Because Tarof isnât about numerical formulae. Itâs not just âno means yes after the third try.â Itâs not a knock-knock joke.
Onunchi, Taâarof, and High-Context Societies
Read More Here
Because Tarof isnât about numerical formulae. Itâs not just âno means yes after the third try.â Itâs not a knock-knock joke.
Onunchi, Taâarof, and High-Context Societies
Read More Here
In the aftermath of the extremely tragic plane crash in Ahmedabad (the photo features the late Ali family, may they rest in the Highest Heaven), one tiny detail stood out; not the cause of the disaster (still contested), but who was being heard. Many of the victimsâ families interviewed by the BBC were of Muslim origin (it was also during the Eid Holiday break). And while that may seem incidental, it reveals a subtle, recurring pattern in Indiaâs public discourse.
Three threads emerge:
Continue reading Visibility, Voice, and the Indian Muslim Dilemma
Kabir:I will remind you of the Sachar Committee Report which stated that the condition of Indian Muslims was worse than that of Dalits. This was a report commissioned by the Congress government not by Pakistanis. India has never had a Muslim Prime Minister. I would be willing to bet that this is not going to happen in my lifetime. The Muslim League succeeded in getting the Muslim majority provinces a country of our own. This is a huge achievement.
Partition was sold as deliverance. In hindsight, it may have been the most sophisticated act of self-disinheritance in modern Muslim history. A century ago, Muslims on the subcontinent were a political force â deeply embedded, numerically significant, and intellectually diverse. Today, they are divided, disenfranchised, and disoriented. Three nations. No unity. No power. No clear path forward. Letâs take stock:
1. Divided into Three
Pakistan. Bangladesh. India. Three fractured expressions of one civilizational legacy â none of which fully represents or protects the totality of South Asia’s Muslims.
2. No Electorate Leverage
In India, Muslims lost their negotiating bloc overnight. From being a decisive vote in undivided India, they became a permanent minority â politically cautious, rhetorically silenced, and often viewed with suspicion. In Pakistan, Muslim identity became so hegemonic it erased internal plurality. In Bangladesh, it became suspect altogether.
3. Psychological Cleft
Two-thirds of Muslims had to unlearn India. Partition forced them to disown their history. The other third had to choose between being Muslim or becoming more Indian. This psychic wound â of being here, but not quite belonging â has never healed.
4. Urdu: From Bridge to Burden
Urdu, once the cultural glue of the Muslim elite, is now:
A shared language was replaced by suspicion and statecraft.
5. Islam as a Spent Force
Partition Islam was meant to be political. It became performative. There is no robust Muslim political expression in the subcontinent today â only tokenism, sectarianism, or silence. It resembles post-revolution Iran: Islam was not discredited by the West, but by what its stewards did in its name. Partition didnât solve the âMuslim Question.â It just made it unspeakable â in three different politicised idioms.
In a recent video, a young Punjabi woman, likely Sikh, candidly shares her discomfort upon returning to India after living in Canada (this kind of echoes the Aussie influencer’s comments on chronic Indian inequality). The noise, the pollution, the density. Her frustration is raw, familiar, and deeply sincere.
But beneath her words lies something larger: the aesthetic asymmetry that defines the postcolonial condition. Wide roads, clean air, manicured parks; these are not just amenities. In the global South, they become symbols of escape, status, and salvation. And so, millions migrate. Or aspire to. Not just for jobs, but for dignity. For air that doesnât burn. For order that doesnât humiliate. For a feeling of being seen.
And when they do, when they arrive in Canada, the UK, Australia, something subtle happens: they become grateful. Not just for opportunity, but for escape. For the fact that the West âworks.â That gratitude then curdles into deference.
They begin to believe that the world outside the West is meant to be chaotic, dirty, loud. That governance is a Western gift. That clean streets and quiet parks are civilizational rather than institutional. This is the gratitude trap; the soft power of asphalt, symmetry, and silence.
And itâs why postcolonial recovery is so difficult. Not because the global South lacks culture or potential, but because its own elites, shaped by extraction, not architecture, rarely build for elegance. Rarely build for pride. Rarely build for joy. What the West exported was not just railways or rule of law. It exported a built environment that still shames us. And until that is understood, until we take seriously the spatial dignity of our cities and the material form of our futures, the colonial spell will remain unbroken.
Over the past few months, Iâve noticed a marked improvement in the quality of conversation on BP. A large part of this, I suspect, is due to eliminating trigger-response dynamics; as seen when I barred Q on a technicality. It created space: suddenly, the commentariat was thinking, not reacting. In that quiet, something became obvious.
Whenever Kabir invokes âneutral experts,â they always seem to be Western, usually venerably white, often from institutions directly involved in the colonial rape of India. And yet these same voices are elevated as if they were impartial or above it all. They arenât. They are the architects, not the observers. This is the paradox at the heart of Pakistan. Continue reading Why Pakistan Is a Colonial Project & India a Civilizational One
Over the past 45 days, Iâve had far less time for BP than Iâd have liked. But now that Iâm back in the US, I finally have space to refocus on what matters most for BP: stewarding it as a platform for intelligent, plural, and principled discourse.
Updated Commentator Guidelines
Weâre evolving how we manage our comment threads. Hereâs the updated approach:
1. Authors moderate their own threads.
Each Author is free to shape the conversation under their posts. If you post it, you own the thread. Also to the commentariat, if you put a picture and capitalise your handle, it makes you more “human” and memorable (without having to trade in your anonymity, thank you Indosaurus).
2. Do not delete comments; void them.
Deletion removes our memory. If a comment crosses the line, Authors may void it (ideally only the offending items but I can understand the temptation to void it all), but we preserve it as part of the archive. Cultivating a robust commentariat is a core BP value.
3. Authors may never moderate another Authorâs comment.
If an Author has a concern with another Authorâs comment, they should reach out to me directly. I will arbitrate. No unilateral actions between Authors.
4. Want to avoid moderation? Become an Author.
If youâre serious about your voice, join us. Monthly posting is enough. I ask only for basic human decency; plural views are welcome, and Iâm always happy to edit drafts to preserve your tone and intent.
5. Respect BP for what it is.
Brown Pundits isnât just a site. Itâs a conversation space. And like any serious space, it requires some light rules; not to control, but to protect. Letâs build something lasting where people from all sides of the divide can meaningfully engage with one another.

A recurring tension in South Asian discourse is the question of consistency: how states interpret borders, secession, and sovereignty; not in principle, but in practice.
Liberalstanâs case is that India acted selectively in 1947: Junagadh saw a plebiscite, Hyderabad faced military action, and Kashmir was referred to the UN. From this perspective, India chose whichever method suited its interests in each case. To Liberalstan, this isnât pragmatism, itâs hypocrisy. The charge: if self-determination wasnât good for Kashmir, why should it be for Balochistan? And what of Sikkim, Goa, Pondicherry, Khalistan, Nagaland, or the Naxalites?
Hindustanâs reply is rooted in realpolitik: decisions were shaped by demography, geography, and threats; not abstract norms. Q.E.A. Jinnahâs attempt to absorb Junagadh and court Jodhpur are seen as deliberate provocations, since Junagadh was Hindu-majority, non-contiguous, and largely symbolic (home to Somnath). After that, New Delhi abandoned any illusions of standard rules. From Hindustanâs view, Liberalstanâs moral framing is not only naĂŻve but deeply asymmetrical; ignoring 1947, 1965, Kargil, Mumbai, and the long shadow of Pakistanâs own interventions.
When it comes to Balochistan, Hindustan notes its accession was closer to annexation, comparable to Nepal or Bhutan vanishing into India. Three major insurgencies since the 1960s complicate the narrative of âfinality.â But here, Liberalstanflips the script: what is labeled a disputed territory in Kashmir is declared settled in Balochistan. This inversion doesnât go unnoticed.
In truth, both sides are mirrors. Each demands flexibility for itself and finality for the other. Each invokes âconsentâselectively; whether that of a prince, a people, or a state. The tragedy, perhaps, isnât inconsistency but the absence of a shared regional framework for self-determination. One not held hostage by grievance, revenge, or exception.
Until then, accusations of hypocrisy will persist, each side fluent in the otherâs blind spots.
âBetween Scripts, Beyond Borders: What It Means to Be a Punjabi Hindu-Sikh Sufi Poet in Urduâ
By Manav Sachdeva urf Maasoom Shah
What is my being as a Punjabi Hindu-Sikh writer of Sufi Poetry in Urdu while living between Ludhiana, New Delhi, and New York? What does it mean to me, mean for me, and mean to other people as they look at me with equal parts wonder and disdain as I embrace Farsi and Urdu as my own as did my ancestors prior to partition when Urdu was a language of our regions, as Javed Akhtar once said about language being of regions rather than religions?
To be a Punjabi Hindu-Sikh writing Sufi poetry in Urdu is to carry the weight of centuries in my breath and the burden of a border in my bones. It means returning to a home I never leftâand was never allowed to fully claim.
It means that when I write in Nastaliq script or even Roman or Hindi script but in Urdu, or quote Hafiz or write in Naskh in Farsi, I am not converting, betraying, or straying. I am completing a circle. One my ancestors began long before Partition redrew maps and mistrust into the fabric of everyday language.
As Javed Akhtar once reminded us, âLanguages belong to regions, not religions.â I write in Urdu not because I am Muslim though I don’t deny that label for myself either, but specifically, because I am Punjabi. Because I am from a land where Heer ran through the fields, where Bulleh Shah danced with defiance, where Shah Hussain stitched poetry into the shawls of the soul.
It means I am watchedâsometimes with wonder, sometimes with suspicion. Some marvel at the fusion: the New York poet invoking Mir and Ghalib in Brooklyn cafĂ©s, speaking of ishq-e-haqiqi in the same breath as trauma therapy and diasporic longing. Others look on with narrowed eyes, askingâsilently or aloudââWhose side are you on?â
To that, I say: I am on the side of poetry. Of shared breath across centuries. Of the tongue that trembles with truth regardless of script. Of the language that fed my grandfatherâs soul in Amritsar and now finds voice again in mine in Washington Square or Connaught Place.
It means I translate myself dailyâbetween identities, continents, alphabets. Sometimes I write Mohabbat in Devnagari. Sometimes I whisper shukr where others expect dhanyavaad. I live between the ik onkar and the bismillah, between naan and bagel, between Sufi silences and the American chaos of self-invention.
And what does it mean for me? It means freedom. It means rebellion. It means healing.
It means to remember that before Urdu became politicized, it was loved. Before it was feared, it was sung. It was the shared heritage of Lahore and Ludhiana–the cities of my father’s and my birth, Delhi and Dera Ghazi Khan–cities of ancestry, further and present.
I do not ask permission to write in Urdu. I write to reclaim what was always mine.
And what might it mean to others?
Maybe discomfort. Maybe curiosity. Maybe a slow awakening to the lie that language must belong to creed. Maybe the beginning of a reckoning: that art refuses to stay in its box, that love poems donât ask for passports, and that faith is sometimes just the belief that what was broken can be made whole.
So I will continue.
To write qawwalis and qasidas and sehras and ghazals and nazms in cafĂ©s. To quote Baba Farid beside Rumi. To live as a bridgeânot between East and West, but between the false walls weâve built within ourselves. And if some still look on with disdain, let them. I am writing in the voice of my ancestors.
And they are no longer silent.
Dave’s comment:
“I have in fact met some. In person. Ran into a lovely couple while on vacay in Guatemala. Excellent conversation along a 2 hour shared shuttle ride. Shia muslims from Baltistan â he took great pains to indicate that his community is not like the average Pakistani, and that in his biradari they are proud to educate their daughters and wives, have them take the lead in public lives. Both his daughters were young med students.
The tragedy for Pakistan is that such actual liberals with modern outlooks wisely avoid taking public positions. They donât want to get lynched. Hence the domination by the nutters and fringe on the right continues. Leading to mis-categorization of the right-wing as âthe centerâ.”
The above praises a “liberal” Shia couple from Baltistan for educating their daughters and living modern lives, contrasting them with âthe average Pakistani,â portrayed as a backward, anti-education fanatic. This framing is not just lazy; itâs offensive.
It reflects a deeply colonial hangover: the idea that modernity is rare in Pakistan, that deviation from presumed fanaticism is a revelation. But letâs be clear, Pakistanis, like people anywhere else, are ambitious, aspirational, and complex. Medical colleges are oversubscribed. Education is highly prized. And many people, devout or not, are navigating life with dignity, values, and a deep desire to move forward; not just materially, but spiritually and ethically.
Politics of Projection
Just because a population is not obsessed with hyper-capitalism doesnât mean it is âbackward.â It may simply mean it has not surrendered entirely to the logic that everything must be monetized. Thatâs not regression; it might be restraint. In a world where the only metric that seems to matter is money, resisting that tide is itself a kind of wisdom.
This kind of patronizing liberalism, one that exoticizes progressive Muslims as rare exceptions, isnât harmless. It feeds into a narrative that justifies erasure: of language, culture, self-rule, and civilizational continuity. South Asians speaking in English, debating one another with colonial grammars, is not a mark of modernity, it is a symptom of displacement. The Global South doesnât need to be saved. We need to be seen, on our own terms.
In a world increasingly defined by sides, partisanship often masquerades as empathy. Whether itâs Pakistanis performing concern for Indian liberalism, or Indians invoking the plight of Muslim minorities to score points against their ideological rivals, the truth is simple: if you already have a side, youâre not truly invested in the fate of the other.
This isnât cynicism; itâs structure. Sides, by their nature, demand loyalty. And loyalty comes at the expense of dispassion. You can mourn injustice selectively, but donât pretend itâs universalism. More often than not, tribalism puts on the mask of principle.
As a BahĂĄâĂ, Iâve been shaped by a millenarian vision that urges global unity; yet Iâm also deeply influenced by Hindu pluralism and pagan elasticity. Nicholas Nassim Taleb once said the more pagan a mind, the more brilliant it might be (excellent article) because it can hold many contradictions without demanding resolution. That capaciousness allows one to see that not every question needs a single answer. Hinduism, with its deep pluralism, contrasts radically with Islamâs (and Judaismâs) uncompromising monotheism. And yet, these two traditions are bound togetherâenmeshed across centuries of history, thought, and blood. Their tension is real, but so is their shared life.
Thatâs the point: opposites donât just coexist, they form a whole. But when we prescribe change for the âother side,â we ignore our own capacity for reform. Itâs always easier to critique outward than to renovate inward. Especially in a world run by oligarchic elites and managed emotions, where empathy is choreographed and outrage monetized.
So no, the Dalit Muslims of Dharavi arenât the problem. Nor are the marginalized Hindus of East UP and Biharis. The problem is that a single family can build a private skyscraper in Mumbai while the city gasps beneath it. Itâs the system that rewards power accumulation, not its occasional victims, that should concern us.
I donât offer neat solutions. Maybe itâs taxation. Maybe itâs redistribution. Maybe itâs noblesse oblige. But the first step is this: stop pretending your critique of the other side is altruism. Itâs not. Itâs strategy. And perhaps the more honest work begins at homeâwith your own side, your own people, your own self.