Latest news with #Mahmudabad
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
political line newsletter speech I hate, but must defend
Unless we defend the rights of both Vijay Shah and Ali Khan Mahmudabad to say whatever they want to, neither can be defended rationally ------ There are two Special Investigation Teams (SIT), each comprising three IPS officers investigating two people, on the directions of the Supreme Court of India: Madhya Pradesh's BJP Minister Vijay Shah and Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. The SC order has specified that the SIT in Madhya Pradesh must be of directly recruited IPS officers from outside of the State cadre. The implied equivalence of these two cases in the SC approach — that the police can investigate alleged criminality premised on the idea of excessive speech —has been disconcerting for many people. Those who were outraged by Mr. Shah's comments, which the SC rightly described as 'crass, thoughtless,' wanted legal action against him. Broadly, the same set of people were also outraged by Haryana police arresting Mr. Mahmudabad. The interesting spectacle of six IPS officers trying to parse through the sentences of two people to investigate criminality in them leads us to the question: what exactly is freedom of expression. Can there be selective freedom of expression? Should hate speech be allowed in a civilized society? If some speech must be restricted, who gets to decide what is allowed and what is restricted? As we have seen in recent days, the Congress government in Karnataka and the BJP government in Haryana have different standards of what speech can be allowed. We need to defend the rights of both Mr. Shah and Mr. Mahmudabad. Free speech cannot be restricted to what one person likes; hate speech cannot be defined as what another hates. Unless free speech is absolute, including — and especially — for views that are dissenting and offensive, there is no meaning in it. A police inspector or a random political actor can initiate a case, and the rest will depend on the social capital and relative power of the side that claims to be aggrieved and that of the alleged aggressor. A free speech supporter cannot call for punishment of Mr. Shah and protection for Mr. Mahmudabad. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall have the right to 'freedom of speech and expression,' and then goes to add multiple caveats. 'Reasonable restrictions' on free speech include 'the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.' This is echoed in criminal laws and Mr. Mahmudabad was actually arrested on charges of endangering the country's sovereignty and integrity and promoting enmity between different groups, among others, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Article 19 also gives citizens the right to 'assemble peaceably and without arms,' again with caveats similar to those mentioned above. As it happens, the government of Assam has decided to arm indigenous communities. In this case, the state is abdicating its role of providing security and encouraging select groups to arm themselves. This is not new. In Kashmir to fight back separatists, and in Chhattisgarh to neutralise the Maoists, local communities were armed. The broader question is the power of the state to decide what are legitimate arms and what is legitimate speech. In the US, people have much more power than in India to bear arms and to speak freely. There are restrictions there too, but they are more narrowly defined. Arbitrary measures are not unheard of, but some dependable precedents are in place, evolved through judicial disputes over the decades. But the Republicans and Democrats both want to restrict speech in the US — they differ on what kind. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are recurring grounds for restricting speech in many contexts in the West, including by the state. In India, commenting on Hinduism or nationalism can be adventure intellectualism these days. The default liberal position, however, should be that all speech is allowed. If there are any restrictions, they must withstand objective reasoning. Federalism Tract: Notes on Indian diversity Tongue lashing Kamal Haasan is set to enter the Rajya Sabha. But he made news for other reasons. His statement that Kannada is born out of Tamil triggered a reaction in Karnataka. In fact, for all the talk around Dravidian languages and culture, the linguistic pride of each State and conflicts between regions within States have been politically consequential. The Telugus wanted separation from the then Madras State, and their struggle led to the linguistic reorganisation of States. Telugus in Telangana later wanted a separate State for themselves, and they got that. The idea that any language is born from another language is a fallacy that few linguists would take seriously now. Languages interact and migrate along with the people who do the same. The idea that Sanskrit is the mother of all, or many Indian languages, is a common and misplaced notion. Having a heavy load of Sanskrit vocabulary in a language (for instance, Malayalam, my mother tongue) does not make it the child of Sanskrit. It is a more complex process, as linguist and author Peggy Mohan says. I hope, Mr. Haasan watches this too.
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Rights and duties as per the Constitution
Odd as it may seem, I sometimes wonder if our judges are their own worst enemies. At times, they can say the strangest things — almost as if they got carried away. Do they not worry about its implications? Are they not concerned about its impact? Let me illustrate my point by referring to Justice Surya Kant's and Justice Kotiswar Singh's handling of the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case. First, they accused Mahmudabad of 'dog-whistling' and using words with double meanings. They said his 'choice of words is deliberately made to insult, humiliate or cause some kind of discomfort to others'. But they didn't say what words they were referring to? Instead, they went on 'he could convey these very feelings in a very simple language … use terminology, which is simple, respectful and very neutral'. But, again, they didn't identify what they were alluding to. This prompted the scholar Gautam Bhatia to point out that a dog-whistle is usually at a frequency inaudible to human ears. So, what part of Mahmudabad's Facebook posts were dog-whistles? Who were the 'dogs' he was whistling to? And who were the 'non-dogs' he was ignoring? None of this was pointed out by the judges. Should it not have been? Instead, they said: 'To holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts, we direct the Director General of Police, Haryana, to constitute an SIT.' But this body will only comprise police officers. Surely lexicographers like Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster would have been more appropriate? Actually, this was the least of the concerns aroused by the two judges' comments. More worrisome are these sentences: 'Everybody talks of rights, I have the right to do this, right to do that … without telling you what your duty is towards the nation.' But whilst the Constitution specifically identifies the fundamental rights conferred on us as citizens, it doesn't identify constitutionally enforceable duties. We don't even have a duty to be patriotic. We have every right to be sceptical and questioning rather than wrap ourselves in the flag. So, on what basis were the judges equating rights with duties? They did not say. However, it is what they said about the students and faculty of Ashoka University, where Mahmudabad is a professor, that is most perplexing. 'If they dare to do anything we will pass an order …it is not acceptable to us that some of these so-called private universities open, and then all kinds of elements join hands there, and they start making irresponsible statements. We know how to deal with these people.' What on earth prompted this? They simply threw this comment into the mix of other things they said without any explanation or justification. It is almost as if a fantastical leap of thought led them from one issue to another, even if they are not at all connected. So, what prompts judges to speak like this? These are not things they might say when they are playing devil's advocate to explore the depths of a particular argument. This sounds very much like their own opinions. And that leaves one to wonder whether they are playing to the gallery rather than sticking loyally to their duty as guarantors of our constitutional rights. The mere fact such a question can be asked suggests they spoke too much. At the very least, they were not judicious. However, the bit that truly stunned me is what Gautam Bhatia wrote in this newspaper. He was referring to the gag order the two judges placed on Mahmudabad. He wrote: 'It is important to point out that the judiciary does not have the power to gag or silence someone; it's only empowered to determine whether the government's decision to do so is constitutional or unconstitutional.' When I asked Bhatia whether this meant the judges have exercised powers they do not have, his discreet but telling reply was they had acted 'beyond their jurisdiction'. All I can say is oh dear! Karan Thapar is the author of Devil's Advocate: The Untold Story. The views expressed are personal
Business Standard
a day 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 Hindu
2 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.
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Criminal charges against Ashoka University professor outrageous and absurd, say ex-bureaucrats
Invoking criminal charges against Ashoka University Associate Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was 'outrageous and absurd', a group of retired bureaucrats and diplomats said on Wednesday. The former civil servants, who are part of the Constitutional Conduct Group, said that the social media posts for which two cases were filed against Mahmudabad were thoughtful and measured. The key point of the posts was 'to make eloquent and heartfelt calls for peace', they noted. The cases against Mahmudabad, who heads the political science department at Ashoka University, were filed for his comments about the media briefings on the Indian military operation against terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir initiated in the response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack. On May 8, in a social media post, Mahmudabad had highlighted the apparent irony of Hindutva commentators praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had represented the Army during the media briefings about the Indian military operation. 'Perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the Bharatiya Janata Party's hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens,' he had said. One of the complainants against the post was an office-bearer of the Bharatiya Janata Party's youth wing, while the other was the head of the Haryana State Women's Commission. Mahmudabad faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pertaining to acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, acts endangering national sovereignty and words or gestures intended to insult a woman's modesty, among others. He was arrested on May 18, but got interim bail from the Supreme Court three days later. The former civil servants said on Wednesday that they were 'greatly distressed' by the charges against Mahmudabad and his subsequent arrest. 'It cannot be a crime to seek justice for victims of lynching and bulldozer demolitions, or to call for peace and restraint,' they remarked. The ex-bureaucrats noted that despite Supreme Court orders directing authorities to act against hate speech on their own, even utterances that 'openly call for violence and ethnic cleansing of Indian Muslims' have rarely led to charges of disloyalty to the nation or promoting religious hatred. 'In the most recent case, after a minister from Madhya Pradesh, Kunwar Vijay Shah, described Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as the sister of terrorists, it required the MP High Court to direct the police to register an FIR against the minister,' they noted. The signatories to the statement said that while they were relieved that the Supreme Court granted Mahmudabad interim bail, they were 'dismayed' by some comments made by the bench, and by the bail conditions. 'The bench made mystifying allusions to 'dog-whistling' in the professor's social media tweets, criticising his 'choice of words' and charging him with seeking 'cheap publicity'.' the former civil servants said. They also questioned the order to appoint a Special Investigation Team to 'holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed' by the Ashoka University professor. 'It is beyond our comprehension how three police officers could be equipped to extract hidden meanings from a post written in elegant and straightforward English,' they said. The signatories referred to a Supreme Court judgement from March, which said that in a democracy, even views that are opposed by many people must be 'respected and protected'. Calling on the court to uphold these principles, the former bureaucrats said: 'The perils and consequences of suppressing free speech by unjust application of criminal law can be profoundly corrosive for a society.' The signatories to the statement include Punjab's former director general of police Julio Ribeiro, Delhi's former Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, former Foreign Secretary and National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and former Indian Administrative Service officer Harsh Mander.
