“It is preposterous that we have come to such a pass in India that even praising the army, albeit while criticizing those who clamour for war, can now invite such targeted harassment and attempted censorship,” read the letter signed by 1,200 academics.
It should not matter that Ali Khan Mahmudabad is an empath, a friend to his students at Ashoka University, a responsible citizen and an advocate of peace. It should also not matter that his wife is nine months pregnant and due anytime now. That this is quite possibly the worst time to rip a couple apart. That she may be alone at home while he remains locked up.
What should matter, primarily, is what 1,200 academics have articulated already. In fact, they did so even before the police, on the exhortation of the Haryana State Commission for Women and a BJP Youth Morcha leader, went to arrest him.
“It is preposterous that we have come to such a pass in India that even praising the army, albeit while criticizing those who clamour for war, can now invite such targeted harassment and attempted censorship,” read the letter signed by 1,200 academics.
Perhaps, the Supreme Court of India would agree.
What led to the arrest?
Earlier this month, post the advent of Operation Sindoor, Mahmudabad had posted on social media criticising the actions of Pakistan’s military, while underscoring the importance of peace and appreciating the strategic restraint exercised by the Indian armed forces. Pertinently, though – and this is the bit that appears to have been blown out of proportion – he had expressed great happiness for the support Colonel Sofia Qureshi had received from India’s right wing, while, at the same time, asking the same group to pay attention to victims of mob lynching, bulldozing and hate-mongering.
He wrote: “I am very happy to see so many right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia 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.”
The Haryana women’s commission took exception to this post accusing him of disparaging women in uniform, “undermining the women officers’ contributions” and vilifying military actions against cross-border terrorism, among other things.
In his defence, Mahmudabad had said: “…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.”
The 1,200 academics who spoke up in his defence also argued: “The Commission has completely, and it seems deliberately, misread his posts.”
Still, two FIRs were subsequently registered against Mahmudabad — one on the basis of the commission’s complaint and another based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, a BJP Youth Morcha leader and the sarpanch of Jatheri village.
“The FIR filed by the Sarpanch of Jatheri includes sections 196 BNS, 197, 152, and 299 BNS. Meanwhile, the FIR lodged by Renu Bhatia, who is the Chairperson (Women Commission, Panchkula), includes sections 353, 79, 152, 169 (1) BNS,” news agency IANS cited DCP (Crime) Narender Kadian as saying.
On Sunday morning, the associate professor was arrested.
Supreme Court’s view
It should be reiterated here that one of the sections that Mahmudabad has reportedly been booked under is Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which specifically criminalises the promotion of enmity between different groups. This is a charge that the Supreme Court had addressed in the context of free speech as recently as in March this year. Quashing an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over an Instagram post, a bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had said:
“When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds,” the top court had stated.
The court had then gone on to observe that the “effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.” This observation by the Supreme Court is also a hark-back to a case from 1946, in which the Madhya Pradesh high court had noted:
“…as in the case of reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and as in the case of putting in fear of hurt in a matter of assault, we must use the standards of reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view”.
The 1946 case, in particular, was dealing with the offence of sedition.
Incidentally, Mahmudabad has also been slapped with Section 152 of BNS – which is known to be a reintroduced version of the colonial-era sedition law. This new ‘decolonised’ section criminalises “acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”. Although, how the associate professor has gone on to commit such a grave offence – which is punishable by a term ranging from seven years to life imprisonment – via his social media pleas for peace and solidarity remains unclear.
Justices Oka and Bhuyan, in the March judgment, had also noted that “even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.” Primarily, in their judgment, they observed:
“Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
So, what do you do if you don’t agree with someone’s stated views? Counter it by expressing another viewpoint, the Supreme Court suggested.
“In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view,” the bench said.
This is not the apex court’s first avowal of our fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as also guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. ….
Source: The Wire
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gujarat court acquits former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt in custodial torture case
Professor’s Harassment by ABVP Shows Near-Complete Takeover of Universities by RSS-BJP
How the RSS, Golwalkar & Hindu Mahasabha glorified caste: Devanur Mahadevan
Pratap Bhanu Mehta: The limits of the Hindu vs Hindutvavadi debate
Anand K. Sahay: The idea behind capturing power in any kind of way: fair or foul
Javed Anand: On RSS reassurances to Muslims, deeds matter more than words
Partha Banerjee: An insider’s book on the RSS
The RSS and Modi – Two Articles
Rahul Pandita: What I learned from G. N. Saibaba
Apoorva Mandhani: Judge Loya’s Confidants Died Mysterious Deaths
Constitutional principles go for a toss in the criminal law of search and seizure
After the truth-shower 