He commented on a Muslim officer, so they took him … What happened with the young “Mahmoud Abad” in India? | policy

Professor Ali Khan Mahmoud Abad, a professor of political science at the University of Ashoka, has become the latest goals of the Hindu nationalists in India with the support of the police and the judiciary.

Mahmoud Abad is attributed to a crime he did not commit, and he is now asked to prove his innocence – in a classic manifestation of the principle of “guilty until his innocence” is proven. The more he insisted on his innocence, the more doubt against him, the greater the Supreme Court in India has already questioned his intentions, and has made negative observations against him, before it was formed a special investigation team (SIT) to review two Facebook post that includes 1530 words. Despite the clarity of his publications, Mahmoud Abad is expected to explain and dispel the doubts raised by the highest judicial authority in the country.

In these two publications, Mahmoud Abad criticized Pakistan for harming the terrorists, at the same time that he praised the Indian military action against its neighbor.

He highlighted the applause obtained by two military officers – one of whom was a Muslim – to represent India’s position on the international scene. But he warned that the continued persecution of Muslims in India would make these “comprehensive” pictures of hypocrisy.

What Mahmoud Abad wrote was preceded by many in different ways. However, Renault Batea, head of the Women’s Committee in Haraniana, suddenly appeared at a press conference in anger, accusing Mahmoud Abad of insulting the two officers.

Her accusations were surprised by many. Mahmoud Abad responded through his lawyer, explaining his publications in detail. But Batea was not convinced, even without providing any evidence of her allegations. When a TV broadcaster asked her if she could identify any insulting words or sentences for the two officers, she could not. However, she insisted that her feeling of insulting is enough evidence that something in Mahmoud Abad’s publications must have been terrible. She added that she is not obliged to determine the abusive phrases, as this is the responsibility of the police.

After these accusations, Mahmoud Abad’s leaflets were subjected to intense audit by many and the media. No abnormal or insulting content was found. Civil society academics and members expressed their support for Mahmoudabad, and expressed their anger at the actions of the Women’s Committee.

When Pattia’s allegations became a public rarely, a member of the BJP Party, the ruling Hindu National Party, filed a complaint with the Haryana Police, claiming that Mahmoudabad said something insulting to him and others- referring to the same posts on Facebook.

Based on this complaint, the police directed Mahmoud Abad serious charges, including inciting hostility between religious groups, insulting religious feelings, and touching the dignity of women. He was arrested immediately.

Mahmoud Abad was confident that an accurate reading of what he wrote would reveal the falsehood of the charges against him, so his lawyers resorted to the Supreme Court, demanding his release and the suspension of investigations. However, before the session, about 200 academics, including university presidents and academic institutions, issued a statement in which they called on the court to take a firm position against him. They accused him of trying to “destroy sectarian harmony, undermine the integrity of institutions, and undermine gender equality.” They described his publications as “discrimination against women disguised in the dress of false academic research”, and they demanded the court to take into account its social and legal consequences.

During the session, Mahmoud Abad’s lawyer read the publications loudly before the court. But the court expressed doubts, considering that his words carry double meanings and hints lined. The Judges said: “Whoever has an analytical mind will understand the language … The words may seem innocent, but they may target an unintended audience.”

Then the Supreme Court decided to form a special investigation team (SIT) consisting of three senior police officers, to “understand the complications of the language and appreciate it correctly.”

With this, the court orders gave the impression that Mahmoud Abad’s words cannot be taken on its face, and that – although they appear harmless – may carry hidden intentions or guaranteed messages.

This decision has caused a shock in public opinion, as many asked: Is it difficult for the court to read the publications and analyze them by themselves? Doesn’t the judges have the necessary analytical minds to understand what Mahmoud Abad wrote? Is this not their work? Or is the court evading taking an explicit position?

The investigation team will work under the shadows of the prior assumptions made by the court, which are assuming against Mahmoud Abad. How can he dispel such pre -perceived perceptions?

Meanwhile, the ambiguity of Mahmoud Abad’s case is increasing. The police began investigating his family background, his identity as a religious Muslim, his Pakistani origin, and his travel abroad. These factors will be used now as a framework through which its publications are interpreted.

The media is concerned with his demon. Soon his true words will fade amid the fog of propaganda, to replace it with a stereotype of a malicious, cunning, and conspiracy Muslim, firmly established in the collective imagination of Hindus.

Mahmoud Abad was represented in front of the investigation team. Meanwhile, Achille Pesaratia Vidyrey Parechih, the student wing of BJP – announced plans to organize a public demonstration against it. The University of Ashoka called for his separation from his work, claiming that he wrote “anti -homeland” leaflets.

A spokesman for the “Rashtia Sweistifak Sang”, the parent body of BJP and ABVP, joined the votes calling for action against it.

We see before us the same as the usual scenario- which was used to discredit academics such as Omar Khaled and Churchil Imam- and turn them into enemies within the Hindu national system with the help of the media, the police and the judiciary.

All that can be done now is the hope that the police officers will remain steadfast, and not be affected by the court’s comments or the noise of propaganda, and that they read the words of Mahmoudabad- which was formulated by a Muslim mind- with constitutional eyes. These words call for sympathy, understanding, justice, equality, and dignity.