The statement released on Wednesday, May 28 was in clear solidarity with Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad who was arrested over his posts on Operation Sindoor.

“We are greatly distressed by the grave criminal charges levelled against Mahmudabad and his subsequent arrest,” the statement said, calling the charges “outrageous and absurd.” “The main burden of his posts was to make eloquent and heartfelt calls for peace,” it noted.

Calling the charges against Mahmudabad reminiscent of the colonial-era sedition law, the statement said that it “be a crime to seek justice for victims of lynching and bulldozer demolitions, or to call for peace and restraint.”

The statement in full may be read below:

CCG Open statement on the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We are greatly distressed by the grave criminal charges levelled against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad and his subsequent arrest. Professor Ali Khan was charged for two of his social media posts related to Operation Sindoor. His posts were thoughtful and measured. In these he praised the restraint of the Indian Army. He 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.

But the main burden of his posts was to make eloquent and heartfelt calls for peace. He described the loss of civilian lives on both sides as “tragic” and warned against warmongering by civilians who have never experienced war. Denouncing the “blind bloodlust for war” displayed by some people on social media, he declared that warmongering “is actually disrespecting the seriousness of war and dishonouring the lives of soldiers whose lives are actually on the line.”

For these posts, Professor Ali was charged under stringent sections of India’s new criminal law code, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. These include Section 152, which penalises acts “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”. This closely echoes the language of the colonial-era sedition law under the now repealed Indian Penal Code. Other crimes for which Professor Ali Khan is charged include Section 196(1) (b), which penalises acts that disturb communal harmony and public tranquillity; Section 197(1) (c), which targets “assertions likely to cause disharmony” and Section 299, which criminalises “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings.”

We regard the criminal charges against Professor Ali Khan as outrageous and absurd. It cannot be a crime to seek justice for victims of lynching and bulldozer demolitions, or to call for peace and restraint. It is noteworthy that despite the orders of the Supreme Court for  taking suo moto action, even rampant hate speeches that openly call for violence and ethnic cleansing of Indian Muslims have rarely attracted these criminal charges of disloyalty to the  nation and fostering religious hate. In the most recent case, after a minister from Madhya Pradesh (MP), Kunwar Vijay Shah, described Colonel Sofia Qureshi as the sister of terrorists, it required the MP High Court to direct the police to register an FIR against the minister. The High Court described the statements of the minister as “cancerous and dangerous”.

Many students and faculty members came forward in heartening solidarity with Professor Ali Khan, even though the management of Ashoka University remained conspicuously silent about the unjust criminal targeting of their faculty. Faculty members took turns to sit outside places where the professor was detained. We were particularly touched by  a statement by Professor Ali Khan’s students, who described him as compassionate and  thoughtful, a teacher who loved his country and taught his students respect for the values of  secular democracy spelt out in our Constitution.

After his arrest and police remand, we were relieved that the Supreme Court granted him interim bail. But, with due respect, we are dismayed by some of the comments made by the bench and the conditions of bail that were laid down. 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 bench ordered the surrender of the professor’s passport and the appointment of a Special Investigation Team to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in the two posts.” 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.

The Supreme Court disapproved of public displays of solidarity with the professor, handing out a stern warning to academics and students who supported Professor Ali Khan with the words “we know how to handle them also”. The learned judges also directed the professor to make no further statements about the India-Pakistan hostilities. At a time when the country is deluged with social media posts and speeches of hatemongering and warmongering, it is a matter of painful irony that calls for peace by a political scientist are silenced. It is noteworthy that despite the orders of the Supreme Court for taking suo moto  action, even rampant hate speeches that openly call for violence and ethnic cleansing of Indian  Muslims have rarely attracted criminal charges of disloyalty to the nation and fostering  religious hate.

We are quite disturbed by the deviation from defence of free speech, which has been  upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous cases, including Arnab Goswami vs. Union of India  and even recently in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi vs. State of Gujarat. In the latter case, Justice Oka pronounced that “in a healthy democracy, the views or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view”.  Even if such speech is opposed by many people, it must still be “respected and protected”.  That judgment notably offered advice to judges who might personally dislike certain articulations. Even in such cases, it was their “duty to uphold” and “zealously protect” the fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

The perils and consequences of suppressing free speech by unjust application of criminal law can be profoundly corrosive for a society. Young journalist Saurav Das aptly describes the treatment of Professor Ali Khan by the police and courts as “a perfect example of how you make a nation of intellectually dead citizens, where critical inquiry is replaced by  rote repetition and progressive voices are muzzled to make space for conformist, mediocre  opinions. This is how a society dies, where the proliferation of free thought is choked, through a slow, judicially sanctioned suffocation of intellectual life”.

Satyameva Jayate

Constitutional Conduct Group (79 signatories, as below)

The post ‘Seeking peace, calling out hate crimes not a crime’: Former Civil Servants Group on Mahmudabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While Modi took credit for the same and the Army spokesperson elaborated that there was a request from Pakistan authorities for cessation of hostilities and India responded in the affirmative to bring a halt to the potential bloodbath of more Army personnel and civilians on both sides.

The government decided to tell the Indian side of the story by sending various all-party delegations abroad. Many MPs from Opposition parties were included. One such was the delegation to the US headed by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. What type of brief these delegations were given becomes clear from the statement of Tharoor in the US.

Tharoor, a former diplomat, stated in the US that, “while the intent behind the Pahalgam terror attack was to divide people, it brought people together in India, irrespective of their religion or any other divide…There was an extraordinary amount of togetherness cutting across religious and other divides that people have tried to provoke. The message is very clear that there was a malignant intent… “.

Have all the delegations been given a brief like this? This narrative clearly has lots of truth in it, as all Indians, including Hindus and Muslims, came together to condemn the dastardly act in Pahalgam. Kashmir.

However, still lurking under all this is the continued hate being spread against Muslims. Even before the Pahalgam tragedy, the hate directed against Muslims was rising. After this tragedy, this hate manufactured against Muslims is peaking further. In an article last week, I did give a partial list of hate actions against this hapless community. These events have been chronicled by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

Another article comments that “Even as India mourned lives lost in the terrorist attack, a coordinated campaign unfolded, offline and online, with one message: that Muslims were a threat to Hindus, that a similar fate awaited all Hindus, and that Muslims needed to be punished through violence and boycotts.

The most disturbing of these was the arrest of Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who heads the political science department there. In a very pertinent post he stated,” “I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi,” adding that “they should also demand that the victims of mob lynching, arbitrary demolitions [of houses], others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens”. Several rights groups have pointed out that there has been a rise in violence and hate speech against Muslims in India in the past decade.”

Following this there were complaints against the Professor by the Haryana State Women’s Commission “that Mr Mahmudabad’s social media posts had “disparaged” the two women defence officers and “undermined their role” in the armed forces.”  It is beyond one’s comprehension as to how this post disparaged the women defence officers or undermined their role in the Indian Army?

The other complaint was filed by a ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) youth activist. Ali Khan was arrested based on these complaints and approached the Supreme Court, granting him provisional bail. The apex also gave a judgment that asked him not to write on this matter and to deposit his passport.

The SC judgment stated that Ali Khan’s post is “dog whistling” and that it may transmit contentious messages subtly. We know “dog-whistling” is the most used label for coded speech that carries contentious meaning indirectly. The judge doubted the time and motivation behind the posts though granting interim bail was very gratifying.

Even Vijay Shah, a BJP leader and minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, who commented that Sofiya Qureshi is the “sister of terrorists” was heavily reprimanded by the court. This remark by a BJP leader was the most hateful comment possible against the outstanding Army officer. As such, this was clear ‘dog whistling’ by Shah. While the court rejected his apology, his arrest has been put on hold.

What is a dog whistle? Prof Ali Khan’s post is not a dog whistle to be sure. It is an expression of the anguish of the minority community. On the contrary, it is Shah whose dog whistle borders on open articulation of hate. Prof Ali Khan, in a sensitive manner, has shown us the mirror as to how the nation is treating its minorities. Shah has shown openly as to how every occasion is used to sow hatred against the minorities.

A Professor from a minority community should not be taken to task for talking about bulldozers and lynching which has become part of India’s ‘new normal’ and, despite the court’s disapproval of bulldozers, state governments many a times have resorted to its use.

Also, two satirists, Neha Singh Rathore and Madri Kakoti, the former a singer and the latter known as Dr Medusa online, were booked for their social media posts critical of the Modi government in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.

In a way, what Vijay Shah has done is largely condoned by his party, no suspension, no expulsion and no arrest. The open hate against minorities from the top BJP leadership to down below is not only quietly accepted, it also acts as a stepping stone for their political career.

Just to recall in the prelude to the 2019 Delhi communal violence, those calling for peace and harmony, such as Umar Khalid, Sharjil Imam and others are rotting in jail for over five years, their cases not even coming up for hearing, while a Union minister of state, Anurag Thakur, got promoted to full Cabinet rank after he made the people shout ‘Goli Maro…’ slogans’.

The norms of our civility and the Constitution are being slowly eroded by politics that wears the clothes of religion. What democracy needs is the likes of Ali Khan, Umar Khalid, Neha Singh Rathore and Himanshi Narwal, who, in a truthful manner, are calling for peace and also showing a mirror to our society.

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

The post Pahalgam Tragedy: Indian delegations abroad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It stands in sharp contrast to how India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru intervened to get a scholarship for a young Irfan Habib in spite of the fact that he was member of communist party, faced some penal action from the Aligarh Muslim University for his activities.

The present case of shocking police action against Mahmudabad – putting him behind bars on very grave charges – over his posts needs a close look before putting it in the historical context of how Nehru helped Habib, who would go on to become a famous historian in the future.

Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s Facebook post

Mahmudabad, a young, bright and brilliant academic, was arrested by Haryana police on the grounds that his Facebook post on Operation Sindoor (conducted by Indian Army to deal with the threat of terrorism from Pakistan) among others, incited rebellion and hurt religious feelings.

Mahmudabad remarked in his post that the press briefings on Operation Sindoor conducted by colonel Sofiya Qureshi and wing commander Vyomika Singh were important and constituted good optics. While noting with satisfaction that many right wing commentators applauded colonel Qureshi, he boldly spelt out his concerns that the “optics” could be counted as “hypocrisy” if those commentors, in their role as Indian citizens failed in demanding equally loudly, the protection of “ the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering”.

He also referred to the example of a prominent Muslim politician who said “Pakistan Murdabad” and was trolled by Pakistanis and applauded by Indian right wing commentators hailing him as “our mulla”. “Of course this is funny” remarked Mahmudabad and observed with sadness “but it also points to just how deep communalism has managed to infect the Indian body politic.”

However, he displayed optimism that the press conference addressed by colonel Qureshi and wing commander Singh offered him a fleeting glimpse of, what he said, “to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built”. “As I said,” he said, “the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united it its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

It is preposterous to think that what he wrote pointed to sedition or attempts to stoke enmity among people professing diverse faiths. The arrest of professor Ali Khan is an example of State action egregiously violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and rule of law.

Nehru on Irfan Habib

It is against this sordid backdrop that we may recall how seventy years back in 1955, Nehru intervened to get a scholarship for Irfan Habib, now a renowned historian. Nehru’s intervention was warranted because the Home Ministry had raised objections owing to the fact that Habib was a member of the Communist Party.

Following Zakir Hussain’s pleadings that Habib should be helped Nehru met him. In the letter to Zakir Hussain, Nehru wrote that Habib was a Member of Communist party and the government scholarship should not be given to someone who might use it to study and later act against the State.

“No State,” Nehru wrote, “ could be expected to go out of its way to give a scholarship to a person on whom it could not rely or who was likely to indulge in activities which were harmful to the State”.

It is instructive that Nehru in that letter described Irfan and his comrades as Jesuits and he wrote that they belonged “… to the strict order and not over-scrupulous in their dealings with others, provided they carry out the dictates of that order to whom they owe their basic loyalty”.

“I see no reason why Government should go out of its way to offer a scholarship to a person who is so tied up with an order of this kind, whether it is the communist party or some other,” Nehru sharply noted.

However, while he did make those remarks, Nehru also showed his statesmanship and wrote, “I recognise, of course, that one must not judge young people too strictly and youthful enthusiasm must not be ignored. Probably, with some greater experience, one grows out of these immature grooves of thought and action”.

In the end, he advised the Ministry of Education to give scholarship to Habib with the remarks that “…. he is a young man of intelligence and, I believe, integrity and both these qualities will no doubt influence his future growth.”

Modi regime criminalising dissent

Seventy years after Nehru displayed his liberality while dealing with a young dissenting academic like Habib and granted him a scholarship, a young professor like Mahmudabad is being put behind bars for his Facebook post which is full of constructive crticisim rooted in idea of India. Eventually Mahmudabad will triumph because in his own words, “India, united in its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to former President of India K.R. Narayanan.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post In Contrast: Nehru’s Take on a Young, Dissenting Irfan Habib and the Modi Govt’s Treatment of Mahmudabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Detailing further, the press release states that the news report dated  May 20, 2025 regarding the arrest and remand to custody of a Professor of Ashoka University (a deemed to be University) in Haryana contains a gist of the allegations on the basis of which he has been arrested, discloses, prima facie, that the human rights and liberty of the said Professor have been violated. Therefore, it has deemed it to be a fit case for taking suo motu cognisance of the reported incident.

Accordingly, it has issued a notice to the Director General of Police. Haryana, calling for a detailed report in the matter within one week.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has today granted interim bail to Professor Mahmudabad.

Related:

SC: Interim bail granted to professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; SIT to probe posts on Operation Sindoor

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

The post NHRC, India takes suo motu cognisance of a media report regarding the arrest and remand to custody of a Professor of Ashoka University in Haryana, issues notice to DGP Haryana appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, the Court refused to stay the investigation, reported LiveLaw. Moreover, the Court also directed the Haryana DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers, who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to investigate and understand the true meaning of the post. One officer of the SIT should be a woman. The SIT should be constituted within 24 hours, stated the court. The SIT should be headed by an IG rank officer and the other two members must be of SP rank. The matter will now be heard on Friday.

#BREAKING| SC Refuses to stay investigation against @AshokaUniv Professor

SC : having regard to two online posts have led to FIR registration, we are satisfied that NO CASE OF STAYING THE INVESTIGATION IS MADE OUT . But to have understanding of the propensity of the word use,…

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 21, 2025

Imposing some conditions for grant of interim bail, the Court restrained Ali Khan Mahmudabad from writing any posts or articles in relation to the social media posts which are subject matter of the case or from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by India. The Court also directed him to join and fully cooperate with the investigation. He has been directed to surrender his passport. The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh clarified that the interim bail has been granted to facilitate further investigation.

After the order was dictated, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, requested the Court to restrain the registration of further FIRs on the same issue. “Nothing will happen,” Justice Kant orally said. Justice Kant orally asked the State of Haryana to ensure that. The State was granted liberty to place on record any further incriminating materials they discover during the course of the investigation.

Bench queries the petitioner’s posts during the hearing

At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, drew the bench’s attention to Mahmudabad’s comments posted on his Facebook and Instagram profiles. He read out the comments to the bench. “This is a highly patriotic statement,” Sibal said.

Referring to Mahmudabad’s comments about “right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi” and his statement that right-wing commentators must equally express concerns for victims of mob lynching, bulldozing etc., Justice Kant said, “So after commenting about war, he turned to politics!”

“Everybody has a right to express free speech. But is it the time to talk of this much communal…? The country has faced a big challenge. Monsters came all the way and attacked our innocents. We were staying united. But at this juncture.. why to gain cheap popularity on this occasion?” Justice Kant remarked.

Sibal, agreeing that Mahmudabad’s comments could have waited till May 10, however, asked what was the criminality in his comments.

“Everybody talks about rights. As if the country for last 75 years was distributing rights!” Justice Kant said.

Petitioner’s comments ‘dog-whistling’, he should have used ‘neutral and respectful’ language : Justice Surya Kant

About the petitioner’s comments, Justice Kant said, “This is what we call in the law – dog whistling!””Some of the opinions are not offending to the nation as such. But while giving an opinion, if you….” Justice Kant said.

“When the choice of words is deliberately made to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons, the learned professor cannot have the lack of dictionary words…he could convey the very same feelings in a simple language without hurting others. Have some respect for the sentiments of others. Use simple and neutral kind of language, respecting others” Justice Kant said.

Sibal said that the comments had no “criminal intent”. He highlighted that the petitioner said that the press briefing of Operation Sindoor showed that the logic on which Pakistan was built has failed, and that the post ended with “Jai Hind.” He also added that the petitioner’s wife is nine months pregnant and expecting child delivery soon.

Justice Kant asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the State of Haryana, if the comments had the effect of insulting women army officers. Justice Kant said that the bona fides of the comment was a subject matter of investigation. “The entire projection is that he is anti-War, saying families of army people, civilian in border areas etc., suffer. But some words have double meaning also.,” he said.

ASG Raju said that the post was not as innocent as projected by Sibal

On May 20, a local court in Sonepat, Haryana sent Mahmudabad to judicial custody. While so ordering, the court rejected the State Police’s request for his 7-day custody. On May 18, the Magistrate had remanded the Professor to police custody for two days.

Mahmudabad has been charged with offences under Section 196, 152 etc., of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), inter alia, 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. He has also been summoned by the Haryana State Commission For Women which is headed by Renu Bhatia.

Detailed Background

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.

Widespread support for professor Mahmudabad

Students and faculty of Ashoka University came forward in widespread support and solidarity against his arrest that has been widely criticised the country over. Fellow teachers and professors even maintained a vigil outside the police station ensuring that all medication etc reached the arrested academic in time.

SC order can be read here.

Related:

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

Singing Faiz’s ‘Hum Dekhenge’ is ‘Sedition’: Nagpur Police Book Organisers of Vira Sathidar Memorial

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

The post SC: Interim bail granted to professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; SIT to probe posts on Operation Sindoor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.”

My statement re the summons that I received from the Haryana State Women’s Commission.

The posts that were misunderstood and objected to can be accessed on my Facebook page. pic.twitter.com/U4rZrAXhFx

— Ali Khan Mahmudabad (@Mahmudabad) May 14, 2025

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.

The Indian National Congress stands with our Armed Forces, bureaucrats, academicians, intellectuals and their families.

I condemn any character assassination, vilification, trolling, harassment, unlawful arrest of any individual and vandalism of any business entity, either…

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) May 19, 2025

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.”

Ali Khan Mahmudabad has been arrested for a thoughtful Facebook post. This is the state of New India under the Modi government.

A historian and academic is jailed not for inciting violence but for advocating against it. His crime? Daring to speak truth to power, exposing the… pic.twitter.com/wLiVNFujTE

— Pawan Khera (@Pawankhera) May 18, 2025

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.)”

हुक्मरानों की बदज़ुबानी पर भी आज़ादी
और किसी की सच कहने पर गिरफ़्तारी

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) May 19, 2025

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.”

Utterly condemnable. If true, Haryana police reportedly arrested him from Delhi, violating legal process. This targets an individual for his opinions; his post wasn’t anti-national or misogynistic. A mere complaint by a BJP worker made Haryana police take action. https://t.co/xsOpdmAd7R

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) May 18, 2025

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.”

The Faculty Association of @AshokaUniv strongly condemns the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science, on 18 May 2025, on groundless and untenable charges. 1/-

— Maya Mirchandani (@maya206) May 18, 2025

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

@Mahmudabad‘s students this semester have written a beautiful and strong message in solidarity with their beloved professor. The class was called Banish the Poets. Have a read!
Faculty and students, we all stand in solidarity with him. pic.twitter.com/lUzU29JOnk

— Arpita Das (she/her) (@arpitayodapress) May 19, 2025

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.”

My sincere thanks to Profs Apoorvanand and Vaidik. It is heartening and humbling to see this cross-sectional support. My profound thanks to the 1200+ people who have signed, called and written in support, especially faculty and students.

Link to letter:https://t.co/LXVhadLezr pic.twitter.com/HLOJ86wRNP

— Ali Khan Mahmudabad (@Mahmudabad) May 17, 2025

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!”

The arrest of Dr Ali Khan has a message:a Muslim can express his ideas but should not expect freedom after that. It is to tell Muslims that your elites ll be shown their place. Their stature goes against them.This arrest irrationally reminded me of the fate of Ehsan Jafri Sb.

— Apoorvanand अपूर्वानंद (@Apoorvanand__) May 19, 2025

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

The post How high is the price of criticism? Professor Mahmudabad arrested for his criticism of politics of hatred appeared first on SabrangIndia.