thoughts – 04.09.2026

Often, in the past, I’ve kept a thought diary. Just like I’ve kept a stories diary. I have been concentrating on writing diaries and fiction recently, as well as theatre, art and film reviews. When one is a real writer, one can write anything. In any case, I will share some of my thoughts from today, a tiny proportion from this mind that keeps on thinking, thinking, thinking…

  1. Why do racists see us as closer to nature? Because they hate and revile nature. Being in harmony with nature and one with it should be seen as a goal. Instead, anyone that is not a white man is seen as too at one with nature, like us and women.
  2. Why does realistic art only arise in certain cultures? Can it be the case that stylisation and abstraction, imagination and distortion, these are the intuitive way that we understand the world?
  3. What if there was nothing? No universe? Nature abhors a vaccuum. Is nothingness stable? Is it capable of being sustained? Does there have to be something?
  4. Why has primitive art been characterised as powerful and an antidote to the west? Is the West attempting to absorb the power of difference through it rather than learning from it? Is this simply a power play?
  5. Why didn’t Da Vinci share his knowledge? Why do we learn about his thoughts on trees many centuries on? Was the academic infrastructure not there? Was he unconcerned with what others thought? Why create and think if you cannot bring it to the people? Was Da Vinci selfish?
  6. Henry Moore’s titles use language as a direct reference, such as ‘Hole and Lump’. He did not want fancy titles, just words that pointed to things. Is this is a naive view of language? Or did he not want his direction to overtake the interpretation? Moore was not a realist. So why did he use a ‘realist’ vocabulary in his titling, that in which A is referred to as simply A? As though language is not an intervening web? Was this a creative act or a distinctly uncreative act?
  7. A community is something that you have to make. It is not something that simply happens.
  8. I have sculpted my brain. Just like I sculpt my body with weight training. And the weights for the mind? They are words and ideas. Which are therefore part of the forces of the universe, of physical reality…
  9. I am the product of Salman Khan and the fitness revolution. Khan is a Hindi film actor that become a masculine body ideal with his body building. The fitness revolution is still sweeping the Indian film industry.
  10. What is the philosophy of failure? One thinks of Batwara 1947 failing even though it had the right ideas about harmony across religions and nations. It is good to fail when the world around you is full of hate, prejudice and suspicion. They did not read the public mood. The mood of monsters, not men.
  11. How do you read the public mood? Do you have to be one of the people to read it? Or view it as one removed, through a glass darkly?
  12. Why do some people not have an opinion and struggle to think? Everything they say comes second hand from someone. That is why people call me original, why I have been described as an original thinker through my five degrees. I think things through by myself and am therefore exceptional.
  13. I have had the training to believe that I can change the world. My grandfather worshipped Dr. Ambedkar who revolutionised Indian law as one of us, an Untouchable and Dalit from the lower castes. He is the one that taught me. That is where this confidence comes from.
  14. Funny how research institutions like academia and museums are happy for ethnic minority men like me to do unpaid work but they never offer paid opportunities or more pay for our labour. It is toxic and exploitative industry if you have the wrong colour skin. Arday managed to do it and they came for him in the end. That is the real story there.

thoughts in public

31.08.2026

A: What is a thought in public?

S: Is it the expression of a thought and the assertion of an idea or is it an act of persuasion?

A: It could be any of those things.

S: It is a naked and vulnerable thing that is open to attack. It is a hostage of war.

A: With you, it is always the war.

S: Why not? This world revolves around the war. In any case, we live in the cancel culture. All are scared of expression. All are scared of their own thoughts.

A: And you are not scared? You who type away all day and night?

S: What is there to be scared of? Them? I am not ashamed of my ideas and what is in my mind. In my mind are six thousand years of India. As well as the whole of the West.

A: You have not read everything.

S: You do not have to read everything to know everything. It is a blessing from the goddess of learning.

A: But to the subject. The expression of thought. What is it?

S: It is the creation of the archive. In my case, the creation of the Punjabi archive. It is the expression of the counter culture. It is the expression of love in a world full of hate. Imagine what would happen if we had no voice? I create the voice, the being and the identity of the Punjabis.

A: Can you not have thoughts without identity? Like Western maths and philosophy and science and all of their disciplines pretend to do?

S: If you look at Western so-called education, you will know that it is nothing else but the expression of an identity.

A: How so? What about science? The objective?

S: Uncertainty in physics in the quantum realm has been theorised to stem from the radical uncertainty of the war time in western culture. The field encodes the culture of the time. Newtonian physics was wrong. It was based on a limited world view and understanding of the universe. It was the culture at the time that they encoded. Everything is subjective and based on identity.

A: Play at your identity politics.

S: Why not? It is what everyone else does. I do it with my heart on my sleeve. I am open and honest. We are Punjabi. This is how we think. I have six thousand years of Indian culture in me. I have been raised like a warrior on the Mahabharata. What these thoughts are are the thoughts of the warrior. They come naked like Kali, the Dark Mother. And these thoughts, they slay this world of hate and injustice. They are the way that has stood up to history.

bravery, cowardice and the wars that we fight

27.08.2026

It is a question of some importance. Choosing the battles that we fight. After all, life is a war. And we are known for our fight.

Especially for those like myself that come from the warrior culture, from those that worship The Mother Goddess that is called Power herself, Shakti. That worship the Gurus that fought for us and our rights like Guru Ravidas. For those that come from the Sikhs and the Guru Ravidasias. We not only have the fight view of the universe. We are also fighters.

In life, these battles are not just physical fights. Although there can be those too. The battles are with those that we are subordinate to, with those that we love. With our bosses, colleagues, friends, lovers, family.

So how to choose whether to fight? I have always chosen to fight. I have never tolerated injustice, hate or discrimination. I have always spoken up for others around me and for myself.

However, there are some that choose not to fight. They can stomach any kind of injustice. They are scared for their positions, for how it will affect them. That they have a long fight in front of them, a hard fight. They are scared of what those that oppress them will think of them. As if that matters. This is the philosophy of cowardice. Never fight.

I have fought anyone that I think is wrong. Always. I have never backed down. I have always shown face. It has not made me the most popular person in the world. It is counted against me many times. Yet, it has earned me respect. No matter how grudgingly it has been given, I have been given honour. I am known as a fighter. As a warrior. I am known as a man. A man in the warrior culture.

We are known for our fight. To be known as a warrior is the supreme honour in the warrior culture. It is the warrior that we respect and that we look up to. That we want to become.

There is a very easy choice to be made in life. To be brave. Or to be scared. To be a coward. To live in honour or to live in shame. And us? We have chosen bravery.

the rules

15.06.2026

‘So what you’re suggesting,’ Alfonso said, raising his voice excitedly, ‘is that the usual rules do not apply to you’. He gave me a look of admonishment. ‘Why not? What makes you so special?’

‘Genius has its own rules. I don’t rate the tedious morality and cant of the non-men. Rules made for cowards that have no honour.’ I wrinkled my face in disgust.

‘That is how you always phrase it. That you are a genius. That is how you rate this society and its laws, by reckoning it against honour and bravery.’

‘What else would you have a warrior do?’ I asked him. ‘And after all, their rules favour them. The rich and powerful in their society. The racists. Why would I follow their rules? I am the son and lover of The Mother. We do not have their law. We have the dharma.’

‘Dharma is not the right to do whatever you want.’

‘No one says that it is. What dharma is, would you like to know? Depending on the situation, the hero chooses the path that is right for him. That is the dharma.’

‘It sounds like a licence to do whatever you want.’

‘That is because you are speaking from the position of those that follow the dishonourable laws of the cowards. Where there is one rule that you cannot deviate from. Where everybody is treated the same, no matter how unfair it is, because they are a herd of unthinking sheep. The dharma is that which comes to the thinking man. He chooses the way of honour and bravery.’

‘Give an example of why dharma is superior to this law.’

‘This law favours oppression. Injustice. The example is The Mahabharata, the greatest of texts and the greatest story that gives an exposition of dharma. In the story, the family is unjustly dispossessed of their kingdom through fraud and cheating. Their wife is dishonoured. If they followed the objective rules of combat, they would lose. Because the so-called objective rules protect the usurpers who cheat, lie and steal. Therefore, following dharma, and following honour and justice, they disobey the rules. Because it is more important for honour, justice and right that the heroes win. That is the difference between this shitty law and dharma.’

‘What makes you think The Mahabharata is the truth?’

‘Anyone that reads it is inspired. As my grandfather taught me, it contains within it everything.’

‘You say this because the hero is Krishna, who you are named after.’

‘I am the hero. I am The Mahabharata. I am the authority of our religion, our past, our present and our future. I am the hero with the dharma.’

At first, Alfonso shook his head. And then he smiled. ‘You are incorrigible. And that, my friend, that is why I like you.’

Dr. Suneel Mehmi: Academic Summary

Suneel Mehmi is a British independent scholar whose work moves across English literature, film, and law, and is grounded in the interdisciplinary field of law and literature. What distinguishes his scholarship is a sustained attempt to uncover what he conceptualises as the legal unconscious: the hidden structures—psychological as much as cultural—through which law shapes how meaning is produced, authority is recognised, and subjects are formed. Drawing on both legal theory and psychoanalytic thought, Mehmi approaches interpretation not as a neutral act, but as a site where power is internalised, repeated, and sometimes resisted.

His academic training in both law and literature informs a method that is at once theoretically rigorous and critically flexible. Across his work, Mehmi returns to a central concern: that the authority of law depends not only on institutions, but on the ways individuals come to feel that authority as natural, necessary, and even desirable. It is in this affective and unconscious dimension that his work is most distinctive.

This concern is developed in his monograph, Law, Literature and the Power of Reading: Literalism and Photography in the Nineteenth Century (2021), where Mehmi revisits the debate around “literal” and “critical” reading. Rather than simply rejecting literalism, he interrogates the criticism of literalism, showing how so-called idealist or critical readings can reproduce their own forms of interpretive authority. What appears to be a move toward freedom—reading beyond the surface—can become another way of regulating meaning and privileging certain readers. In this sense, both literal and anti-literal approaches participate in a deeper structure of control. Photography, as it appears in nineteenth-century literature, disrupts this dynamic by introducing a visual logic that resists both forms of reading, pointing to the limits of interpretation itself.

Mehmi’s psychoanalytic orientation becomes especially pronounced in his work on film and literature, where he explores how legal authority is internalised at the level of desire, fear, and fantasy. In his reading of the Hindi film Beta (1992), he develops a striking account of what he terms a Western “Asian mother phobia.” Here, psychoanalysis becomes a tool for understanding cultural difference: while Western frameworks often cast the powerful mother as a source of anxiety or excess, Indian legal and cultural traditions can position her as a legitimate and central figure of authority.

In Beta, the maternal figure operates not only as a social authority but as an unconscious one. Her power is sustained through emotional bonds, guilt, and identification—mechanisms that psychoanalysis helps to bring into focus. Mehmi shows how the film stages a complex drama of attachment and control, in which obedience is not simply imposed but desired. The mother’s authority is thus both juridical and psychic, revealing how law can be internalised as part of the subject’s own structure of feeling. The apparent stability of this authority, however, is shadowed by tension, suggesting the fragility of the very order it sustains.

A similarly psychoanalytic sensitivity informs Mehmi’s readings of the work of Roald Dahl. In Dahl’s fiction, Mehmi identifies a world structured by violence, punishment, and exaggerated authority figures, where the child is positioned in relation to often grotesque forms of adult power. Rather than reading these elements simply as moral fantasy or dark humour, Mehmi treats them as expressions of deeper unconscious dynamics. Authority in Dahl’s work is at once feared and desired, resisted and reproduced—mirroring the ambivalence that psychoanalysis locates at the heart of subject formation.

Through this lens, Dahl’s stories become more than children’s literature; they are sites where the legal unconscious is vividly staged. The stark divisions between good and bad, justice and injustice, reveal an underlying struggle over how authority is recognised and legitimised. Mehmi’s readings show how these narratives both challenge and reaffirm structures of control, allowing readers to imaginatively confront—and yet remain within—the frameworks that govern them.

Mehmi’s work on race and gender, particularly in his analysis of Annihilation (2018), further extends this psychoanalytic approach. There, he explores how difference is managed through processes that are at once spatial, visual, and unconscious, revealing how law-like structures regulate what is perceived as other or threatening.

Alongside these major interventions, his contributions to venues such as the Literary London Journal explore how urban space itself can be “read” through similar dynamics, shaped by unseen norms that organise belonging, exclusion, and movement within the city.

Across all of Mehmi’s work—including studies of Henry James—a consistent insight emerges: that law operates not only through rules, but through the unconscious life of interpretation. By bringing psychoanalysis into dialogue with law and literature, Mehmi reveals how authority is not simply imposed from outside, but lived from within—felt, imagined, and reproduced in the very act of making meaning.

the illusion of joining

24.04.2026

S: Men live by a number of illusions.

A: Such as?

S: The illusion that we are not all alone.

A: Alone in what sense?

S: There is nobody and nothing. Men yearn to be a part of something greater than themselves. To join to society and others. Yet there is no joining to others. It is all illusion. There is only the naked self.

A: You feel disconnection?

S: In Descartes, he asks this question. How do you know that other people have thoughts and are not robots? In short, how do we know that only we do not exist? How can you guarantee that other people actually exist? How do we know that we are human and that they are also human, like us? In other words, the reality of being human is that we do not know if we are all alone. This is the foundation of modern philosophy in the West.

A: You however, are a critic of Descartes and mind body dualism. Because you believe that you are a body and nothing else. That there is no split between the mind and the body.

S: Let’s come back to this idea however. How do you know that you are not all alone?

A: Surely you have connected with others. Surely you have felt their humanity?

S: One assumes that they are human like us. One uses oneself as a reference point. But how does one know that they are human? In fact, how does one know that the self is human in the first place?

A: Do you honestly believe that there is no community?

S: I have spent four years going around London seeking connection. Just one connection. Just one person. I have some experience of this. I do not say things without any basis in fact. I am not like the liars in this society.

A: Whatever your experience, you will eventually have to buy into this illusion that there are others. That there is a community.

S: The reason that I am The Tiger is because the tiger is a solitary beast. The tiger hunts alone. That is why The Tiger is the king of the jungle. Because he is a solitary beast. He is all alone. That is destiny. Destiny, you cannot fight. They have a community and connection. The Tiger stands by himself. The community that he represents is the dream of the poet and the guru. The just community, not this one of lies and not much else. I have accepted that I am all alone.

A: The man of the community says that there is no community. The one that serves the community says that there is no community.

S: There is only isolation. Nothing else. Whatever you do, eventually all that is left is you and the mirror. That is what Descartes was saying.

the rationality of death

23.04.2026

S: Camus asks this question, why should we not commit suicide? It is the one question. The great question.

A: And what do you think of Camus?

S: Does a man need a reason to live? Why does he need a reason to live? Why can he not just live life? And this is what Camus says. That there is no reason to live. Just to live life.

A: Can you just live life without any meaning in it?

S: Who knows? Viktor Frankl says that you have to have a meaningful life.

A: Why do you keep on living yourself?

S: Do you know something? The most rational thing would be to die.

A: Surely, you jest.

S: Not at all. This life is confusion. This life is suffering. Hurt and disappointment. This life is a cage. This life is isolation. This life is one full of suspicion, misunderstanding, prejudice, hate, injustice, apathy and hostility. How sweet it would be to free from all this! The rational decision would be to die. It is no surprise why people choose to commit suicide.

A: Why then do you live if there is nothing to live for?

S: Duty ties me down to the earth when I should be sitting in heaven. The family. The community. The Oppressed. The Mother. The duty to keep on living for others. The duty not to be known as a coward that could not face life when I must be brave because I am the warrior and the splendour of Punjab. For myself, I would not live.

A: Do you really think that those poor souls that commit suicide are free? That they have escaped this world which you find so mean and cheap?

S: What else? Do you know where psychologists say that you find the utmost happiness? In a flow state. When you forget about everything else except for the activity that you love. In which the self is completely extinguished. What about sex? For that moment of bliss when you come, you forget everything. It is the little death. The utmost happiness is death. It is the rational decision.

A: The rational decision is life. To live. To make the world a better place. To fight those that would make it a hell.

S: Why do you think god has come down upon the earth? Because it was too full of sin. That is why he is reborn every time, when sin outweighs goodness. But has he come down from heaven for happiness? No. The common crowd follow happiness. The god follows duty. His mother called for him because they had tried to take The Mother’s honour. The people prayed for him to come into the world because they were oppressed. They asked for a champion. Duty binds the god to this world. The work has not been achieved yet. The Revolution has not come. I am the child of destiny, of fate. The gifts have been given to me. I am The Tiger. And since I am The Tiger, I have to show energy. I have to show life. The seductions of easeful death are great. The mouth waters. But there are only two deaths available to The Tiger. A glorious death in battle. Or in bed. There is no real war. And there are too many years left still to be lived for this peaceful death in the bed. So we live. With reluctance.

what the genius writes

14.04.2026

A: So you have this claim, that you are a genius.

S: It is not a claim. It is a reality.

A: What then does the genius write?

S: Everything.

A: Come come. A little clarification. What differentiates your writing from that of others?

S: I see what no one else can see.

A: A claim for originality.

S: And then, the genius writes to shock, amaze, astound and confound. Contrarily to the herd who write to reassure, who write complacently about their herd mentality and all of the evils therein. Who write to soothe the conscience of the oppressors, to justify this tyrannical and inquitious world.

A: You claim awe?

S: Indeed, I claim awe. The genius shakes the foundations of this world.

A: If you are indeed a genius, where is the recognition?

S: Does genius ever get recognition in this world? The time of Da Vinci has been replaced with the time of cretins like Musk and Trump. Of social media influencers whose sole task is to peddle cosmetics and a pampered lifestyle. What can you expect of these people? They could not recognise their own arse in the dark. Let alone genius. All they see is the foreign name and the colour of the skin. That is what they judge upon. Not the argument. Not the reasoning. Not the writing. With the exception of the genuinely intelligent. Because however moronic society becomes, the genuinely intelligent do recognise talent. Unfortunately, they have no power to nurture it. Because the power? It belongs to the morons. And this is why I am a genius. Because I was born into powerlessness because of my caste, my working class origin, and my skin and culture. I was not born as a moron. We can see.

A: What is the use of genius if it does nothing?

S: Mother India has a saying. That in the end, only truth alone will triumph. Satyameva Jayate. It is a phrase that is thousands of years old. I am the truth. I am the truth. I am the truth that no one wants to see or to hear. I am truth that is thousands of years old that they cannot even see. Only I can see it. I am blessed because The Mother has placed her hand above my head. I am invincible. That is why I am a genius. They cannot think like me. I am the last generalist in an era of narrow specialisation. I can crack the codes, the meanings of the self. That is why I am a genius.

A: And, you have the ego.

S: Yes. I go for the jugular vein. The most important work falls to me because I have the ego for it. That is why I am a genius.

A: Either you have the delusion of grandeur. Or you are a charlatan. Or, you are in fact, a genius.

S: I know what you will conclude. It is a mixture of all three.

the unequal bargain between the world and the genius

05.03.2026

S: If you investigate thoroughly, you will see that life is not fair.

A: How so?

S: Look at these wars in Iran. What have the common people done to deserve these deaths and these atrocities? It is the politicians that have inspired the fight. Yet, who suffers? The innocent. It is always the innocent that suffer.

A: Sometimes you say the people are one with the politicians.

S: It is the dirtiness and the ubiquity and omnipotence of the state for these worshippers of the state. They do not have the courage to do without the state. They cannot rule themselves like we can. They are not powerful like we are. They do not believe in themselves. They believe in the state. Where we would see its death, all they want is to breathe their life into the state.

A: How else is life unfair?

S: The young, they will inherit a barren earth because of the selfishness and greed of these around us, their ignorance and apathy. The exploited of the earth have nothing. The ones that choose who will work and who will play, who can say that their decisions are fair? The lottery of life. I have been born into a country with wealth while others starve and sing for pennies.

A: A bad account of the world all around.

S: Have you ever also considered the unequal bargain between the world and the genius? The world gives the genius nothing but hate and apathy and misunderstanding. And the genius? Because of his wisdom, the genius gives the world everything as a gift. The fact that genius has to be a gift with no reward and no recognition tells you about this world. It is exploitation. It is cruelty. It is selfishness and greed. It is arrogance.

A: How can you change the unfairness of the world?

S: I will not be like them and lie to say that the world is fair. I will not close my eyes to the truth. I will call it out. What else is there? You think these will let the world become fair? Of course not. It serves them to be unfair and they benefit from its unfairness.

Escaping the Labyrinth: Equality and Diversity

(Editor Welcome written for an Equality and Diversity newsletter)

An ancient religious and spiritual metaphor, the labyrinth signifies that we are in the midst of confusion. That we have no clear path, no clear destination, that we don’t know where we are going. And therefore, that we do not know who we are. Because without purpose, we cannot find our destiny and identity.

But what is significant is that the labyrinth is an ordered structure. It is just the order of the other. That is why it is confusion. And remember, there is a solution to the labyrinth. There is an escape.

This is why I believe the idea of the labyrinth resonates with the struggle to find true equality and diversity in this world, true unity. Sometimes, we all look at the world around us that has been created by others and ask ourselves, amidst this entanglement and disorientation, can we ever find our way? Against the order of the other, how can we create an order of our own? Can we escape from this order into freedom? It is a daunting task to even begin.

Personally, I always put the example of India before me. And I think of our freedom fighters. These brave men and women were up against the greatest superpower the world had ever known. This superpower was the law. It was the government. It was the country.

But they did not shirk from the colossal challenge that was before them. They knew that they had to carve out their own path in these convoluted bureaucratic and legal structures, their own destination and their own identity from the entanglement that was presented to them.

They did it. India is free. And because she is free, she gives me hope. And I trust that she will also give the world hope. There is a legend around that either Zhou Enlai or Mao Tse-tung replied to a question about the influence of the French Revolution by saying it was too early to say. Whether or not this is true of the French Revolution, it is certainly true of the Indian Revolution. And I look forward to seeing how much of an impact this can make for all of us in this world.