'Too Much Of A Headache': Ashoka Co-Founder Mulls 'Moving Away' Amid Mahmudabad Row
Last Updated:
"Ashoka is too much of a headache. Is it worth the effort," Sanjeev Bikhchandani wrote in his email.
Sanjeev Bikhchandani, co-founder of Ashoka University, has candidly expressed his growing displeasure with continuing with the institution, describing it as 'too much of a headache" and revealing that he has considered moving away. This came in response to an alumnus's critique regarding the university's handling of the situation involving Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad.
Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a professor and head of the Department of Political Science at Ashoka University in Haryana's Sonipat, was arrested last month over his social media post on Operation Sindoor press briefing by Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Command Vyomika Singh.
In an email shared on an internal mailing list, Bikhchandani addressed the alumnus's concerns about the university's perceived lack of support for Professor Mahmudabad. 'Pramath, Ashish, and I have seriously discussed the option of walking away. Ashoka is too much of a headache. Is it worth the effort," he wrote on his email.
The controversy surrounding Professor Mahmudabad has sparked broader discussions about academic freedom and the role of activism in educational institutions. 'A political opinion expressed on Facebook or Twitter (X) or Instagram is not academic scholarship. Consequently, any public outcry about a political opinion an academic may express on social media is not an attack on academic freedom, even if the person expressing that opinion has a day job as an academic. If a regulator or the government or law enforcement goes after you for a social media post, it is not an infringement of academic freedom. It might be an infringement of freedom of speech; however, there are provisions within the Constitution and the law where you can find protection," Bikhchandani said.
Lashing out at Mahmudabad, Bikchandani further said, 'You are a grown-up adult. You are responsible for your actions and any consequences thereof. Ashoka is not obliged to support you for political opinions you express in your personal capacity. You did not seek Ashoka's consent before posting on social media, you cannot now present Ashoka with a fait accompli and expect support. Cruel as it may sound, you make your choices—and you live with the outcome."
Mahmudabad had in his social media post praised India's strategic doctrine and the outcome of Operation Sindoor, but criticised 'symbolic optics' and the treatment of minorities. He later said his post was misunderstood.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
34 minutes ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Lakshadweep MP demands rollback of ship fare hike
Muhammed Hamdullah Sayeed, Member of Parliament (MP), has demanded immediate rollback of the hike in ship fare to and from Lakshadweep. 'This steep escalation, particularly the 42.4% hike in bunk class fares, which disproportionately burdens low-income and marginalised residents, appears excessive, arbitrary, and devoid of proportionality in relation to service quality, economic indices, or public justification,' he said in a letter dated June 6 addressed to Praful Patel, Lakshadweep administrator. He alleged that the revision has been imposed without any public consultation, stakeholder engagement, or transparent justification, thereby rendering the process procedurally infirm and in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair public administration. The fare hike warranted urgent reconsideration and structured review, he said. The letter stated that the fare revision order fails to disclose any cost analysis, operational expense breakdown, or methodology that would reasonably justify the steep increase in passenger fares. 'The absence of such data undermines the principle of reasoned decision-making as mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution, and renders the order non-speaking and arbitrary in nature,' it said. Mr. Sayeed said that the revised fare structure imposes an undue financial burden on categories of passengers for whom travel constitutes an essential service, especially students and patients. 'Particularly egregious is the complete absence of any concessional or subsidised fare provision for students, who frequently rely on inter-island and mainland transport for educational purposes. This omission stands in stark contradiction to the principles of equity and affirmative protection enshrined under Article 15(4) and Article 21, thereby disproportionately impacting the right to education and access to essential services,' he said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Trump vs Musk: Call the breakup poetic justice. Call it karmic crypto-collapse. Just don't call it surprising
Some alliances hum like clockwork. Others tick like time bombs. This one? It was always a countdown. When two men believe the world revolves around them, it's only a matter of time before their orbits collide. And when they do, the explosion isn't quiet. Rather, it's a full-blown Twitter meltdown with echoes loud enough to rattle both Wall Street and Mar-a-Lago. And boy, we are watching the best cosmic collision since Pluto got downgraded. Welcome to the spectacular implosion of the Trump–Musk bromance. What began as a mutual admiration society of billionaire chest-thumping and red-hat flirting has now devolved into the kind of public breakup even the Real Housewives would find a bit too messy. Let's rewind. Once upon a time, in the golden age of post-truth politics, Elon Musk, the tech messiah, meme lord, and part-time Mars enthusiast, decided to dip his toes into political kingmaking. A neat little $277 million was funnelled into the Donald Trump campaign machinery. In any other part of the world, this would be called oligarchic meddling. In the United States, it's called 'Super Tuesday'. Trump, ever the transactional romantic, reciprocated by giving Musk a cosy seat at the regulatory table named DOGE, where he could quietly dismantle watchdogs, neuter climate policies, and make capitalism great again (for Tesla stock). Love was in the air. Or maybe, it was just the fumes from Musk's Boring Company flamethrowers. But like all ill-fated love stories, this one came with red flags. Musk's reputation, once burnished with visions of space colonies and clean energy, began to crumble under the weight of layoffs, lawsuits, and livestreamed tantrums. Turns out, being the adult in the room is hard when you're too busy rebranding Twitter into an unpronounceable algebra problem. Enter phase two: Reputation rehab. Suddenly, Musk was 'distancing' himself from the Trump administration. He quit councils, tweeted vaguely progressive things, and flirted with the idea of centrism, all while pretending he hadn't spent the past four years quietly enjoying deregulation like a raccoon in a trash buffet. But this Thursday? The façade shattered. In a tweet that will one day be studied in both communications courses and FBI depositions, Musk posted: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files.' He even had the gall to add: 'Have a nice day, DJT!' That wasn't a mic drop. That was a nuke in 280 characters. And let's be honest: If anyone was going to try to cancel someone else using Jeffrey Epstein, it was always likely to be Musk. Trump, unsurprisingly, didn't take it well. His reply was less subtle than a red tie in a wind tunnel: Musk is 'crazy,' and perhaps more worryingly for SpaceX investors, he threatened to cut off government contracts. Suddenly, two men who once shared bromantic photo ops and mutual disdain for accountability were hurling legal threats across a billion-dollar battlefield. Kanye West (of course) tried to play counsellor, tweeting something along the lines of 'bros don't fight, we love you both'. Unfortunately, love is dead and so is Kanye's credibility. And yet… are we really witnessing the final act? Let's not forget: Trump has made up with worse. Just ask Marco 'sweaty little man' Rubio or Ted 'your wife is ugly' Cruz. With Trump, personal insults are just foreplay. It's politics as WWE: Everyone's bleeding, but it's still part of the script. Still, there's something deliciously different this time. This feud doesn't feel like kayfabe. It feels real. Real messy. Real vindictive. Real stupid. And that makes it… kind of beautiful? Because if 2025 is going to be yet another parade of rich men yelling into microphones about how oppressed they are, the least we can ask for is a little entertainment. Preferably the kind that ends in lawsuits and meme wars. So, grab your popcorn. Watch the world's richest man implode on the platform he owns, while being roasted by the guy he helped elect. Call it poetic justice. Call it karmic crypto-collapse. Call it what you will. Just don't call it surprising. After all, in the immortal words of the internet, 'This you?'
