Categories
Politics Rights

How high is the price of criticism? Professor Mahmudabad arrested for his criticism of politics of hatred

The targeting of a respected scholar from the minority community, for a critical comment on the politics of hatred during a national security operation underscores the growing erosion of free speech, institutional autonomy, and dissent in contemporary India

Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor and head of the Political Science department at Ashoka University, was arrested on Sunday, May 18, in Delhi for his social media commentary on India’s recent military action dubbed Operation Sindoor. His arrest follows two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in Haryana and stems from allegations of inciting secession, insulting religious beliefs, and undermining national unity.

The arrest was made based on complaints filed by Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and Yogesh Jatheri, the village sarpanch of Jatheri and general secretary of the BJP Yuva Morcha in Haryana.

He was charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including:

  • Section 152 – Act endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India
  • Section 353 – Statements conducing to public mischief
  • Section 79 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
  • Section 196(1)(b) – Promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds
  • Section 197(1)(c) – Assertions prejudicial to national integration
  • Section 299 – Malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings

According to Sonipat DCP (Crime) Narinder Kadian, Mahmudabad was produced before a local court and remanded to two days’ police custody for investigation.

Background: ‘Operation Sindoor’, national briefing and the right to express opinions

On the morning of May 7, 2025, the Indian Armed Forces carried out coordinated missile strikes targeting nine terrorist camps situated in PoK and Pakistan. This operation was executed as a retaliatory measure following the mass killing of 26 civilians in Pahalgam. The campaign, named Operation Sindoor, marked a significant escalation in India’s counterterror strategy.

Later that day, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, along with Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, addressed the media. The press briefing, led by these two senior women officers, was widely covered and praised across media platforms and by political commentators, especially from the Hindutva spectrum.

On May 8, a day after the press briefing, Professor Mahmudabad posted a message on social media reflecting on the public reception of the briefing. In his post, he noted the irony of right-wing voices praising the two women officers, particularly Colonel Qureshi, while remaining silent on domestic issues such as mob lynchings, arbitrary demolitions, and religiously motivated violence.

“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,” Mahmudabad wrote.

He further commented:

“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.” (Detailed report may be read here.)

These remarks were interpreted by the complainants as a denigration of national military efforts and an attempt to communalise and politicise a national security operation.

Basis for arrest

Haryana State Commission for Women’s action: As per the report of Hindustan Times, The Haryana State Commission for Women took suo motu cognisance of Mahmudabad’s remarks, alleging that they were:

  • Insulting to women officers in the Indian Armed Forces
  • An attempt to create communal disharmony
  • A violation of public order during a sensitive national moment

The commission issued a summons to Mahmudabad on May 14, which he reportedly ignored. On May 15, commission officials visited Ashoka University, but he allegedly did not appear before them.

In her police complaint, Chairperson Renu Bhatia accused Mahmudabad of:

  • “Using the narrative of war” despite no official declaration of war
  • Calling a political party “a hate-mongering entity,” which she claimed was prejudicial and inflammatory

Second Complaint and BJP’s involvement: As per the report of Indian Express, the second FIR was based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, sarpanch of Jatheri village and BJP youth leader. He alleged that Mahmudabad’s comments had “deeply hurt him on a personal level” and were anti-national in tone.

Haryana BJP spokesperson Sanjay Sharma defended the FIRs and police action, stating:

“Security agencies are taking action as appropriate for the security of the country.”

Professor Mahmudabad’s response

Prior to his arrest and after receiving the notice of the Women’s Commission, in a public statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Mahmudabad had defended his comments and criticized the interpretation made by the Women’s Commission:

“I am surprised that the Women’s Commission, while overreaching its jurisdiction, has misread and misunderstood my posts to such an extent that they have inverted their meaning.”

He added that his academic and public work has consistently focused on promoting peace, protecting constitutional values, and supporting national unity. He emphasized that his intent was not to disparage the military, but to:

“Applaud the Indian armed forces for their resolute action, while criticising those who preach hatred and seek to destabilise India.”

 

Legal and institutional implications

On Monday, May 19, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared before a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih in the Supreme Court, seeking urgent hearing in the matter of Professor Mahmudabad’s arrest.

“He has been arrested for a patriotic statement,” Sibal submitted, as per LiveLaw, urging the court to take up the case without delay.

The bench responded that the matter would be listed for hearing on May 20 or 21, indicating a willingness to assess the legality and urgency of the arrest.

Professor Mahmudabad is an accomplished scholar and public intellectual known for his research, writings, and policy work. He has previously collaborated with senior bureaucrats, military officers, and policymakers and is recognized for advocating constitutional values, secularism, and national integration. His arrest has sparked discussions around academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the limits of lawful criticism during national security events. Many have raised concerns about the criminalisation of political commentary, especially when it involves criticism of the ruling party or state institutions.

Political Reactions: Widespread condemnation from the opposition

The arrest triggered a wave of criticism from across the Opposition spectrum, with political leaders from the Congress, Samajwadi Party (SP), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) calling it an assault on free speech and academic independence.

Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge issued a scathing statement on social media: “The arrest of Ashoka University professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, shows how fearful the BJP is of any opinion disliked by them.”

Kharge drew attention to what he described as the BJP’s double standards, noting that while Mahmudabad was arrested for a “thoughtful” post, no action was taken against Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Vijay Shah, who on May 12 made sexist and communal remarks referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as “their own sister (unki samaj ki behen ke zariye)” in the context of Operation Sindoor. (Details may be read here.)

In his social media post, Kharge added: “Instead of acting against their own ministers for disparaging the armed forces, BJP-RSS is determined to silence voices that support pluralism, challenge the government, or simply do their job with integrity.”

He concluded by reaffirming that for the Congress, national unity and democracy must prevail, and supporting the armed forces does not mean silencing dissent.

Congress media head Pawan Khera described the arrest as the criminalisation of dissent: “A historian and academic is jailed not for inciting violence, but for advocating against it. His crime? Daring to speak truth to power and calling out the BJP’s chest-thumping hypocrisy.”

Khera added that Mahmudabad’s “only mistake” was that “he wrote a thoughtful post—and his other mistake is his name.” He further reminded that Mahmudabad is the grandson of Padma Bhushan awardee Jagat S. Mehta, a former Foreign Secretary of India who served under Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

He accused the BJP of employing the state machinery to silence writers, professors, and critics, and warned that the “real enemy is democracy itself when dissent is treated as criminal.”

SP President Akhilesh Yadav joined the chorus of condemnation with a poetic critique: “Hukmaraanon kee badazubaanee par bhee aazaadee, aur kisee kee sach kahane par giraftaaree (Freedom when rulers use foul language, but arrest when someone speaks the truth.)”

According to the report of Scroll, Abdul Hafeez Gandhi, SP national spokesperson, also defended Mahmudabad’s right to dissent: “He is being unfairly targeted for exercising his constitutional right to free speech. This is a misuse of state power.”

AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi labeled the arrest “utterly condemnable”, arguing that Mahmudabad was punished for a reasoned opinion: “His post wasn’t anti-national or misogynistic. A mere complaint by a BJP worker was enough for Haryana police to act with such speed.”

Leaders from the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) also weighed in, calling the arrest “deplorable”, “politically motivated”, and a “clear threat to freedom of expression” in academia and public discourse.

Ashoka University’s ambivalent stance amid controversy

Ashoka University has taken a cautious and somewhat distancing approach following the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. Prior to the arrest, the institution had made it clear that the professor’s social media posts were his personal opinions and did not represent the university’s official stance — a move that critics say reflects a reluctance to robustly defend academic freedom in a highly charged political climate.

As per the Indian Express, in its statement after the arrest, Ashoka University struck a neutral tone, stating it was “in the process of ascertaining the details” and that it would “continue to cooperate fully with the police and local authorities.” This measured response, while procedural, has been viewed by many as an insufficient show of solidarity with a faculty member facing what supporters call a politically motivated and disproportionate crackdown on free expression.

The university’s unwillingness to firmly oppose the arrest, especially when the charges appear tied to Mahmudabad’s academic and critical engagement with national issues, has raised concerns about institutional complicity in curbing dissent and the broader erosion of academic autonomy in India today. Those supporting Mahmudabad against this illegal arrest argue that in such times, silence or neutrality from educational institutions emboldens state overreach and undermines the very values universities are meant to uphold.

Academic and Civil Society Response: Outrage over “targeted harassment”

Ashoka University faculty and students stands by Professor Mahmudabad: As per the report of Indian Express, in an internal email circulated Sunday, the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) at Ashoka University denounced the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad as a “disproportionate punishment made on flimsy grounds” and labelled it a “fundamental attack on academic freedom”.

The Ashoka University Faculty Association also issued a formal statement condemning the arrest, describing the charges as “groundless and untenable”. The faculty detailed what they termed “calculated harassment”, saying Professor Mahmudabad was:

  • Arrested early in the morning from his Delhi home,
  • Taken to Sonipat without a transit remand,
  • Denied access to necessary medication, and
  • Driven around for hours without clear communication about his location.

The statement described him as “an invaluable member of the university community”, noting his scholarship, character, and commitment to Constitutional values, pluralism, and academic integrity:

“He has taught us what it means to be a citizen-scholar: rational, critical, yet deeply respectful and generous in engagement with the world… We demand his immediate and unconditional release and the dropping of all charges.”

Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s students wrote a strong message pf solidarity for him.

Over 1,000 scholars sign letter of support: A public letter of support, endorsed by over 1,000 academics and intellectuals, rallied behind Mahmudabad, calling the arrest a “preposterous” overreach that reflects the erosion of freedom of expression in India.

Prominent signatories include Romila Thapar, Ramachandra Guha, Jayati Ghosh, Nivedita Menon and Ram Puniyani.

The letter stated: “It is preposterous that we have come to such a pass in India that even praising the army, albeit while criticising those who clamour for war, can now invite such targeted harassment and attempted censorship.”

It praised Mahmudabad’s posts for recognizing the collapsing distinction between terrorists and the Pakistani military, while also celebrating India’s secular values through the representation of women officers in public briefings.

“Far from being misogynist or anti-national, Prof Khan’s posts are driven by a clear moral vision of what being a good citizen means… the words of a true patriot concerned with the lives of both soldiers and citizens.”

Voices from Academia: Delhi University professor Apoorvanand sharply criticised the legality of the arrest: “Haryana police has illegally arrested Dr Ali Khan. Taken from Delhi to Haryana without a transit remand. FIR filed at 8 PM. Police reached his home at 7 AM the next morning!”

Meanwhile, as per the report of The Hindu, the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) issued a strong condemnation:

“The JNUTA expresses its outrage at the wholly unwarranted arrest by the Haryana Police of Dr Khan. This arrest… follows soon after the Haryana State Commission for Women acted way beyond its jurisdiction in taking suo motu cognisance of some statements made by Professor Khan.”

Conclusion

The arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad represents a deeply troubling precedent in India’s democratic fabric, where the right to critique, question, and engage in reasoned public discourse is increasingly being criminalized under vague and politically motivated charges. This case starkly illustrates how academic freedom and freedom of expression—cornerstones of any vibrant democracy—are under siege. Instead of fostering dialogue and dissent as essential elements of national progress, the state apparatus appears to be weaponizing the law to silence voices that challenge the dominant narrative or critique government policies.

The swift and heavy-handed action against a respected scholar, whose academic work consistently upholds constitutional values, pluralism, and national integration, signals a dangerous erosion of institutional autonomy and intellectual independence. Moreover, the involvement of political actors and regulatory bodies in what should be academic and civil society debates raises critical questions about the misuse of power and the shrinking space for dissent.

As voices from academia, civil society, and political opposition unite in demanding Professor Mahmudabad’s immediate release and the dropping of all charges, this case must serve as a clarion call for safeguarding democratic freedoms in India. Upholding the principles of free expression and academic inquiry is not merely an academic concern—it is a vital defense against authoritarian tendencies that threaten the pluralistic and secular foundations of the nation. In defending Professor Mahmudabad, the right of every citizen to speak truth to power without fear of reprisal, and affirm the enduring strength of India’s democracy is being protected.

 

Related:

FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe

Apology and Accountability: CJP files complaint with six news channels for airing misleading war clips, false terror claims in ‘Operation Sindoor’ coverage

Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad’s Posts that Haryana Police Calls ‘Sedition’

Pahalgam Tragedy and Rising Spiral of Hatred

Exit mobile version