moderation – 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:

Brown Pundits and the Echo Chamber Problem

The Echo Chamber of the Commentariat

It has been on my mind that Brown Pundits, for all its liveliness, risks drifting into an echo chamber. The commentariat is our lifeblood: their activity sustains the blog far more than page views alone. And yet, the very strength of that community can also be its blind spot.

I do not want Kabir to end up being the Cassandra of BP, always warning of decline, and being proved right in the end. If we are not careful, we could slide into a right-wing echo chamber where challenging voices fade, and the capacity for deep interrogation, the core of what makes BP unique, is diminished.

Pahalgam and the Question of Narrative Continue reading Brown Pundits and the Echo Chamber Problem

Moderation Note: On Gaza, October 7, and the Limits of Tolerance

Kabir’s Muslim nationalism cosplaying as liberalism is vexatious (it would be excellent if he just disclosed his priors), but I give the admin full authority to handle that directly.

My immediate concern is with BB-HS. I have barred him from becoming an author and have removed his last twenty comments. Despite his earlier misrepresentation about being “half-Muslim,” I allowed him to return under a new handle, tabula rasa. His output, however, is increasingly defined by “fantasies” about what a model minority should be; deracinated and devoid of meaningful character.

BB’s Response (after I had deleted his past 20 comments)

“Why though? The only animus I have is with Kabir because he represents a demographic I loathe – The soft Islamist | The ‘liberal’ English-speaking version who whitewashes his more hardcore cousins’ atrocities. Actual people have died due to Islamists which Kabir downplays (Pahalgam, October 7th). Some ribbing online is nothing in comparison. And I haven’t even said anything insulting.”

My Response

1. Kabir is not an Islamist. He is a Muslim nationalist—since Pakistan itself is sine qua non Muslim nationalism (the idea that Indian Muslims were entitled to their own nation). Just as every Israeli is, by definition, a Zionist/Jewish nationalist, even if individuals disagree with its implications, Kabir represents that current.
2. What stands out is that BB mentions only Pahalgam and October 7—both undeniably tragic events, and I say this as someone who is not Muslim—while omitting the ongoing genocide in Gaza.It is akin to referencing 9/11, a devastating moment in history, without also acknowledging the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq and the millions of lives lost in their aftermath.
3. Unlike Kabir, vexatious, but rarely personal, BB makes his attacks direct. He is not Kabir’s friend indulging in ribbing; he is simply “Honey” under another guise.
4. What sets him apart is an openly hierarchical stance: non-Muslim lives ranked above Muslim ones, echoing the very post-colonial divide-and-rule strategies we are meant to reject.
5. Kabir manipulates through weaponised victimhood; BB chooses blunt hostility, lacing personal abuse into his commentary. I have permanently removed Honey’s comments for that reason, vulgarity leaves no space for debate and I treat BB and Honey as a single entity.
6. Beneath the very different styles of BB-HS & Kabir lies the same contempt: the belief that the only acceptable minority is one hollowed out, compliant, and dead on the inside.

Moderation Philosophy

As a Founder, my job is to ensure Brown Pundits does not become an echo chamber. I have repeatedly critiqued Kabir’s contradictions, but once I accepted him as a Muslim nationalist cosplaying liberalism, I could also accept his place in the debate. We have multiple Hindu nationalists here, and when Kabir is challenged\moderated, the balance tends to restore itself. The ecosystem can correct for his presence.

Finally, let me stress: the comment boards are not the only heart of this site. Too often they descend into noise. If regular commentators want to influence debate constructively, they should apply to become Authors; where they can speak directly to our 2,000+ daily readers, not just the dozen or so regular commentariat.

Brown Pundits is rapidly emerging as the most interesting Indo-Pak cross-channel precisely because it is not an echo chamber. We literally upset everyone and that is a great thing because it means we are covering new difficult terrain. My moderation began with strict principles, but like everyone else, I have a life, job, and family. That means I must also be pragmatic.

🗓️ One Year Ago Today: The Taj Mahal, Sacred Lands, and the Power of Timing

Friends,

The spirit of Brown Pundits has always been dialogue — open, searching, and at times, fierce. But dialogue only flourishes when it is consistent and principled.

Recently, a contradiction has emerged in Kabir’s contributions: applying one set of standards to India and Pakistan, and a different set to Israel. This has led to repeated cycles of disruption, rather than genuine exchange.

To preserve the integrity of our space, Kabir’s participation will be paused until this inconsistency is clarified (we will remove any of his comments that do not address and acknowledge the contradiction; we will also remove any replies to his comments). This is not censorship, but stewardship. Free speech here is not about endless repetition; it is about coherence, accountability, and respect for the whole.

🕊️ On Confirmation, Coincidence, and the Return of Brown Pundits

Exactly one year ago today, 17 September 2024, I published a piece titled “The Battle for the Taj Mahal: India’s Sacred Lands & Waqf Boards Under Fire”.

At the time, Brown Pundits was stirring from hibernation. Readership had dwindled to near-zero, the commentariat was dormant, and the site, once lively and interrogative in its heyday, felt like a forgotten archive. That post, like so many others before it, was written in solitude. There was no traction, no expectation. Just thought, laid down with care.

And yet here we are, one year to the day, and the blog has roared back to life.

📿 What the Baháʼí Tradition Calls “Confirmation”

In the Baháʼí tradition, we don’t reduce these moments to mere coincidence. Instead, we speak of confirmation; divine endorsement coupled with meaningful alignment. A subtle assurance that what was offered in silence may still echo in relevance.

Sometimes, truth takes time. It must be planted, and it must ripen. And then, if the conditions are right, it re-emerges at the very moment it’s needed again.

🏛️ Revisiting the Taj & the Sacredness of Land

That post, exploring Waqf Boards, sacred lands, and the Taj Mahal’s place in India’s civilizational memory, was written in a moment of saturation. Too many headlines, too little context. My intention wasn’t to settle the argument, but to recast it: What makes land sacred? Who has the right to remember? Who gets to reclaim?

Reading it now, what’s striking is not just how relevant it remains, but how the same debate has reassembled; not just thematically, but almost ritually, with new voices circling back in familiar orbits.

🌀 Same Debate, Same Deflection

And so we arrive back, with uncanny symmetry, to Kabir. He’s long argued that nations must be judged by their own internal frameworks: Continue reading 🗓️ One Year Ago Today: The Taj Mahal, Sacred Lands, and the Power of Timing

🧵 Open Thread: Hate Speech, Travel Notes, and Diplomatic Surprises

I just saw a comment that genuinely crossed the line; not just a misstep, but something hateful, dehumanizing, and deeply communal. It invoked Partition violence in a way that glorified massacre. That’s not just a dogwhistle, that’s a foghorn.

As most of you know, I’m a light-touch moderator. I tolerate a lot. I believe in messy dialogue. I’ve been fair on my WhatsApp groups, fair on BP, and generally try to err on the side of letting things play out. But this? This wasn’t a close call. It was a clear failure of moral language.

Even if the commenter didn’t “mean it,” this kind of rhetoric has consequences. When you’re speaking about events like 1947, where entire families were destroyed, you need to speak with care, not contempt. There’s no room for casual violence, coded language, or historical gloating. None. Zero.

Before this commenter contributes further to the blog, he will need to fully retract and apologise for the communal language he used. Criticism is fair game. But hate speech is not. Kabir can be theatrical, yes but he does not traffic in dehumanization. The standards must be consistent, and that comment clearly crossed the line.

Please observe this on the thread. I’m traveling, and this is an open post. I’ll be back with more soon. I’ve written a bit in my newsletter but I will expand on those.

In the meantime:

➡️ Yes, it appears Pakistan is running smart diplomacy — both with Iran and the U.S.

➡️ I don’t have time to share the links (plane about to take off); they’re all Google-able.

➡️ But credit where it’s due. There is no infallibility in foreign affairs. But when someone cannot stand to see Pakistan get anything right, it reveals more about their own biases than about geopolitics.

This isn’t about defending states or “sides”; it’s about defending basic decency in discourse.

Community Guidelines – Please Read

Everyone, please take note of the following rules:

Authors may not void or edit the work\comments of other authors.
Maintain courtesy and respect in all interactions.
Nivedita has been made Editor. I believe it’s important to have a strong female editorial voice on the weblog. She has full discretion to void posts or comments she finds inappropriate; she has no need to appeal to me first. If you feel a decision was unfair, you’re welcome to raise it with me privately.

If anyone violates these rules, please contact me immediately. I’ll address the issue on a three-strike basis.

Lastly, a gentle reminder: please don’t post or comment in anger. It rarely leads anywhere constructive. I am present, I am paying attention, and I do my best to be fair. It’s late and I have an early start, but I’m a little concerned about the tone of the threads tonight; let’s keep this space thoughtful, not reactive.

Thank you.

Comments, Censorship, and the Cultivation of Voice

Over the past 45 days, I’ve had far less time for BP than I’d have liked. But now that I’m 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

We’re evolving how we manage our comment threads. Here’s 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 Author’s comment.

If an Author has a concern with another Author’s 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 you’re serious about your voice, join us. Monthly posting is enough. I ask only for basic human decency; plural views are welcome, and I’m always happy to edit drafts to preserve your tone and intent.

5. Respect BP for what it is.

Brown Pundits isn’t just a site. It’s a conversation space. And like any serious space, it requires some light rules; not to control, but to protect. Let’s build something lasting where people from all sides of the divide can meaningfully engage with one another.

🧵Quick Moderation Note

Just a heads-up for everyone:

India–Pakistan threads are totally fine when the post is about India–Pakistan, or if it’s an Open Thread. Let the sparks fly there.
But on other posts—please avoid steering every conversation back to India–Pakistan. It’s not always relevant and derails useful discussion.

I won’t be actively moderating every thread. If something is genuinely offensive or disruptive, feel free to flag it—I’ll step in only if needed. Continue reading 🧵Quick Moderation Note

On Moderation, Minoritization, and the Elite

Pulse: The Threads We Weave —

Lately I’ve wondered whether I over-curated the threads. Things feel quieter. Maybe too quiet. But perhaps that’s the cost of raising the bar—of asking for dialogue instead of dopamine. Still, this lull has me reflecting not just on moderation but on why some arguments no longer move me.

Take the Indo-Pak conflict: once electric, now strangely inert. That shift reflects my own evolution over two decades. I no longer inhabit that binary. I carry a layered identity—a South Asian Bahá’í sensibility shaped by Persian aesthetics, grounded in British institutions, and fluently navigated through English. That complexity is my compass. It’s why I care less about flags and more about forces.

And the real force that shapes our lives? The elite. Not as a pejorative, but as a structural reality. I see it as nested tiers: Continue reading On Moderation, Minoritization, and the Elite

Request for Calm and Civility

Dear Punditeers,

A gentle reminder to take a breath and step back. Kabir is entitled to his views—there’s no obligation to counter every provocation point-by-point.

What’s troubling isn’t disagreement—it’s the sheer volume of rage replies. This doesn’t reflect the standard we aspire to. It’s neither civil nor intellectual. The only reason I’m stepping in is because, while I generally prefer light-touch moderation, the tone of these threads now reflects poorly on the broader community. It lowers the quality of both the commentariat and the platform.

We’ve seen this play out before—Sepia Mutiny is a cautionary tale. Let’s not replicate it.

So please: engage with ideas, not just identities. Let’s not derail into yet another endless Indo-Pak back-and-forth. We’re capable of better.

Warmly,

X.T.M

✉️ [Addendum]

On Nivedita’s query, I’ve finally re-created the Brown Pundits email account. It’s hosted on Gmail, but I’ve deliberately avoided posting the full address here to prevent spam harvesters. If you’d like to get in touch privately or share something offline, feel free to reach out via:

📧 brownpundits19 [@g]