The Partition of Elites: India, Pakistan, and the Unfinished Trauma of 1947

I was speaking recently with a cousin who grew up in India. Their family has been BahĆ”’Ć­ for generations, but their older relatives once lived as Sunni merchants in Old Delhi. When they visited their grandparents as a child, they noticed something striking: in many lanes of Old Delhi, long after Independence, the sentiment was not Indian nationalism but Pakistan-leaning nostalgia. This was not hidden. It was ambient.

That single observation exposes something almost no one in Indian liberal discourse wants to say aloud: post-Partition India inherited a large Muslim population whose political loyalties were, at best, ambivalent. That is not a moral judgement. It is a historical one.

And once you notice this, a second truth becomes obvious: Kabir’s secularist vision of an emotionally unified India makes sense only in a world where 1947 never happened.

Continue reading The Partition of Elites: India, Pakistan, and the Unfinished Trauma of 1947

Note on Moderation

In light of Omar stepping down from active management of BP, i wanted to share this note. As I have immense respect and gratitude towards Omar I wouldn’t want the brand he and others have built up (and i have contributed a bit) over last decade and half to just go downhill. Despite the success of Substack and X (and video platforms) I feel the BP blog presents nice niche with its moderate reach and past history of extremely insightful authors and commentators – I feel BP is a community/blog worth maintaining into the coming years (and hopefully decades).

Given the recent fracas on the blog and in between its authors and commentators, I think we ought to indulge in some moderation – how much is the question that can only be addressed as we go ahead.

In light of this i hope to:

  1. Write a bit more frequently on the blog.
  2. Moderate comments (not every day) and weed out filthy content which crosses a certain red line. I generally tend to be pretty liberal with my tolerance for free speech so i hope i do not indulge in too much censoring. XTM can take his call – everyone sees moderation different and being the admin and founder – his authority on moderation (along with Razib) will be the final call. But i know even he is pretty liberal with respect to comments.
  3. Where i think reasonable standards will apply viz commenting are BP authors. It lowers the Brand of Brown pundits if people who are authors on this platform indulge in trollish and racist behavior. All always authors can moderate their threads as they deep fit instead of indulging in shitposting with trollish comments. If someone wants to have a banter in comments I hope they remember this line. I am in no way an authority but i think what i have written here wrt different standards for authors makes sense.

As I have mentioned above I do have pretty liberal standards with speech. Giving a concrete example – I did not find the jibe “subhuman” or jibe as Elitist/Islamist/Brahmanical/Fascist (ideological) as crossing a Red-Line in general. Context is important and one off comment of such nature doesn’t alarm me (It might be a redline for someone else i do not disagree) – even if directed at me. After all isnt a Troll also a subhuman ? but we are fine to call people we disagree with as low IQ trolls all the time without getting offended. Having said this – different standards ought to apply to authors but i would leave it to XTM (though i would drop him a line)

I hope i am able to stay regularly active on this space as and when time permits. As XTM has said multiple times, moderating in a thankless mandate and i hope i can slightly reduce his burden going forward.

Pāṇini, the “Glitch,” and a Note From an Old Cambridge Friend

I received a message from a publicist this week. The name caught my eye because I knew the scholar from Cambridge years ago. The subject of the email was simple: a new book on Pāṇini and the old claim that something in his system “doesn’t work.”

For two and a half millennia, scholars have argued that Pāṇini’s grammar, the first true computational system for language, contains a flaw. His treatise gives a compact system for generating correct Sanskrit forms. But in cases where two rules seem to apply at the same time, most readers assumed the system breaks. Textbooks describe this as a “conflict problem.” Generations of commentators tried to patch it with exceptions, hierarchies, or interpretive workarounds.

The new book, Pāṇini’s Perfect Rule (December 2025), argues that the flaw was never there. The author, Rishi Rajpopat, claims the system already contains a rule for solving the conflict. According to him, Pāṇini didn’t leave a hole; modern readers simply looked in the wrong place. If his reading is right, the entire architecture of the grammar becomes visible as a single machine; elegant, compact, and self-consistent.

There are two parts to this story. Continue reading Pāṇini, the “Glitch,” and a Note From an Old Cambridge Friend

Blog Management (or lack of it, on my part)

This blog was created by Razib Khan and I joined it shortly afterwards. It has gone through some changes over time. For a period, I was the only “administrator” active on it, but I have not been devoting much time to it recently. As a result the blog had become rather inactive, but recently one of our early “founders” (XTM) has come back and taken a more active role in the blog and has revived activity on it.

Unfortunately, there were some clashes between authors and commentators recently and I am afraid that such has been my lack of attention that I have not even read most of the posts in question. So I think it is time to face the facts and admit that I am not going to be able to take a more active role and should therefore withdraw from responsibilities I am not able to fulfil. I hope to remain an author here and I hope to do more podcasts as well. Razib and whoever he designates/invites/allows will continue to run the blog and I wish them the best. I hope it remains a place where diverse voices from the Indian subcontinent can continue to debate the issues that are important for people of Indian origin (and people in general) all over the world.

I hope the authors I brought on will continue to write and comment as well.

How many fires are there, how many suns?

How many dawns? How many waters?

I ask this, O fathers, not to challenge.

O Sages, I ask it to know

(RigVeda Book 10, hymn 88)

AI vs Poet (Open Thread)

A University of Pittsburgh study presented participants with poems by ten renowned English-language poets—including Chaucer, Shakespeare, Whitman, Dickinson, and Plath—alongside AI-generated poems in their style using ChatGPT 3.5. Interestingly, AI poems were rated higher in overall quality than the human-written ones, contrary to previous findings.

I am perplexed about how we can assess an AI-generated poem as inferior to a human’s. As when we read a poem, we read it for its content, irrespective of anything else. The emotional valence of Iqbal’s Shikwa has nothing to do with his circumstances; whether he were a general in the British army or a debauched drunk, the poem would still be there to be read, cherished, and savoured. Extending this logic, how can AI-written poems be rated lower simply because they were not written by a human? I don’t know.

Anyone who wants to explain their take on this.

This is Not the India We Joined in 1947: MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi

 

In this in-depth conversation, Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, current Member of Parliament hailing from National Conference in Jammu Kashmir. He was also the former Cabinet Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. He shares his unfiltered thoughts on the abrogation of Article 370, the political transformation of India, and the struggles faced by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Ruhullah Mehdi discusses the foundation of Kashmir’s accession to India, emphasizing how Article 370 served as a unique bond that granted Jammu and Kashmir protections similar to those provided to regions like Himachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, and the North-East. He passionately criticises the BJP-led government for reneging on the promises made in 1947, accusing them of steering the country toward becoming a “Hindu Pakistan.” Drawing from his personal and political experiences, Mehdi reflects on his journey in public life. He raises critical questions about the cultural and political invasion of Kashmir under the guise of tourism, the targeted killings that have devastated both Kashmiri Pandits and Muslims, and the ongoing challenges to preserving Kashmiri identity amidst the RSS’s ideological agenda.

Why Brown Pundits Needs a Spine, Not a Consensus

As Brown Pundits returns to a steadier rhythm, I want to clarify a few things that have come up during the recent arguments, walkouts, and personal attacks. The charge that the blog ā€œleansā€ one way or another has become common: some say it is too Saffron, others say it is anti-Indian. This is predictable. It is also wrong.

My decisions as Admin have never been based on political alignment. They come from something deeper:

the civilizational context of the speaker.

There is a difference between criticism that comes from within a tradition, and criticism that comes from outside it. A Dharmic voice attacking India or Hindu society is part of an internal quarrel; a family fight inside a civilizational frame. I treat that as internal dissent, even when I disagree with most of it.

A critique that comes from an Abrahamic frame reads very differently. I know that worldview well. I know its instincts, its myths of moral supremacy, its rhetorical tricks, and its hostility to plural traditions. So I scrutinize it more closely.

That is not bias. That is context.

This also explains why some people were frustrated about moderation choices. But the real problem was simpler: for several months, the editors were not doing their job. Delegation failed. Moderation failed. Oversight failed. This strained the entire comment ecosystem and created the conditions for an outrage cycle.

The recent Sri Lanka post is a perfect example of what the blog should highlight. It captured the psychological cost of a civil war that most South Asians ignore. It cut through nationalist posturing and forced readers to confront a real tragedy. That is the purpose of this space. BP is not only a place for endless India–Pakistan sparring. Those fights bring traffic, but they do not deepen understanding.

The blow-up around caste revealed the same problem. The people who claim caste ā€œdoes not matterā€ often reveal how central it is to their worldview. When the conversation touched anything sensitive, the same voices who lecture others on ā€œfree speechā€ vanished into a hartal. The moment you discuss caste honestly, you become their enemy.

That was the real trigger; not any one commenter.

The worst part of this episode was the personal abuse I received. One email in particular was dehumanizing in a way that should be unacceptable anywhere, let alone here. The fact that it came from someone inducted onto the blog without proper vetting only made it worse. I was disappointed that this happened at all, and I have made it clear that it will not happen again. Going forward, I alone will approve new authors, aside from Razib, who I see as an ultimate authority. No exceptions.

This is not about ego, control, or insecurity. I am at peace with who I am, what I have built, and where I stand.

This is about responsibility. The person who carries the daily load of the site must also have control over who participates in shaping it. Authority without accountability is chaos; accountability without authority is impossible.

Brown Pundits works only when people argue honestly, write fearlessly, and disagree without turning each other into caricatures. We will get things wrong. We will over-moderate or under-moderate. But the only thing worse than imperfection is paralysis.

Silence is death for a blog. Engagement, messy, uneven, contentious, is life.

BP is alive again. Let’s keep it that way.

Why Bihar Is More Than Its Stereotypes with Sagar

A calm and clear conversation with Sagar, senior staff writer at The Caravan. We speak about why Bihar is more than a broken state, how caste politics really works on the ground, and how election season gets distorted by the memification of leaders who should not be elevated in the first place. He explains the gap between lived reality and the stories told by mainstream media, the truth behind the jungle raj label, and why Bihar has been misread for so long. Tune in for a grounded look at a state that carries more history, complexity, and dignity than the usual headlines allow.

The Weight of Memory: A Sri Lankan Reminder

By Sbarrkum

Every country carries its wounds, but some of us carry them in our bodies. I rarely speak about Sri Lanka’s civil war on this blog, because most of us have learned, painfully, to move on. But sometimes a comment or a casual reference to the LTTE pulls open a door that many of us have spent decades trying to close gently.

For me, this is not rhetoric. It is family history.

Two of my cousins were killed in the late 1980s; one by the LTTE, the other by the Army. Two more relatives were tortured. During the worst years, mobs came to burn down our home because they suspected we were Tamil. My mother stood outside, spoke to them calmly in Sinhalese, and convinced them to leave. That is how close violence came to us; literally to our doorstep.

I myself was arrested twice on suspicion of being an LTTE operative. I spent two days in police remand and was beaten with a belt. Friends who happened to witness the arrest intervened and contacted someone who could get me out. Had I remained until Monday, I would have been taken before a judge and sent to the notorious Boosa Prison. Many never returned from there.

I also lost people I cared about deeply. My late partner’s parents were among the sixty villagers killed in a single LTTE attack. In the area where I live, nearly every family lost someone; a brother, a father, a cousin, a neighbour.

Most Sri Lankans have made their peace with the past. We have had to. The country could not function otherwise. But when the conflict is invoked lightly or abstractly, without awareness of the cost paid by ordinary people, it reminds me how easily those of us outside the centre of global conversation are forgotten.

This is not a demand for silence. It is simply a reminder:

For many of us, this history is not theoretical. It is personal, lived, and unbearably real.

Meltdown Bhāṣya: Verse 1.1.1 (Part 1.3)

The philosophy of Land and the idea of God: The Cathedral of physicalism, A protestant materialism

Originally Published: February 03, 2025

Part 1.2

The philosophy of Land and the idea of God

The nirīśvaravādi ādi-accelerationists no doubt consider our usage of the word ā€˜God’ and countless references to ancient myths and texts a serious breach of the philosophy and a perversion of its ideas. Though we are not interested in soothing their fears, the objections they will raise must nevertheless be wrestled with, as Landian Accelerationism portrays itself a purely materialist philosophical system, which, although not often talked about at present, is properly referred to as ā€˜libidinal materialism’. Thus, we must descend into the ā€˜sublime basement’ of Land’s philosophy before we may return once more to the heady poetics of Meltdown. His system of thought is most comprehensively laid out in the opus The Thirst for Annihilation (Land, 1992b), which makes it clear that his philosophy follows in the wake of the Nietzschean ā€˜death of God’, something he explicitly states when he assembles a theoretical machine linking Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, and, most importantly, Bataille to himself. As Mackay and Brassier put it in the ā€˜Editors’ Introduction’ of Fanged Noumena (Land, 2012): ā€œLand allied himself to a line of renegade thinkers – Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bataille – who mocked and disparaged academicism and wielded philosophy as an implement for exacerbating enigma, disrupting orthodoxy, and transforming existenceā€ (p. 2-3). Continue reading Meltdown Bhāṣya: Verse 1.1.1 (Part 1.3)

Brown Pundits