Latest news with #RenuBhatia
Al Jazeera
29-05-2025
- General
- Al Jazeera
Manufacturing of an ‘antinational' in India
Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a professor of political science at Ashoka University, has become the latest hate figure manufactured by Hindu nationalists in India with backing from the police and judiciary. A crime that Mahmudabad has not committed is being attributed to him, and he is now being asked to prove his innocence – a classic case of 'guilty until proven innocent'. The more he pleads his innocence, the deeper the suspicion grows against him as the Supreme Court of India has already cast doubt on his intent and made adverse observations about him before setting up a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to scrutinise two Facebook posts containing 1,530 words. Despite the clarity of his posts, Mahmudabad is expected to explain himself and dispel suspicions created by the highest court in the land. In these posts, Mahmudabad criticised Pakistan for harbouring terrorists while praising India's military action against its neighbour. He highlighted the applause received by two female military officers – one of them Muslim – who presented India's case on the global stage. However, he warned that if the daily persecution of Muslims in India did not cease, these optics of inclusivity would remain mere hypocrisy. What Mahmudabad wrote had been expressed by countless others before him in different ways. Yet suddenly, Renu Bhatia, the head of the Women's Commission of Haryana, appeared fuming at a news conference, accusing Mahmudabad of insulting the two female officers. Her charges left many bewildered. Mahmudabad responded through his lawyers, explaining his posts thoroughly. But Bhatia was unsatisfied, even if failing to substantiate her allegations. When questioned by a TV anchor to identify specific words or sentences demeaning to the female officers, she could find none. Still, she insisted that her feelings of offence were sufficient proof that something must be wrong with Mahmudabad's posts – that he must have written something horrible. She argued it wasn't her job to pinpoint offensive phrases; it was the police's responsibility to uncover what might offend her. After her accusations, Mahmudabad's posts underwent intense scrutiny by numerous individuals and media outlets. No distasteful or insulting content was found. Academics and members of civil society rallied behind Mahmudabad, expressing outrage over the actions of the Women's Commission. When the absurdity of Bhatia's claims became public fodder, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the ruling Hindu nationalist party, filed a complaint with the Haryana police, alleging that Mahmudabad had said something hurtful to him and others. Referring to the same Facebook posts, the complainant claimed they offended him. Taking his grievance seriously, the police charged Mahmudabad with serious offences, including inciting enmity between religious groups, offending the religious sentiments of a community and outraging the modesty of women. Mahmudabad was promptly arrested. Confident that a careful reading of his writings would expose the baselessness of the charges, Mahmudabad's lawyers approached the Supreme Court to seek his release and a stay on the police investigation. Before the hearing, however, 200 academics, including vice chancellors and heads of academic institutions, issued a statement urging the court to take a hard line against him. They accused Mahmudabad of trying to 'destabilise communal harmony, undermine institutional integrity, and erode gender equity'. They described his posts as 'veiled misogyny cloaked in pseudo-academic inquiry' and urged the Supreme Court to consider their broader socio-legal implications. During the hearing, Mahmudabad's lawyer read aloud the posts in question. The court responded sceptically, suggesting that his words carried double meanings and amounted to dog whistles. 'Someone with an analytical mind will understand the language. … The words used may seem innocuous but can target unintended audiences,' the bench remarked. The Supreme Court then constituted an SIT comprising three senior police officers to 'understand the complexity and properly appreciate the language used in the posts'. Thus, the Supreme Court's orders created the impression that Mahmudabad's words could not be accepted at face value. While his statements might appear benign, there must be some hidden meaning or ulterior motive lurking beneath the surface. Public reaction to the court delegating its interpretive duties to the police was one of shock. Was it so difficult for the court to read, analyse and interpret the posts itself? Did the members of the court not have analytical minds to read and understand what was written by Mahmudabad? Was this not their job? Or was the court shying away from committing itself to a position? The SIT will operate under the shadow of the presumptions made by the court, which already lean against Mahmudabad. How can he possibly dispel such preconceived notions? Meanwhile, the fog around Mahmudabad thickens. Details of his family background, devout Muslim identity, ancestral ties to Pakistan and foreign travels are being investigated by the police. These factors will now serve as the context in which his posts are to be read and interpreted. The media are busy demonising Mahmudabad. Soon, his actual words will vanish into the dense fog of propaganda, replaced by the image of a devious, cunning, scheming Muslim etched into the collective Hindu imagination. Mahmudabad has appeared before the SIT. Meanwhile, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the BJP, has announced plans for a public demonstration against him. It is asking Ashoka University to sack him because he has written 'antinational posts'. The mouth organ of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the parent body of the ruling BJP and ABVP, has also joined the chorus asking for action against Mahmudabad. We see the same playbook unfolding – the one used to vilify scholars like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, turning them into enemy figures within the BJP ecosystem with the help of the media, police and judiciary. One can only hope that the police officers remain steadfast, unaffected by judicial remarks or shrill propaganda and read Mahmudabad's plain lines with constitutional eyes. His words – crafted by a Muslim mind – call for empathy, understanding, justice, equality and dignity. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Scroll.in
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad gets interim bail from SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to Ashoka University Associate Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in a case about his comments about the press briefings on Operation Sindoor, Live Law reported. Mahmudabad was arrested on Sunday and was sent to judicial custody on Tuesday. The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to halt the investigation against the professor, who heads the political science department at Ashoka University. Additionally, he has been barred from posting or publishing any content related to the social media posts under scrutiny, and has been directed not to comment on the Pahalgam terror attack and India's subsequent military response, Live Law reported. The court also instructed the Haryana director general of police to form a special investigation team within 24 hours to look into the meaning of the words used by Mahmudabad. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh specified that the team must include three senior Indian Police Service officers who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi, and that one of them must be a woman. Ashoka University said on Wednesday that it was 'relieved and heartened' about Mahmudabad being granted interim bail. 'It has provided great comfort to his family and all of us at Ashoka University,' it said. Two cases have been filed against Mahmudabad for his comments about the media briefings on the Indian military operation against terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir initiated in the wake of the April 22 Pahalgam attack. One case was filed against the Ashoka University associate professor based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party's Yuva Morcha unit in Haryana. The second case was filed on the basis of a complaint by Renu Bhatia, the chairperson 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. What Mahmudabad said 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. Mahmudabad had said that the optics of the press briefings by Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh were important, 'but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it's just hypocrisy'. The Haryana women's panel had accused the professor of attempting to 'vilify national military actions'. Renu Bhatia said that he ignored the panel's summons on May 14. She further said that when the commission visited the university on May 15, he did not appear before it. Mahmudabad, however, said that he only exercised his fundamental right to freedom of speech in order to promote peace and harmony. The professor maintained that his remarks had been '' by the commission and that its notice failed to highlight how his posts were 'contrary to the right of or laws for women'.
The Wire
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
The Curious Crusade of Renu Bhatia Against Ashoka Professor Mahmudabad
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Analysis The Curious Crusade of Renu Bhatia Against Ashoka Professor Mahmudabad Pavan Korada 43 minutes ago Renu Bhatia's interventions, and her vocal defence of her actions in the Ashoka professor case, demand closer examination – not merely for what they reveal about her role but for the light they shed on intolerance and the misuse of state institutions. Renu Bhatia and Ali Khan Mahmudabad. In the backdrop is a Facebook post by the professor. Illustration: The Wire Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now Renu Bhatia, the chairperson of Haryana State Commission for Women, is now at the centre of a contentious storm over First Information Reports (FIRs) against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University, Sonipat. The controversy, sparked by the professor's online reflections on 'Operation Sindoor' and Indo-Pakistani relations, has thrust Bhatia and her commission into a harsh spotlight. Apart from Bhatia's complaint, one FIR, filed by BJP village sarpanch from Sonipat, also reportedly stemmed from an alleged private conversation with the professor. That a mere critical reflection, particularly from an academic, can incite such a disproportionate and punitive response from the state – or those drawing authority tenuously from it – has become a dispiritingly familiar feature of our current times; a 'new normal', if you will. Bhatia's interventions, and her vocal public defence of her actions, demand closer examination – not merely for what they reveal about her grasp of her mandate but for the light they shed on prevailing intolerance and the instrumentalisation of state institutions for purposes clearly far from their stated objectives. Bhatia repeatedly asserts her unimpeachable integrity and unwavering commitment to her duties – past, present, and future. 'I will not let any daughter of my country bow down,' she declares. 'Whoever emits the stench of betrayal in the name of the country's daughters… I will keep speaking out against them.' Such claims, common from public officials, ring hollow against a record that, at a glance, appears more attuned to political expediency than to unyielding justice or the consistent protection of all women. This isn't to doubt her sincerity, which can coexist with a profound misunderstanding of one's role, but to question its remarkably selective application. Past Before becoming chairperson of Haryana women's commission in January 2022 – her term later extended 'until a further order', implying perhaps political favour over performance – Bhatia's career covered media and brief film work. An anchor for Doordarshan, a stint playing Benazir Bhutto (she proudly calls herself ' Bhajpa ki Benazir'), these experiences preceded her formal political career. Politics, however, was apparently 'never out of the picture', her family rooted in the RSS and BJP. This lineage smoothed her path from Faridabad municipal councillor and deputy mayor – although her second council run in 2010 was reportedly foiled by Congress fielding 'six women candidates named Renu Bhatia' – to her current, prominent position. Bhatia's leadership of the women's commission has drawn controversial public attention. A viral video from two years ago showed her in an unseemly altercation with a woman police officer over a marital dispute, while another from last year showed her threatening to deport an NRI over his wife's complaint. While she commendably pursued a sexual harassment case against a Jind school principal, her zeal seems inconsistent. For instance, her commission initiated an FIR against Sameena Dalwai, a professor, for 'outraging the modesty' of students (all above 18 years) at OP Jindal Global University, also in Sonipat, by showing them dating app profiles during a gender discussion – an accusation stretching the definition to a Victorian degree. More telling, given her current indignation for 'women in uniform', was her notable reticence on a 2017 Republic TV panel. When Arnab Goswami demanded, as part of his daily prime time harangues, that she label convicted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Ram Rahim a rapist, Bhatia consistently refused. Did a high court rape conviction not warrant such a descriptor from a self-proclaimed champion of women's dignity? Or does speaking truth to power vary with the power in question and political affiliations? Her silence regarding a judicially confirmed rapist with political clout contrasts sharply with her condemnation of a professor for a nuanced reading of a government press conference. Where was this fierce protector when Ram Rahim's followers rampaged, or when Haryana's wrestler-daughters, alleging sexual harassment by a powerful BJP MP, were dragged on the streets while he retained his seat? The past, as Bhatia herself seems keen to invoke, has a rather inconvenient habit of offering up such contrasts, casting a rather long shadow on present protestations of undiluted concern for all 'daughters'. Present Returning to Professor Mahmudabad, Bhatia's five-hour press briefing and TV interview with India Today's Preeti Choudhary offer a veritable trove for students of political rhetoric and manufactured outrage. Certain words from Mahmudabad's text – 'illusion', 'hypocrisy' and the invented 'painted faces', absent from his post but central to Bhatia's grievance – are brandished as proof of insult to 'India's daughters' and the nation. Pressed by Choudhary to find 'painted faces' in the professor's writing, Bhatia evaded: 'No, what does hypocrisy and illusion mean then? Maybe my English is not better… What does this mean then?' This feigned confusion over 'polished sophisticated English,' posing as a simple woman bewildered by academic jargon, is a classic anti-intellectual populist trope. The implication – 'intellectuals' with 'high-brow English' apparently hide nefarious, anti-national designs, transparent to the 'common person' who presumably speaks plain 'general Hindi'. 'Where does the meaning of what he has written go?' she demands as she seems unwilling to engage with the text's actual meaning, preferring a sinister interpretation fitting a narrative suspicious of critical inquiry. By equating Ashoka University to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), she cleverly sought to use the existing anti-JNU, and as a corollary 'urban-naxal' narrative to add wind to her sails. She stopped short of declaring that 'India' (liberal elites) might find the professor's words acceptable, but 'Bharat' (the real peoples) would not. The attack sharpens with repeated, sneering references to Professor Mahmudabad as 'Raja-babu' and an unsubstantiated focus on his grandfather's alleged funding of the Muslim League. 'His grandfather funded the Muslim League in Pakistan,' she asserts, urging the media to 'go behind all this.' This is a familiar tactic — discrediting someone by supposed tainted ancestry, a form of collective culpability marking them as inherently suspect. The 'elite Muslim intellectual English-speaking liberal' is a caricature resonating within the Hindutva framework, long preoccupied with conditional minority belonging and 'mental allegiance' to a narrow Hindu Rashtra. Bhatia's fascination with Professor Mahmudabad's 'mentality' is revealing. 'I scrolled more things about him just to judge what kind of mentality he has,' she states, as if social media reveals a mind's workings, or as if such judgment is a women's commission chairperson's task. This focus on 'mentality' and 'background', not the alleged offense, crudely echoes Golwalkarian concern with an internal, immutable 'nature' supposedly rendering certain groups alien. The professor's perceived 'attitude of being critical of the BJP' – often conflated with being 'anti-national' – is deemed offensive, not just his words. His crime, it seems, is not what he said, but who he is: an independent thinker, a minority member, daring to articulate a view deviating from the official narrative. Throughout the India Today interview, Bhatia evades questions. She repeatedly asks the anchor what the offending words 'mean' but refuses to explain her interpretation of how Mahmudabad's phrasing insults women officers or is seditious. The anchor cites his posts; Bhatia cites her police complaint, as if its filing makes it true. 'I understood its meaning,' she declares. 'At such a delicate time of Operation Sindoor, I understood it.' Her understanding appears impervious to textual analysis. More perplexing, during her press briefing, was her sudden injection of the phrase 'caste equations.' 'It is a matter of surprise that when any daughter of our country progresses in this manner, we start indulging in caste equations. Why is it only about the daughter of a particular caste moving forward?' she mused, a comment tangential to Mahmudabad's posts. Could it be a 'sharp missive' on the contentious caste census, where her party, the BJP, was defensive? This plausible interpretation suggests the professor's alleged transgression offered a platform to signal allegiance on unrelated political fronts. Such performative pronouncements often prioritise signaling virtue over relevance. The reckoning Thus, we reach the crux — Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, should safeguard women's rights. Yet, while institutional energy is spent pursuing a professor for words needing prodigious misinterpretation to be offensive, Haryana's women face a grimmer reality. The state's sex ratio at birth (SRB) plummeted to an eight-year low of 910 in 2024, from 923 in 2019. This isn't an abstract statistic – it is a brutal denial of a girl child's right to live, resulting from entrenched patriarchal values, illegal sex-selective abortions, and systemic devaluation of female lives. Where is the five-hour press conference on this crisis, considering it is during her tenure that this record low was achieved? Where is the relentless pursuit of those perpetuating this silent annihilation? It is a profoundly disturbing inversion of priorities when a body established to protect women theatrically policies academic speech, while the silent, systemic violence against the most vulnerable – unborn or infant girls, in this case – continues unabated. Such actions are not isolated misjudgements but symptoms of a deeper malaise where democratic institutions serve partisan ends, their mandates reinterpreted to stifle dissent, not uphold rights. The 'stench of betrayal,' to use Bhatia's phrase, might lie not in a professor's words, but in the chasm between an institution's proclaimed duties and its impact. One wonders if the true 'illusion' and 'hypocrisy' are in a women's commission more exercised by semantics than by the denial of life and dignity to Haryana's daughters. Grandiose claims of protecting every daughter ring hollow against such stark realities, questioning the actual purpose of such commissions when their energies are so flagrantly misdirected from pressing, life-and-death issues. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Raises Critical Questions on Free Speech, Liberty and the Law Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad's Posts that Haryana Police Calls 'Sedition' Letter Calls on Haryana Women's Commission to Retract Summons, Apologise to Political Scientist Ashoka Prof Arrested For 'Endangering Sovereignty' Over Post Criticising Jingoism, Sent to Custody Till May 20 Ali Khan Mahmudabad Presented Before Court, Sent to Judicial Custody Till May 27 The Sole Reason Behind Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Is That He Is a Muslim Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Reveals the Political Capture of Women's Rights in India 'Inverted the Meaning, Invented an Issue': Ashoka Professor on Women's Panel's Reaction to Army Post 'Action Violates Legal Process, BJP Fearful of Critical Opinion': Opposition on Ashoka Prof's Arrest About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Women's panels in India: Who appoints them, and what do they do?
Renu Bhatia, the chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, has come into the spotlight after lodging a complaint against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. Her complaint followed a similar one filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Yuva Morcha member and village head Yogesh Jatheri, accusing Mahmudabad of making inflammatory comments during a discussion on Operation Sindoor — remarks alleged to threaten communal harmony and national security. Bhatia's action has drawn attention to the role and mandate of women's commissions across the country. So what do these national and state panels actually do? What do women's commissions do? Women's commissions — such as the National Commission for Women (NCW) and State Commissions for Women — are statutory bodies set up to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of women in India. Their core functions include: How are chairpersons of women's panels selected? National Commission for Women (NCW) -The Chairperson is nominated by the Central government -Candidates must have a proven commitment to the cause of women -The Commission includes five members and one member-secretary, all nominated by the Central government -Members are selected based on expertise in fields such as law, education, administration, or social work -The term for the Chairperson and members is three years or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier -Appointments are officially published in the Gazette of India In October 2024, Vijaya Kishore Rahatkar was appointed as the ninth Chairperson of the NCW by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. Her appointment was formally notified in the Gazette. State Commissions for Women -Chairpersons and members are appointed by the respective state governments -Criteria are generally aligned with the NCW's — focusing on demonstrable experience and dedication to women's issues -The exact eligibility and process may vary slightly across states While women's commissions do not hold judicial authority, their recommendations and investigations often influence policy decisions and legal reforms. Their ability to take suo motu cognisance of issues also makes them a crucial part of India's institutional mechanism for gender justice.
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Sonepat court dispose of laptop cloning plea of Ashoka varsity professor, assures SOP compliance
The Sonepat court on Monday disposed of the petition filed by the lawyer of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, urging it to direct the police to make a clone of the professor's laptop, assuring that all the standard operating procedures will be fulfilled while recovering the laptop from his house in Lucknow. The plea was filed by his lawyer Kapil Balyan. Speaking to HT over phone, Balyan said that the court sent the associate professor on two-day police remand on Sunday evening based on an FIR lodged by the chairperson of the Haryana state commission for women, Renu Bhatia, and granted him judicial custody on another FIR lodged by Jatheri village sarpanch Yogesh Jatheri. 'The arguments went on for around five hours on Sunday evening. The police had sought his remand to recover his laptop from Lucknow. We have also apprised the court that his wife is due for delivery, and then the court directed the police to co-operate with him on humanitarian grounds in case his wife was admitted to the hospital during remand time. We suspect that the police can tamper with Khan's laptop, and so we filed an application in the court today. The judicial magistrate Azad Singh has disposed of the application and assured us that the police will recover the laptop in the presence of Khan's lawyers. He will be produced again in the court on Tuesday,' he added. The Sonepat police had produced the associate professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in the court on Sunday evening and demanded a five-day police remand on an FIR lodged by Renu Bhatia. But the court granted a two-day remand. On May 16—Friday— late night, the associate professor was booked under sections 353 (1) (Statements conducing to public mischief), 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman), 152 (act endangering sovereignty and integrity of India) and 196(1) (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, on a complaint filed by Renu Bhatia at Rai police station. Meanwhile on May 17—Saturday, police booked him under sections 152 (Act endangering sovereignty and integrity of India), 196(1) (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion), 197(1) ( Assertions prejudicial to national integration ) and 299 (Malicious act, intended to outrage religious activities) of the BNS on a complaint filed by Yogesh Jatheri, who is also general secretary of BJP Yuva Morcha in Haryana. The Haryana State Commission for Women had sent a notice to Mahmudabad on May 12, saying that a prima facie review of his social media posts reveal various concerns which include 'Disparaging of women in uniform, including Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Command Vyomika Singh, undermining their role as professional officers in the Indian Armed forces..' The women's commission's notice said that it has taken suo motu cognisance of the 'Public statements' made 'On or about May 7' by Mahmudabad. An excerpt from Mahmudabad's social media post said, 'I am very happy to see so many right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureshi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing, and others who are victims of the BJP's hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground, otherwise it's just hypocrisy.' Following his arrest, the faculty association of Ashoka University condemned Mahmudabad's arrest. Issuing a statement, the association said, 'We condemn the calculated harassment to which Professor Mahmudabad has been subjected: after being arrested early in the morning from his home in New Delhi, he was taken to Sonipat, not allowed access to necessary medication, and driven around for hours without any communication about his whereabouts.' The faculty of Ashoka University vowed their support for their colleague, whom they called an invaluable member of the university community, a deeply responsible citizen, and a friend to his students. 'Professor Mahmudabad is well-versed in diverse literary and linguistic traditions and is a widely acclaimed expert and scholar of history and political science in South Asia and beyond. In all of his writing, both for academic and wider public fora, he has emphasised the importance of justice, pluralism, and solidarity, and has always advocated a profound respect for Constitutional values and morality,' the association added.
