1 day ago
17
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.
