digital etiquette – Brown Pundits

Interdiction

I’ve made a decision: Kabir will no longer be allowed to comment on Brown Pundits.

This isn’t about silencing the only active Pakistani Muslim voice here. Nor is it about shutting down disagreement. It’s about something more basic: respect; for this space, for conversation, and for the people who show up in good faith.

Earlier today, I had to invoke the five-comment deletion rule after one of Sbarrkum’s replies crossed a line. He implied grotesque accusations. I’ve said it before: all life is sacred. That kind of slander won’t stand. Ever.

The admins have asked me for some time to be firmer. I’ve held back. I value openness. But Brown Pundits is not a free-for-all. We care about how people argue, not just what they argue.

I’d meant to write something calmer after yoga. Because I care about this project. I believe in it. BP must be a place of respect. That comes from a deeper idea; dharma, a commitment to plurality and balance. Even when we fall short, that’s the standard we aim for.

I’m not saying India, or the BP commentariat, always gets it right. Sometimes, on topics like caste, we speak from a place of blind privilege. And as the founder, I know my voice carries weight. That’s not always fair.

But this is the key: we must disagree with grace. And Kabir doesn’t. His tone is often scornful. He treats this space as beneath him.

Over the years, I’ve seen something: for many Pakistanis, the deepest value is ‘Izzat; honour and status. It often matters more than truth. But that ‘Izzat seems to vanish in the face of power—especially when that power is Western or Arab. Kabir speaks glowingly of “the West.” But when it comes to Dharma Asia, he sneers.

That sneer has been aimed at Brown Pundits. And I won’t allow that anymore. Kabir may see BP as “lesser,” unworthy of his respect. You don’t get to sneer and stay.

This isn’t a permanent ban. But it is an interdiction. Kabir is welcome to focus on his Substack. I wish him well. If he ever wants to return, he can contact me directly. But that will require real contrition; not performance.

Let me end with this: this is not about politics. People here hold strong views; on India, on Palestine, on religion. That’s not the problem. The problem is contempt. Mockery. Scorn. Brown Pundits will always welcome hard conversations. But only if they’re honest. And only if they’re respectful.

On another happier note, Nigerian ingenuity:

What Is Brown Pundits For?

Brown Pundits has always been an open tent—not a monolith, not a movement, and certainly not a megaphone. A forum. A space where ideas, arguments, and identities from across the Brown world are aired, examined, and sometimes clashed over—with the hope that we all leave a little sharper than we arrived. But with that openness comes tension. How do we balance quality and quantity? Principle and pluralism? Coherence and contradiction?

It’s something I’ve reflected on often in other matters of my life (like party-planning for instance). When I’m in the UK, time is tight. When I’m in the US, there’s more room for Brown Pundits. In that ebb, others—like Kabir—have stepped in, contributing with energy and range. And I’m grateful.

Some of Kabir’s posts may align politically with The Wire. That’s fine. Other Pundits lean toward a down-low Hindu Right. Also fine. This was never a place for orthodoxy. We aren’t here to gatekeep belief—we’re here to grow through encounter. The real question isn’t what side are you on? It’s why are you here?

If you’re here to dunk, to declare, to dominate—maybe this isn’t the right space. But if you’re here to engage, to learn, to argue in good faith—welcome. As authors, we don’t always agree. We shouldn’t. But how we disagree matters. To that end, I’d like to lay out four standing principles—not as commandments, but as shared norms that keep our house in order:

Continue reading What Is Brown Pundits For?

Flame Thread Protocols: Honey Kabir

A Note from the Editor

Flame thread warning: Honey vs. Kabir.

Last night’s open thread surged past 50 comments—most of it orbiting the now-familiar friction between the two.

Let me be clear: I’m inclined toward Kabir. He’s often overwrought, sometimes hyperbolic, but he’s a known quantity. He’s been part of this space for nearly a decade. He is a “real person.” We know how he argues, where he lands, and the limits of his provocations.

Honey is harder to read. Multiple handles. No clear background. No track record. And a rhetorical posture that feels less like engagement, more like carpet bombing—especially when it comes to Pakistan. There’s a difference between critique and hatred, and it’s usually in the tone. “Pakistanis under-endowed”—LOL, happy to disprove that.

Moderation is evolving. I no longer think of it as refereeing an online debate. I think of it like hosting a discussion in my living room. That means: Continue reading Flame Thread Protocols: Honey Kabir