Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, Professor and Head, Department of Political Science, Ashoka University was arrested on 18 May 2025 on the basis of two complaints by a Haryana sarpanch and the chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women – objecting to his Facebook post, dated 8 May on the ongoing Indo-Pak conflict and related matters in the aftermath of the gruesome terrorist attack in Pahalgam. The widespread condemnation of the arrest is the heartening aspect of this dark moment of unconscionable state action that violates every constitutional tenet.

Televised interviews with the complainant-chairperson sadly exposed a total lack of comprehension on her part, of the post – rendering her complaint malicious and false. Despite this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while granting interim bail has directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team by the Director General of Police, Haryana, consisting of senior police officers to determine the 'meaning of the words' in the post; ordered surrender of his passport; and barred him from posting content on social media. While it is a relief to have him released from custody, the wide-ranging powers placed in the very same police establishment that arrested him is a cause for concern.

On 8 May 2025, Professor Mahmudabad posted a comment on Facebook that made three points:

Tackling Terrorism

(a) about the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan, and the shift in India's strategic response to terrorist activity by non-state actors and state support to terrorist activity in Pakistan. To quote an excerpt:

'[T]he Pak military has used militarised non-state actors to destabilise the region for far too long while also claiming to be victims on the international stage. It has also used the same actors- some of whom were targeted in the recent strikes—to foment sectarian tension in Pakistan. Operation Sindoor resets all received notions of Indo-Pak relationships as the response to terrorist attacks will be met with a military response and removes any semantic distinction between the two. Despite this collapse, care has been taken by the Indian armed forces to not target military or civilian installations or infrastructure so that there is no unnecessary escalation. The message is clear: if you don't deal with your terrorism problem then we will! The loss of civilian life is tragic on both sides and is the main reason why war should be avoided' (Emphasis added).

What was the objection? Is the presumption that the use of words like 'anti-national' by random complainants is sufficient to classify an action or words as seditious crimes authorising the irresponsible use of the brute state power – arbitrary and unlawful arrest - with the guarantee of impunity? This is a matter for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to deliberate on in its collective constitutional wisdom.

War and Human Suffering

(b) Concern over the widespread celebration of the war by Indian citizens and the cacophonic reactions to the efforts at negotiating ceasefire. advising caution to those who view war as something to be cheered by spectators. To quote the professor:

'There are those who are mindlessly advocating for a war but they have never seen one let alone lived in or visited a conflict zone. Being part of a mock civil defense drill does not make you a solider and neither will you ever know the pain of someone who suffers losses because of conflict. War is brutal. The poor suffer disproportionately and the only people who benefit are politicians and defence companies. While war is inevitable because politics is primarily rooted in violence—at least human history teaches us this- we have to realise that political conflicts have never been solved militarily.'

Let us remember that he is not alone in voicing this concern. We have had former army chief, General Manoj M. Naravane going on record saying 'war is not romantic, nor is it a Bollywood movie', and that his first choice would always be diplomacy. Any conscientious citizen would agree with this wise and tempered approach to armed conflict and war. Professor Mahmudabad is speaking to what he hopes is an audience of committed, thinking citizens who will take pause and reflect on the deep tragedies that war brings in its wake. It is peoples and communities living along the borders, and families and villages that send off their youth to the frontlines to defend the country, not knowing if they will return, that understand the meaning of war in its unfolding.

When General Naravane or Mr. Vikram Misri speak in support of a ceasefire or negotiate one, they do so with this understanding and this experience before them, and with deep empathy. It is this quality of empathy that Professor Mahmudabad urges us to resurrect from deep within in times of war. This is deeply ingrained in our traditions of civil disobedience, ethical dissent and conscientious peaceful resistance – the figures of Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar and Maulana Azad stand before us, among a host of others. Speaking truth to power and rejecting violence without fear is a quality to be celebrated, not incarcerated. This is even when (especially when) truths are bitterly discomforting. It is for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to protect those speaking truth to power with radical empathy.

Moral Equivalences

(c) Just as a section of media commentators are applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi, they should in equal measure condemn the lynching of ordinary Muslims in India today and the hate speech that Muslims across the country face today. Colonel Qureishi is an officer with a duty to perform – like other officers in the armed forces in times of war. To reduce her presence to tokenism, or to reduce her to a caricature, is the biggest injustice of all. The other side of the tokenism is targeted violence against ordinary Muslims. This is the harsh truth. We have before us the leading examples in the recent past of legislator Kapil Mishra and parliamentarian Ramesh Bidhuri (both from the BJP, as also the two complainants in this case) both of whose violently abusive words are on record and in the public domain. In Professor Mahmudabad's words,

'I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi 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'

The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has taken serious note of bulldozers and targeted violence against Muslims by mobs in the recent years. On this issue particularly we have witnessed a coming together of judicial and public deliberation in defence of the Constitution of India.

Let us ponder together over why an argument for proportionality, reason, humaneness and consistency in state and civic conduct has now become a crime that invites arrest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may enlighten us on this point.

It could be argued that in times of war, speech must be curtailed. We are now exactly 50 years from the Emergency of 1975, where this question was first debated. Justice H.R. Khanna's dissent in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla, powerfully stated that fundamental rights shall not be suspended even in times of Emergency: 'Even in the absence of Article 21 in the Constitution (i.e. the right to life and personal liberty), the state has got no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.' This dissent was unanimously reinstated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy vs. Union of India in 2017.

A Malicious and False Complaint

Clearly, the Haryana Women's Commission and the Sarpanch erred in their reading of the letter, text and spirit of his post. – even its plain meaning. The police acted without due application of mind and no justification in law or the Constitution. Clearly then, the Hon'ble Supreme Court must quash the FIR and order Professor Mahmudabad's unconditional release. Even if this is done, the question remains of the damage done to the public fabric by this malicious, false complaint that further entrenches public humiliation as a 'normal' way of conducting oneself in public office? Rather than interim bail hedged in with conditions, that serve by default to legitimise the travesty of the complaint itself, the just, constitutional remedial action, in my humble, layperson's opinion, must be two-fold: (a) the unconditional release of Professor Mahmudabad; (b) the strict censure of the chairperson of the Haryana Women's Commission and the sarpanch in question for disturbing the public peace and conspiracy to do so in troubled times. The argument of breach of public peace and conspiracy needs to be turned back to face those who instituted the malicious complaint.

(Kalpana Kannabiran is Professor & Director at Council for Social Development, Hyderabad)