Brown Pundits exists to test ideas against evidence. That is not happening consistently. Four contributors have split into two camps. Threads are filling with video links and recycled assertions. Serious readers are leaving. This post explains what changes and why.
Effective immediately, all four authors have been moved to commentator status until each individually promises they can maintain the same standard in comments as in posts; high signal, evidence-based, no exceptions.
Kabir has resigned. I truly hope he reconsiders. But his impending departure forces a larger point. Online forums need grace. Not agreement. Not deference. Grace.
I have noticed that some of the Saffroniate express themselves bluntly. I saw this years ago in Cambridge as well. They are not always fluent in the soft, coded language of the liberal consensus. They do not always wrap their arguments in silk. That does not mean they should be silenced. Allowing people to articulate their emotions ā without crudity, but without stylistic policing ā expands the conversation. A forum that only rewards one rhetorical style becomes sterile. At the same time, no single voice defines BP. Not Kabir. Not BB. Not RNJ. Not myself. The site is larger than any one temperament.
What makes BP valuable is that it attempts something rare: a space where Desis can argue without collapsing into communal silos. That is fragile. It requires reflection from all sides. Grace does not mean surrender. It means refusing to reduce opponents to caricature. It means recognising that patriotism, even when misplaced in our view, is not insanity. It means remembering that tone can wound as easily as content. If BP is to survive as a broad church, it will not do so through factional victory. It will do so through a culture where disagreement does not require humiliation. That is harder than winning an argument.
Everyone; please do not violate our rules egregiously. If moderation collapses, I will stop doing it. And if that happens, the comment boards will descend into noise very quickly. That helps no one.
The comments are growing again after a lull, which is a good sign. But it also puts real strain on time. I would rather focus on writing and commissioning strong posts than constantly firefighting threads. If you value the quality of this space, help maintain it.
If anyone would like to volunteer as a balanced and fair moderator, step forward. Not a partisan enforcer. Not a factional referee. Someone steady. I have given BB authorship privileges because Kabir, while diligent, is beginning to police too aggressively, and BB, when restrained, can bring levity without venom. That balance matters.
On a separate note, a thought. Bharat, that is, India in her most sublime and civilizational sense, possesses something like sacred geography. Rivers, mountains, pilgrimage circuits. The land itself carries immense metaphysical weight as both the home and centre of Dharma.
Pakistan, by contrast, was founded less on geography than on mission. It has an animating purpose, often framed as unifying or protecting the Ummah, Ā but that is not the same thing as sacred land. One is spatial and civilizational; the other is ideological and directional. They are not equivalents, and confusion between them produces bad arguments.
Keep the debates sharp. Keep them serious. But keep them civil. If moderation fails, everyone loses.
A short video of an Iranian woman is circulating on X. In it, she says Islam is not Iranās native religion and was imposed on Zoroastrian Persians through torture, massacre, rape, and enslavement. The clip is amplified by familiar accelerants, including Tommy Robinson, and is now being treated as a one-line explanation for a fourteen-century transformation.
Almost immediately, a counter-narrative appears. It insists there is ānot a single piece of evidenceā for forced conversion in Persia; that Islamisation was slow; and that many Persians, especially Sasanian elites, moved toward the new order for political, fiscal, and social reasons. A further layer is added: nostalgia for the Sasanians is misplaced because late Sasanian society was rigid, unequal, and harsh, and early Muslim rule improved conditions for ordinary people. These are two different claims. They are routinely fused. History does not require that fusion.
Iāve made a decision: Kabir will no longer be allowed to comment on Brown Pundits.
This isnāt about silencing the only active Pakistani Muslim voice here. Nor is it about shutting down disagreement. Itās 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 Sbarrkumās replies crossed a line. He impliedgrotesque accusations. Iāve said it before: all life is sacred. That kind of slander wonāt stand. Ever.
The admins have asked me for some time to be firmer. Iāve 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.
Iād 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, thatās the standard we aim for.
Iām 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. Thatās not always fair.
But this is the key: we must disagree with grace. And Kabir doesnāt. His tone is often scornful. He treats this space as beneath him.
Over the years, Iāve 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 powerāespecially when that power is Western or Arab. Kabir speaks glowingly of āthe West.ā But when it comes to Dharma Asia, he sneers.
That sneer has been aimed at Brown Pundits. And I wonāt allow that anymore. Kabir may see BP as ālesser,ā unworthy of his respect. You donāt get to sneer and stay.
This isnāt 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. Thatās not the problem. The problem is contempt. Mockery. Scorn. Brown Pundits will always welcome hard conversations. But only if theyāre honest. And only if theyāre respectful.
I watched several videos ā four or five, maybe more ā of public figures sending their wishes. Among them: Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Mohammed Siraj, and Mukesh Ambani.
Mukesh Ambani, of course, remains closely aligned with the establishment, and Aamir Khan seemed to lean heavily into his Hindu heritage ā adorned with Rakhis on his wrist, even a Bindi. Heās presenting himself now in a distinctly Hindu cultural idiom, though he comes from a very prominent Indian Muslim family.
By contrast, Shah Rukh Khan stood out. His message was subtly sardonic ā he remarked that the recipient was āoutrunning young people like me.ā It was light, but just subversive enough to feel intentional. Interestingly, both Shah Rukh and Aamir spoke in shuddh Hindi, which added a certain performative weight to their gestures.
Hindu Art
Iāve been fairly busy the past few days, mostly focused on BRAHM Collections;Ā writing about carpets, curating Trimurti sculptures, and exploring Ardhanarishvara iconography. Itās been a deep dive into the civilizational grammar of India and by extension, the porous boundary between sacred art and civil religion.
In the background, Iāve also been chipping away at longer-form reflections; trying to crack the formula for my newsletter (believe it or not the readership is neck to neck with BP but different demographics). Itās all a bit scattered, but the writing has become its own brown paper trail.
On the Commentariat (and Why Iām Stepping Back)
I still follow the commentariat but Iām slowly easing off. Thereās a rhythm to it, sure, but too often it turns into exhaustion. Iāve removed all of Honey Singhās abusive posts. Abuse is now a hard red line for me, but beyond that, Iām stepping back from constant moderation or sparring. Continue reading Threads, Carpets, and PM Modi’s 75th
Iāve updated this post (Brown Pundits is not an echo chamber) after realising something important.
What began as a spirited disagreement veered into something darker. It turns out that bombay_badshah, a voice I initially assumed to be new, may not be who he claims to be (I had a hunch but so did Kabir, that BB was HS reincarnated). The posting style, the fixations, the timing; all too familiar. My suspicion is that BB may be a derivative or proxy of HS, previously banned. If true, this was not a genuine disagreement; it was entrapment, bait-and-switch.
In that light, I owe Kabir an apology. He was provoked in bad faith by someone who may be operating behind a mask. And that matters, because here on Brown Pundits, identity isnāt incidental; it shapes perspective, and we respect that. We excavate worldviews, not just opinions.
While I cannot definitively prove that BB is HS, the circumstantial evidence is strong. I will allow BB to remain but if the commentary returns obsessively to Kabir or Pakistan, I will intervene. Everyone is welcome to engage on substance. But this space will not be hijacked.
The original post remains below the jump, unedited but its context has now changed.
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. Thatās not just a dogwhistle, thatās a foghorn.
As most of you know, Iām a light-touch moderator. I tolerate a lot. I believe in messy dialogue. Iāve 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 wasnāt a close call. It was a clear failure of moral language.
Even if the commenter didnāt āmean it,ā this kind of rhetoric has consequences. When youāre speaking about events like 1947, where entire families were destroyed, you need to speak with care, not contempt. Thereās 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. Iām traveling, and this is an open post. Iāll be back with more soon. Iāve written a bit in my newsletter but I will expand on those.
In the meantime:
ā”ļø Yes, it appears Pakistan is running smart diplomacy ā both with Iran and the U.S.
ā”ļø I don’t have time to share the links (plane about to take off); theyāre all Google-able.
ā”ļø But credit where itās 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 isnāt about defending states or “sides”; itās about defending basic decency in discourse.
