The 'Statement of Objection' by Academics Against Mahmudabad Erodes India's Democratic Fabric

The arrest of Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor and head of the Political Science department at Ashoka University, has sparked widespread controversy, highlighting the precarious state of academic freedom in India. A group of over 200 academics, including several vice-chancellors, issued a “Statement of Objection,” accusing Mahmudabad of “veiled misogyny” and undermining communal harmony through his social media comments on Operation Sindoor.

This condemnation, steeped in moral posturing, appears designed to stifle dissent and control intellectual discourse. Mahmudabad’s remarks, far from being misogynistic or divisive, were a call for justice and consistency, rooted in patriotism.

The backlash against him exposes a troubling trend: a state-orchestrated effort to suppress free expression under the guise of protecting societal values. Although he has now got interim bail, it is important to study the language of the backlash.

Misinterpreting critique

The controversy stems from Mahmudabad’s May 8 social media post commenting on media briefings by Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh during Operation Sindoor, India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack.

He wrote, “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 Statement of Objection, endorsed by figures like JNU Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit and Gujarat University’s Neerja Gupta, labels this as “veiled misogyny cloaked in pseudo-academic inquiry.” It claims Mahmudabad’s use of “optics” diminishes the roles of Qureshi and Singh, portraying them as “symbolic instruments co-opted to legitimize purportedly communal agendas.”

This interpretation misrepresents his intent. Mahmudabad explicitly commended the inclusion of the women officers, viewing their presence as a reflection of India’s diversity and secular ethos. His critique targeted the selective nationalism of right-wing commentators who praise a Muslim woman officer while ignoring systemic injustices like mob lynchings and bulldozer demolitions affecting ordinary Muslims.

Calling this misogyny is a deliberate mischaracterisation, twisting dissent into prejudice.

Mahmudabad’s reference to “optics” does not suggest tokenism but emphasises the need for meaningful action to complement symbolic gestures. He argues that if the state and its supporters celebrate women in uniform, they should also advocate for justice for marginalized communities. This demand for consistency aligns with India’s constitutional principles, not “gender-disempowering” rhetoric. The accusation of misogyny falls apart under examination, exposing the critics’ tactic of using gender as a shield to deflect from Mahmudabad’s critique of systemic inequities.

Overreach by the Haryana State Commission for Women

The Haryana State Commission for Women, under Renu Bhatia, sparked this controversy by issuing a notice on May 12, alleging that Mahmudabad’s comments “disparaged women officers” and “promoted communal disharmony.” This led to his arrest on May 18, a move that smacks of political overreach.

The Commission, tasked with protecting women’s rights, has no authority over social media critiques of military operations or political hypocrisy. Mahmudabad himself stated, “The Women’s Commission is a body that serves an important function; however, the summons issued to me fails to highlight how my post is contrary to the rights of or laws for women.”

Notably, the Commission has remained silent on derogatory remarks by BJP leaders, such as Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah’s comment referring to Colonel Qureshi as “unki samaj ki behen (their community’s sister)." This selective outrage raises questions about the Commission’s motives.

Why target a professor’s thoughtful critique while ignoring overt communal remarks from political allies? This inconsistency suggests a politically driven agenda, using women’s rights as a pretext to silence dissent. The Commission’s actions undermine its credibility, revealing a failure to address genuine misogyny while targeting Mahmudabad for praising women officers.

Assault on academic freedom

The Statement of Objection’s demand for the Supreme Court to examine the “socio-legal implications” of Mahmudabad’s remarks represents a dangerous escalation. It suggests that academic critiques challenging nationalist narratives should face judicial scrutiny, threatening the already fragile state of academic freedom in India, which ranks 179 on the Academic Freedom Index. The arrest, triggered by complaints from a BJP youth wing leader and the Women’s Commission, reflects a “state-led crackdown” on intellectuals, as noted by the Joint Teachers’ Organisations.

Surajit Mazumdar of the JNU Teachers’ Association has emphasised that this is an attack not only on Mahmudabad but on the public’s right to engage in informed debate.

Anita Rampal, former dean at Delhi University, has praised Mahmudabad’s classrooms as spaces of “trust, respect, and love,” underscoring his role as an educator, not a provocateur.

The Faculty Association of Ashoka University called the arrest “calculated harassment,” noting that Mahmudabad was denied medication and communication during detention – a treatment that is both inhumane and a warning to academics who dare to dissent.

Ashoka University

Ashoka University’s response to the arrest has been disappointingly weak. By stating that Mahmudabad’s comments were made in his “individual capacity” and pledging to “cooperate fully” with the police, the university has distanced itself from its own faculty.

This stance undermines its reputation as a champion of liberal arts education, which should prioritize critical inquiry and moral courage. A former Ashoka affiliate noted that the university’s leadership appears more focused on appeasing governmental pressure than defending free expression, a pattern seen in past incidents involving scholars like Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Arvind Subramanian.

This capitulation sends a chilling message exposing the hollowness of institutions that abandon their scholars in times of crisis.

Mahmudabad’s posts do not undermine communal harmony but reflect a commitment to improving India. His arrest has already had a chilling effect on academic discourse, emboldening those who equate critique with sedition.

The real danger to India lies not in Mahmudabad’s words but in the coordinated effort to silence him. The Statement of Objection, with its inflammatory rhetoric and baseless claims, reflects a broader intolerance for dissent. By framing a call for justice as misogyny and anti-nationalism, its signatories – vice-chancellors and academics who should uphold free thought – have contributed to eroding India’s democratic fabric.

Mahmudabad’s arrest is part of a larger pattern of state-driven censorship, where intellectual critique faces FIRs, arrests, and public vilification. India deserves a future where scholars can speak freely, patriotism is rooted in justice, and academic freedom is a reality.

Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai. 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.