Muzzled by

by Ritwik on October 5, 2010

EDIT: Shivam Vij of Kafila has reponded to this post. His comment and my response to it can be read in the comments area.

Please judge whether the following comment is either profane or ad hominem in nature:

My heartfelt thanks to Susmita and Nivedita for providing some much needed comic relief in the midst of an overheated debate on Ayodhya.

Susmita, in the course of your researches (?) did you bother inquiring from the Nirmohi Akhara as to their religious persuasion? Specifically about whether they consider themselves within or without the fold of hindusim.

I posted the above comment at this afternoon. It appears to have been rejected/deleted without assigning any reason. Comments made after mine have made their way on the website, which would indicate that my comment has been rejected/deleted/held till “higher authorities” take a call.

Kafila’s stated comment policy can be read here:¬†[link will open in new tab; scroll down to read section entitled “comments policy”]

  • The authors of posts reserve the right to not publish a comment, to delete one after having published it, or to close a thread.
  • We do this but rarely. Our archives speak of our tolerance; our only concern is to keep the debate¬†civil.

I leave it to the wisdom of the reader to judge whether my comment was in contravention of the policy or of the bounds of fair debate. The reader is of course free to make their own judgement about whether Kafila’s writers and moderators are trying to muzzle uncomfortable questions.

As for the high and mighty who write at Kafila, I would advise that they amend their comment policy to add sarcasm and humour to their list of undesirable traits.


Kafila routinely censors comments to invent a perception of consensus about their views. I have more comments deleted than accepted. Some of them long ones debating the issue very seriously, others making a short point. None of them profane, off topic or even trivial. The only thing all the comments that didn’t make it through have is that they disagreed with the premise peddled in the article.

by Vidyut on April 6, 2014 at 2:39 am. #

Yes, and bizarrely, they call this censorship, “curation”.

by Ritwik on April 6, 2014 at 3:50 pm. #

Hey! you said Shivam of Kafila has responded to your post but I somehow am unable to find it now on this page! can you please share it because I am interested in what he said!

by Shireen on November 20, 2014 at 2:06 am. #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.

%d bloggers like this: