the individual citizen and one’s race, religion etc are not supposed to be all that salient. But of course racism continues to play a hugely negative role in the US.
I personally didn’t have to deal with racism as such while growing up in the States. Probably, we were shielded by our economic and educational privilege (we lived in a nice suburb). That said, the “War on Terror” years did lead to some unpleasant incidents.
this is very good – I think what I find with writing.
when there is an active audience (the Commentariat and the Safrroniate); it stimulates further recesses of the mind..