The clip is short and damning. Alia Bhatt walks the Cannes red carpet as L’Oréal’s global face, waving at a thicket of photographers who never quite lift their cameras.
Sanam Saeed arrives in a white peacock couture by Hussain Rehar, fifty artisans and 2,354 hours, a tribute to Shamim Ara that the photographers actually shoot. Rehar’s accompanying showcase at Château St George is titled Lahore: A Knot in South Asia’s Loom, sitting one cabinet over from Gucci and Roberto Cavalli. The title is doing the work.
Cannes 2026 was supposed to be Bollywood’s annual export ritual. Instead, Pakistanis slid past the L’Oréal machinery and produced the festival’s most discussed South Asian image.
The following article is the original work of the author – Dr Rajorshi Datta. As such its views should be taken to be the opinion of the author and does not represent the opinion of Brown Pundits. If you find this article controversial the author invites you to post a respectful comment below to voice your arguments and perspectives.
I’ve gone back to 2014 looking at articles and podcasts posted about caste. There is information on the social and religious origins of caste within sacred texts like the Vedas and Dharmasutras. For the astute reader there are accounts from Megasthenes, Fa Hien and Xuanzhang whose writings present oblique perspectives on how caste or varna and jati was viewed by contemporary people living within or visiting the system. There’s a lot been said about the fact it exists strongly in India compared to China and Europe, and the genetic evidence to support this.
But there’s not so much about why this phenomena was so strong and strict in the Indian subcontinent and nowhere else. Here I present my thesis as to why it wasn’t luck but structural predisposition which sent India down its unique path of strict caste endogamy.
A controversial topic – why did the caste system form in India?
I’m sharing an excerpt of a translation from Bilal Hasan Minto’s collection Model Town. This story focuses on the discrimination faced by minorities in Pakistan (in this case Christians). This particular excerpt focuses on appropriate dress for women–something that we have been talking about recently at BP. Sometimes fiction brings societal dynamics to life in a way that non-fiction cannot.
When the Walters’ house was under construction, General Zia’s “Bakistan” had yet to come into being, and all sorts of new prescriptions had not been written to preserve the purity and piety of women. Even at that time most Pakistani women wore the regular shalwar-kameez. Fashion advancements consisted merely of lengthening the kameez or narrowing the shalwar cuffs a bit. Nothing more than that. It was another matter if someone’s dress was a different type for a special reason, but even then it was expected to conform to the style of some other part of the subcontinent or Arabia — meaning it had to be in keeping with the mores of decency, modesty, and other such things. It couldn’t happen, either then or now, that women from Model Town or Sukkur or Chakwal or any other part of “Bakistan” could say that since this June sun is on fire let’s wear shorts and undershirts or put on swimsuits and jump into the pond or canal and emerge only when needed, to cook food or wash clothes. That way we will not die from sunstroke, nor neglect serving our husbands — the task for which we have been created.
I’m sharing this excerpt from an essay about one of my favorite novels–Vikram Seth’s A Suitable Boy. The entire essay can be read here. I have also reviewed the BBC adaptation here.
There are some works of literature that are like comfort food–ready for one to dip into whenever one is in need of a pick-me-up. For me, Vikram Seth’s 1993 magnum opus, A Suitable Boy, is one such work. The characters–ranging from the anxious and melodramatic Mrs. Rupa Mehra to the crazy Chatterjee family to the beautiful Muslim courtesan Saaeda Bai Firozabadi– are like old friends whom one has missed after a long absence. Every time I read the novel (and I have read it several times) I find new things to delight and ponder.
The novel begins with what in my opinion is one of the best openings in modern literature, one that immediately alludes to Jane Austen. Just as Pride and Prejudice begins with the narrator stating “It is a truth universally acknowledged ,that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife”, A Suitable Boy opens with the sentence: ” ‘You too will marry a boy I choose,’ said Mrs. Rupa Mehra firmly to her younger daughter.” With this sentence, Seth immediately lets the reader know what the book will be about: Mrs. Rupa Mehra’s search to find a suitable match for her daughter Lata. The novel opens at the wedding of Lata’s elder sister Savita. It will conclude with another wedding, that of Lata herself.
Though the plot ostensibly revolves around getting Lata married off, the novel is really a portrait of 1950s India, similar to the “condition of England” novels of the mid- 19th century. These novels (such as Charles Dickens’s Bleak House) contain, apart from their fictional plots, a debate or discourse about the current state of the nation. Just as Bleak House draws attention to the problems of the London slums and the need for reform of the Chancery courts, A Suitable Boy includes plot lines devoted to issues of land reform and religious communalism. Seth also includes several other aspects of Indian culture in the novel, such as the tradition of courtesans, Urdu poetry, and Hindustani Classical Music. Continue reading Reflections: Vikram Seth’s ‘A Suitable Boy’–An Epic Portrait of 1950s India
This post grew out of an exchange with EK, the kind that can only happen in a forum that has paid for its openness. Kabir, to his credit, has imposed the hard internal checks that keep the blog from collapsing into the views of its editors.
The high culture built by the three great gunpowder empires (Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal) is one of the supreme achievements of human civilisation. All three were Turkic in dynastic origin, Persianate in literary and aesthetic register, and Islamic in faith. The Blue Mosque in Istanbul, the Naqsh-e Jahan complex in Isfahan, the Taj Mahal at Agra: these are not regional artefacts. They are a single coherent civilisational signature, expressed in tilework, ghazal, miniature, garden, cuisine, and chancery prose, across a belt that ran from the Bosphorus to the Bay of Bengal.
The question this post is about is simpler than it sounds. Who inherits it?
Comments of late have drifted, as they sometimes do here, into territory where the Bahá’ís are invoked as a rhetorical chess piece by people who know very little about them. We believe in free speech, and on this blog more than most, in authorial autonomy; contributors and commenters speak for themselves, and we are not in the business of policing opinion. But because the question of Palestine sits adjacent to much of what has been said, we thought it worth setting down what the actual position is.
“Members of the National Spiritual Assembly who disappeared in August in 1980. All are presumed to have been killed” by Bahá’í Media Bank.
One caveat first. When we write or administer here, we do not speak for our Faith in any official capacity. We are members of it. That is the limit of our standing.
The clearest statement of the Bahá’í position comes from the pen of the Beloved Guardian of the Faith, Shoghi Effendi, who in July 1947 was asked directly by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine to clarify the relationship of the Bahá’í community to the country and its political future. His reply, written from Haifa and reproduced in The Bahá’í World, Volume 11, is as close to a foundational text on this question as exists. We quote it at length, because paraphrase would not do it justice.
On July 9, 1947, Shoghi Effendi received a letter from the chairman of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine requesting a statement on the relationship, which the Baha’i Faith has to Palestine and the Baha’i attitude toward any future changes in the status of the country. From Shoghi Effendi’s reply, the following paragraphs are quoted in The Baha’i World, Volume 11 (1946-1950), pp.43-44.1
HAIFA, ISRAEL—15 July 1947
“The position of the Baha’is in this country is in a certain measure unique: Whereas Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Christendom it is not the administrative center of either the Church of Rome or any other Christian denomination. Likewise although it is regarded as the second most sacred shrine of Islam, the most Holy site of the Muhammadan Faith, and the center of its pilgrimages, are to be found in Arabia, not in Palestine. The Jews alone offer somewhat of a parallel to the attachment which the Baha’is have for this country, inasmuch as Jerusalem holds the remains of their Holy Temple and was the seat of both the religious and political institutions associated with their past history. But even their case differs in one respect from that of the Baha’is for it is in the soil of Palestine that the three central Figures of our Religion are buried and it is not only the center of Baha’i’ pilgrimages from all over the world but also the permanent seat of our Administrative Order, of which I have the honor to be the Head.”
“The Baha’i Faith is entirely nonpolitical and we neither take sides in the present tragic dispute going on over the future of the Holy Land and its people nor have we any statement to make or advice to give as to what the nature of the political future of this country should be. Our aim is the establishment of universal peace in this world and our desire to see justice prevail in every domain of human society, including the domain of politics. As many of the adherents of our Faith are of both Jewish and Moslem extraction, we have no prejudice towards either of these groups and are most anxious to reconcile them for their mutual good and for the good of the country.”
“What does concern us, however, in any decisions made affecting the future of Palestine, is that the fact be recognized by whoever exercises sovereignty over Haifa and Acre, that within this area exists the spiritual and administrative world center of a world Faith, and that the independence of that Faith, its right to manage its affairs from this source, the right of Baha’is from any and every country of the globe to visit it as pilgrims (enjoying the same privilege in this respect as Jews, Moslems and Christians do in regard to visiting Jerusalem), be acknowledged and permanently safeguarded.”
Sharing an excerpt from a translation of another short story by Bilal Hasan Minto. The whole story can be read here.
Farhat Auntie’s apprehension had been lingering for many years. She once told Ammi she suspected Fizzu Uncle didn’t believe in Allah and had perhaps become a Hindu. Farhat Auntie’s suspicion was aroused when Fizzu Uncle obtained the Hindus’ thick religious book, the Gita, from somewhere and began reading it with concentration. When Ammi heard this, she bit her nails and agreed with Farhat Auntie that her husband had always reeked of idolatry. She added without thinking that she was sure he had always been an idolater and had tricked Farhat Auntie into marriage by passing himself off as a Muslim. Ammi also expressed the opinion that one didn’t become a Muslim simply by having the azaan recited in one’s ear. Faith was the real thing.
Farhat Auntie took this to heart. When she reached home that day, she told Fizzu Uncle bluntly he would have to own up to his religion. Had he become a Hindu or some other type of unbeliever? Had he always been like this and married her deceitfully or had he only recently become a non-Muslim?
Uncle replied that he hadn’t deceived her because she had never asked his religion. Farhat Auntie was stunned. She said everyone was Muslim and if he wasn’t he should have let her know. He lied to her. Fizzu Uncle was surprised to hear that everyone was Muslim, but remained quiet at the time. Farhat Auntie started screaming that he shouldn’t sit calmly and think she would put up with this. She would seek a divorce if she had to. Fizzu Uncle reminded her there wouldn’t be need for that; he had already conceded her the right in the marriage contract, precisely so that if one day she no longer wanted to live with him, she wouldn’t have to run around the courts getting him to divorce her. Continue reading Apprehension (translation from the Urdu)
I have often noticed something distinctive that Brown pundits—especially Pakistani Muslim commentators—bring to the table.
I will highlight two or three comments from previous posts that shed light on an important aspect often missing from Indian discourse.
One comment by Kabir from about 25 days ago stated:
“Muslims tend to be more intransigent vis-à-vis conversion of a spouse.” Sharia is very clear on this point. A Muslim man may marry a Christian or Jewish woman without her converting. A Muslim woman, however, cannot marry a non‑Muslim man; there are no exceptions for women. Of course, Kareena Kapoor married Saif Ali Khan without converting to Islam, but that was not a nikaah. Under Islamic law, they are not considered married—though I doubt either of them is concerned about that.
The following article is the original work of the author – Dr Rajorshi Datta. As such its views should be taken to be the opinion of the author and does not represent the opinion of Brown Pundits. If you find this article controversial the author invites you to post a respectful comment below to voice your arguments and perspectives.
