Around this time last week, a collective feeling of warmth and unity was washing over India. Labels like “liberal” and “Right-wing” dissolved when we basked in the glow of progressive nationalistic pride from watching Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh deliver military briefings during Operation Sindoor. Even AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, the Right-wing’s favourite target, was claimed as one of our own… in the most unparliamentary language possible.
It took less than a week for that conviviality to fade away and pivot back to a more familiar stance. By 18 May, Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, writer and head of the political science department at Ashoka University, was being dragged from his Delhi residence by Haryana police. His crime is writing social media posts about the same military operation that had momentarily united India. The Haryana State Commission for Women and a BJP Yuva Morcha leader found his comments objectionable enough to warrant FIRs, charging him with endangering India’s sovereignty and insulting the modesty of women.
Mahmudabad’s apparently “seditious” text criticised Pakistan, and praised India’s “new phase in terms of collapsing distinction between military and terrorist (non-state actors) in Pakistan.” He wrote: “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.”
Mahmudabad then went on to express admiration for the role Colonel Qureshi played. “Lastly, I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya 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,” he wrote. He ended the note with: “The press conference shows that an India, united in its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea. Jai Hind.”
For this, Mahmudabad has been remanded to two days in custody. Two separate FIRs were filed against him: One by the HSCW, the other based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, who is the general secretary of the BJP’s state Yuva Morcha, as well as the sarpanch of the Jatheri village. Lest someone question its progressiveness, Ashoka University swiftly distanced itself from Mahmudabad’s remarks. But members of their faculty, as well as 1,200 academics, writers, students and journalists have endorsed a letter campaign that demands the HSCW withdraw its notice and issue an unconditional apology.
Also read: Operation Sindoor and the feminist puzzle
In the name of women’s rights
The gap between what Mahmudabad wrote and what he’s accused of writing raises some troubling questions—not only about freedom of expression, but also about basic literacy. In an interview with several media channels, Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the commission, repeatedly insisted that Mahmudabad had insulted the women officers and hurt “desh ki aan, baan, aur shaan” (the pride and joy of the country).
The commission’s time and energy might be better channelled looking at things that actually demolish the aan, baan, and shaan of India, and are under their jurisdiction. For instance, the abysmal sex ratio in several villages of Haryana. It has slipped below 700 in 481 villages in 2025. Or the 19 crimes against women, including gangrape, murder and kidnapping, that are lodged in the state every single day. A study of 4 lakh FIRs in Haryana showed that, “not only are cases of violence against women, in which women are the primary complainants, less likely to be registered and more likely to be dismissed in court or result in acquittals, a gender bias is visible even in other types of cases, from registration to prosecution, resulting in, what the researchers call, ‘multi-stage’ discrimination.” Or how about summoning Vijay Shah, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister, who actually insulted Colonel Qureshi by labelling her a “sister from the same community” as the terrorists?
This isn’t even the first time Bhatia has targeted a Muslim academic. In late 2023, she issued a summons to Professor Sameena Dalwai of OP Jindal University for doing her job. The charge? You guessed it: “Outraging the modesty of women.” It is difficult to view the commission’s selective targeting as anything other than the cynical co-optation of women’s rights to further a majoritarian view of India.
In the same interview, Bhatia managed to say the quiet part aloud when she questioned Mahmudabad’s right to even participate in national discourse. “He stays in India, reaps the fruits of being in India, has made his reputation in India, but he [dares to] incite the people of the country?” This is the kind of rhetoric reserved only for communities whose patriotism and belonging are always up for question.
Also read: Pakistan tried hard to instigate Sikhs against India during Operation Sindoor
‘Know your place’
The pattern of targeting Muslim intellectuals in India follows the same exhausting template. Mahmudabad joins a growing roster that includes Umar Khalid, imprisoned for allegedly instigating riots.
The professor crossed an invisible boundary when he suggested that genuine respect for Indian Muslims should extend beyond tokenistic celebration. He punctured the narrative that Indian minorities are anything less than ecstatic with their lived realities. For India’s minorities, the choice is always between absolute conformity or outright criminalisation.
What’s particularly revealing about Mahmudabad’s case is how little it takes for our professed commitment to diversity to crumble. The arrest makes an example of who he is—a Cambridge-educated historian, member of an erstwhile royal family, published author with significant social capital. His targeting sends an unmistakable smoke signal: no amount of education, pedigree, or social standing is protection. When authorities go after someone like Mahmudabad, they’re orchestrating a public demonstration of power that filters down to every minority household in India. The message? Know your place.
The Supreme Court recently reminded us that law enforcement authorities must employ “the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous minds, and not weak and vacillating ones who scent danger in every hostile point of view.” The Foreign Secretary, Vikram Misri, also made a statement that, “It may be a surprise to Pakistan to see citizens criticising their own government. That is the hallmark of any open and functioning democracy.” And yet here we are, fragility on full display, being told that even the most patriotic criticism is an existential threat.
For India, diversity is only worthy of celebration when it requires no uncomfortable questions. A country genuinely committed to “unity in diversity” wouldn’t need to jail its professors for expressing diverging opinions. But then again, perhaps that’s precisely what makes their words so dangerous—they reveal a divide between what India claims to be and what it actually is.
Karanjeet Kaur is a journalist, former editor of Arré, and a partner at TWO Design. She tweets @Kaju_Katri. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)
The Supreme Court has cery correctly observed that this “professor” is desperate for some “cheap publicity”. Of course he is being helped and supported by his “esteemed colleagues” – each one of them a hypocrite.
The Print is giving undue coverage to this incident. I have already seen quite a few articles on the arrest of this Islamist professor.
This stands in sharp contrast to The Print’s coverage of the anti-Hindu riots carried out by Islamists in Murshidabad. Days after the incidents had happened, The Print managed to publish two, at most three, articles on the egregious anti-Hindu pogroms (one of them by Sourav Barman, the other a photo-article). And it was shameless enough to not publish even a single editorial on this issue. The massive displacement of Hindu families from Murshidabad to Malda in search of safety was not even reported on.
One can easily imagine how the editorial board would have fulminated if the victims of the riots were Muslims. Just because they happened to be Hindus, things were brushed under the carpet.
Such instances show us, the regular readers of The Print, how genuine Mr. Shekhar Gupta’s claim of “un-hyphenated journalism” is.
People like Karanjeet Kaur are so predictable that it’s almost banal.
I knew right away that she would jump in and fight on behalf of Prof. Mahmudabad. Why? Well because the whole ecosystem has been activated. A single arrest and the whole cabal is up in arms. And Ms. Kaur happens to be a distinguished member of this cabal. Therefore, she would dutifully fight it out on the newspaper pages and social media platforms. The loyal foot soldier that she is, anything else would be anathema.
But the same Ms. Kaur is absolutely silent when Hindus get targeted, murdered and raped. She has not written a word on the anti-Hindu pogroms in Murshidabad. Neither on the anti-Hindu criminal (defacement of temples, etc.) activities carried out by Khalistanis in Canada, UK, Australia and USA. She was totally silent when Jihadis, under the garb of anti-Waqf protests, raped and molested women in West Bengal (with offical patronage of the ruling TMC government).
As a loyal footsoldier of the ecosystem she knows which battles to fight and which ones to pass by. And of course, all the while she enjoys the freedoms and liberties the Constitution guarantees an Indian citizen.
Unless the police officials who make such arrests are punished, such “punishing through the process” arrests will continue. Since he could afford a Kapil Sibal, he would be out soon. Whereas some others who might end up in jail for stating something in the similar lines through whatsapp status updates, etc wont have any option other than getting punished through the lengthy process.