Latest news with #AliKhanMahmudabad
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
From Assam to Haryana, arbitrary arrests of social media users make a mockery of the Constitution
It has been just over three weeks since the Indian Army launched Operation Sindoor as a response to the terror attack in Pahalgam that left 26 people dead. Since then, the military action has been used as a cover to crack down on social media users across the spectrum. In Assam, 81 'anti-nationals' have been arrested for 'sympathising' with Pakistan, the chief minister said on Sunday. Arrests in the wake of the military action have also been reported from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Tripura, Haryana and Maharashtra, though an exact number is not known. The case that garnered the most attention was the arrest on May 18 of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. In a Facebook post, he pointed to the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had represented the Army during media briefings, even as they ignored the mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing of homes and other hate crimes against Indian Muslims. When the Supreme Court granted Mahmudabad interim bail on May 21, Justice Surya Kant declared that the professor should have used ' neutral language ' rather than using words with 'dual meaning'. On Friday, the Kolkata police travelled to Gurugram to arrest 22-year-old Sharmishtha Panoli, an Instagram influencer and law student, for a video posted on social media that allegedly hurt religious sentiments. In the video, which Panoli deleted after a backlash online, she questioned the 'silence' of Bollywood celebrities on the military operation and also made remarks about Islam. Bharatiya Janata Party MP, actress Kangana Ranaut, called for Panoli to be released immediately, despite the 'unpleasant words' she used in her video. The language used in the video was distasteful and far from being 'neutral' – but that should not matter. In these actions, it has become clear that there is a heavy price to pay for contrariness of any kind in India. In this climate, one would think politically 'neutral' individuals would be safe from public criticism. But earlier this month, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri was attacked on social media for simply doing his job, after he announced at a media briefing that a ceasefire had been reached with Pakistan. Even his daughter was dragged into the controversy as trolls blamed him for the decision rather than the political establishment that made it. In the battle between political and ideological agendas, a disquieting silence is being forced on the famously argumentative Indian. Arrests of this sort make a mockery of the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC grants interim bail to Ashoka professor, raps him for 'choice of words'
Ashoka University's Associate Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad gets interim bail amid Operation Sindoor post row, with Supreme Court ordering SIT probe Shine Jacob Abhineet Kumar The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the immediate release of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was arrested for his controversial social media post over ' Operation Sindoor '. While extending relief, the court criticised Mahmudabad's 'choice of words' and directed the formation of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter. Following the court's decision, Ashoka University issued a statement saying, 'We are relieved and heartened by Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad being granted interim bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has provided great comfort to his family and all of us at Ashoka University.' A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Sanjay Kishan granted interim bail to Mahmudabad, who is the Associate Professor and Head of the Political Science Department at the Haryana-based university. The court said his release would be subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sonipat. First Published: May 21 2025 | 5:10 PM IST
The Print
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
All-party delegations are not seeking world's approval. They're controlling the narrative
We've lost soldiers, schoolchildren, daily wage workers, and pilgrims. Every kind of Indian. This war isn't fought on conventional battlegrounds, but in bazaars, buses, temples, and now even tourist spots. And yet, somehow, every time we respond, we're asked why. As if self-defence must first ask for approval. While the world has slowly woken up to the threat of terrorism—especially the kind rooted in Islamist ideologies—India has lived in its shadow for decades. What many outside don't fully grasp is that this isn't new for us. Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts is not just a fancy phrase, it's a doctrine—a long-standing military strategy, openly followed by the Pakistani establishment. The idea has always been simple and sinister: Use terror to destabilise, divide, and exhaust India from within by fuelling insurgency, funding radicalisation, and turning religion into a weapon. Many have jumped in to criticise India's decision to send all-party delegations to global capitals post-Pahalgam. Why do we need to explain ourselves? Why seek the world's approval? But the truth is—we're not living in isolation. We're part of a global system, and narratives matter. The same people who question this initiative often complain, day in and day out, about how unfair the international media is toward India. If that's the case, then isn't it necessary to speak up, to engage, to write our own stories in our own words—before others write them for us? So let it be said clearly: When India responds to terror, it isn't revenge—it's resistance. It's the bare minimum a sovereign nation owes to its people. There comes a point where silence is complicity, and restraint starts to look like surrender. And the world needs to hear about this. Global narratives still shape global sympathies. And in a world quick to comment but slow to understand, telling our story—in our words—is not seeking validation, it's setting the record straight. Also read: The world sees Ali Khan Mahmudabad's arrest first, not all-party delegations In one voice So far, India seems to be receiving the kind of response that validates this effort. Reports suggest that several countries are aligning with India's zero-tolerance stance on terrorism. Saudi Arabia has expressed support, stating it stands with India in its fight against terror from Pakistan. Italy has offered bilateral cooperation. Indonesia, too, has extended its support. France has reiterated its solidarity and called on the democratic world to speak in one voice against terrorism. These aren't just diplomatic niceties—they're acknowledgements that India's fight is not isolated, nor unjustified. However, what stands out most about this delegation is not just the diplomacy—it's the image of Indians from every political party, every faith, every background, coming together to represent one country, with one voice. That's the real beauty of India. Unity in diversity isn't just a slogan—it's a lived reality. When people, despite their differences, set them aside to speak as one, to stand for India, that itself tells you what this country means. It's not uniformity. It's not sameness. It's strength in difference. That's the soul of India. Even Al Jazeera, never one to go easy on India, made a note of it: 'Inside India's Parliament, they are sworn rivals… but over the past few days, they have [come together].' And that's the quiet success of this delegation—reminding the world that this isn't about party lines or warmongering. It's about a nation that's tired. When AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi told Middle Eastern leaders that Pakistan is the aggressor, not the victim, the message was clear. T his was never a fight between religions. It's a fight for coexistence, against a mindset that sees supremacy as identity. And when voices as different as Owaisi's and the BJP's say the same thing abroad, it's no longer just diplomacy, it's a shared truth India is finally done apologising for. This moment sends a message to our nation as well. If we are to speak of unity, justice and truth abroad, we must also uphold these values at home. The credibility of our global message depends on the strength of our democracy, the fairness of our institutions, and the freedoms we guarantee to our people. Our external assertiveness must be matched by internal integrity. In the end, if there's a message this delegation carries, it is this: India is not asking for sympathy. It is standing with dignity. Tired, maybe—but not defeated. Still choosing dialogue—but unwilling to be silent. This is what it means to be a nation that has suffered much, but still believes in the possibility of peace built not on denial, but on truth. Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist, writer, TV news panelist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called 'India This Week by Amana and Khalid'. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Criminal charges against Ashoka University professor are ‘outrageous and absurd', say a group of former civil servants
Terming the criminal charges against associate professor of Political Science Ashoka University, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, 'outrageous and absurd', the 'Constitutional Conduct Group', comprising 79 former civil servants, in a statement on Thursday (May 29, 2025) said that Mr. Mahmudabad's two social media posts related to Operation Sindoor, for which he has been charged, were in fact 'thoughtful and measured'. Also Read | Congress accuses BJP of trying to take political advantage of Operation Sindoor 'He [Prof. Mahmudabad] praised the restraint of the Indian Army and noted the importance of the 'optics' of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a face of the Indian armed forces during the press briefings at the time that the hostilities were underway, but added that the symbolism of this would be hypocritical if lynching and bulldozing of homes continued,'' the signatories stated. They include Anita Agnihotri, former Secretary, Department of Social Justice Empowerment; Chandrashekar Balakrishnan, former Secretary, Coal; and Sharad Behar, former Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh. The Constitutional Conduct Group's statement said the perils and consequences of suppressing free speech by the unjust application of criminal law could be profoundly corrosive for a society. Also Read | Ashoka University professor arrest: Haryana forms SIT headed by Sonipat Police chief Stating that the criminal charges pertained to stringent Sections of India's new criminal law code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 152, which penalises acts 'endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India', the group said the move closely echoes the language of the colonial era sedition law under the now repealed Indian Penal Code. Other crimes for which the academic has been charged include Section 196(1)(b) on disturbing communal harmony and public tranquillity; Section 197(1)(c) on assertions likely to cause disharmony; and Section 299, which criminalises 'deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings'. The group said many students and faculty members had come forward to express heartening solidarity with Prof. Mahmudabad, even though the management of Ashoka University has remained conspicuously silent on the unjust criminal targeting of their faculty. Mr. Mahmudabad was arrested by the Haryana Police on May 18, after two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered against him at the Rai Police Station in Sonipat, Haryana, over his social media posts in connection with Operation Sindoor. He was released from the Sonipat District Jail on the evening of May 22, a day after the Supreme Court granted him interim bail. Later, the Supreme Court extended his interim bail, stating there would be no impediment to his right to speech and expression. The court, however, directed the professor to not post online anything related to the cases in which he is embroiled.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings
Muktabhimani mukto hibadho baddhabhimanyapi | Kivdanteeh satyeyamya matih sa gatirbhavet || (Freedom is the function of feeling free; the bondage of feeling bound.) It's rightly proclaimed that you are the product of what you think. Ashtavakra Gita, one of the founding texts of Indian philosophy, underscores the importance of freedom in these lines. Freedom manifests itself only when the subject believes in her ability to be free. Unfortunately, many recent events have negated this foundational idea of human endeavour. Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested for a social media post expressing his thoughts on the duplicitous attitudes surrounding the Operation Sindoor debate. The oral observations of the Supreme Court, while granting him bail, suggested that he indulged in 'politics' through this post, which contained some words that 'have double meaning'. It appears a little incongruent that an author is accused of indulging in politics when governments, past and present, have repeatedly proclaimed that not just indulging in politics but even critiquing and questioning the government is a sign of India's healthy democracy. How has politics suddenly become anathema? Politics, or the relationship between the governing and the governed, is the central point of Indian philosophy — classical to modern. In the realm of metaphysics, it is the negotiation between the nature of truth and those seeking it, of which the Ashtavakra Gita is an example. Politics exists in spiritual and mystical spaces as a dialogue between beliefs and believers. The Bhagavad Gita exemplifies this. In the physical space of the ordinariness of life, there is realpolitik, the interlocution of pragmatism and populism. Politics permeates every aspect of the living and the dead. Politics is the oxygen of academic life, irrespective of the discipline. It is a fallacy, a dangerous one at that, that only the social sciences indulge in politics. From Aryabhatta's exposition of the relativity of motion, which deals with perspective and illusion, to Albert Einstein's dilemma about the destructive potential of science, even the purest apolitical sciences are firmly ensconced in the political framework. The process of seeking and disseminating knowledge is dependent on the intersections of similar and contradictory ideas. An academic operates within and creates a space where multivalent thoughts find expression. The Socratic dialogues of Greece and the Shastraarth tradition of classical Indian pedagogy inform us about the necessity of a thought space where ideas are shared, discussed, and accepted or rejected. Therefore, if an academic will not indulge in politics, a stirring of the spirit of enquiry, who else will? But this is not about Mahmudabad or any one individual. The shutting of spaces that hold a carnival of ideas precedes a crisis of knowledge and progress. The snuffing of the flame of questioning can only herald dark times ahead. In societies where freedom of thought and expression comes with caveats, intellectual growth stunts. Those who take pride in our philosophical roots based on samgacchadhvam, samvadadhvam (coming together for a harmonious exchange of views) ought to feel uncomfortable with the rise in coercive action to silence those we disagree with. The legal aspects of the limits to freedom of speech aside, shouldn't there be a paradigm shift in assessing what speech is harmful enough to be gagged? If politics is dangerous per se, whither democracy? The government expects the youth to be part of India's growth story but is wary of exposing them to definitions of politics that differ from its own. What greatness has evolved in echo chambers? We can only raise prejudiced minds there. Insecure, easily hurt minds that will be unwilling to 'give ground even on unimportant disagreements', in the words of Christopher Hitchens. In the ongoing clash of politics, the epidemic of 'hurt feelings/sentiments' has spread unchecked, often getting a shot in the arm through criminal cases and violent actions against the speaker. Hurt feelings and damaging words should meet each other in civil court, where they can litigate their heart out. This is still in keeping with the tradition of exchanging ideas. Criminalising speech that has, as yet, posed no imminent danger to public order or instigated violence is akin to punishing a thought crime in George Orwell's 1984. Nishtha Gautam is an author and academician. The views expressed are personal. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
