In Defence of Umar Khalid and Other 'Intellectual Architects'
Just when we thought that the fading and faltering Narendra Modi regime was running out of imagination, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has surprised us. He made an intriguing addition to our political lexicon when he designated Umar Khalid and others as “intellectual architects” of the 2020 violence in Delhi against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. On September 23, the Solicitor General made this argument before a Supreme Court bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria.
For sheer imagination, the Solicitor General deserves a round of applause. In a flight of fancy, the good lawyer has elevated Umar Khalid to the level of the American poet Wallace Stevens, who penned the poem titled Connoisseur of Chaos, or to our very own Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, who wrote that ultimate poem of defiance and challenge, Singhsan khali karo… (‘Empty the throne…’).
Given the state of India-Pakistan tensions, it would be unwise to cite Faiz Ahmad Faiz in that class of “intellectual architects”.
The “intellectual architects” argument has arguably complicated the Supreme Court’s task in this case, which has become a litmus test for the Indian judiciary’s institutional reputation at home and abroad as an instrument of justice. The lower courts and even the high courts have not covered themselves in glory; rather, these forums of law and justice have lent their imprimatur to the vindictiveness of an authoritarian regime.
A few weeks ago, the respected The New York Times had a full-page report on Umar Khalid’s incarceration, thus symbolising that if there is one legal case that has tarnished the global reputation of the Indian judiciary, it is this one. Successive chief justices have been content to remain indifferent to this grossest abuse of procedure by an unforgiving state and its political executive.
It is rather ironic that on the same page as the Solicitor General's words, The Hindu also carried an admonition from Justice Surya Kant, the next in line to be the chief justice of India. Justice Kant had observed from the bench: “Judges must know what is the task before them and must deliver. This is the legitimate expectation of the public at large.” Justice Kant would perhaps concede that the public at large will want to know why, how and what tricks and arguments were made to postpone trial in the Umar Khalid case and deny his bail.
This belated discovery that Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman and others were the “intellectual architects” of the 2020 Delhi riots may perhaps explain why these young activists have been made to linger in jail without a trial and without bail. The travesty of this miscarriage of justice now becomes somewhat comprehensible, though not excusable.
If Umar Khalid and others are guilty of an “intellectual” crime, it is not one that can be easily located in the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. Whereas normally a policeman can, after diligent investigation, possibly suggest the actual offence – for instance the commissioning of the said crime by an accused – no prosecutor can credibly determine the “intellectual” culpability of one or two activists for riots or otherwise any eruption of violence in a community. The suggestion that Umar Khalid and his co-accused are “intellectual architects” of the alleged “conspiracy” that led to violence in February 2020 carries with it an assumption of a sizeable body of intellectual or creative writings produced by these activists. And, if these “intellectual” outpourings were presumably so seditious and so inflammatory as to justify the incarceration without trial and without bail, why was their provocative impact felt only in the poorest part of the national capital?
Because there has been no trial, it is difficult to decode what the Delhi Police means by Umar Khalid and others being “intellectual architects” of the February 2020 violence. Perhaps the Solicitor General had in mind the analogy of an actual architect, who imagines and conceives a building, while the contractors, masons, electricians, carpenters, water-proofers, contract labour, etc. all perform their respective tasks to produce the edifice as per the architect’s design.
Perhaps Karl Marx can be thought of as the “intellectual architect” of the violence and disorder that resulted in the Russian Revolution. Similarly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau can be held responsible for the French Revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini can be deemed to be the intellectual and spiritual architect of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Perhaps the Solicitor General meant that young activists like Umar Khalid were similar “architects”. This is too heavy a burden on the young shoulders of Umar Khalid and his co-activists.
If asked to explain their intellectual education and learning, these designated “architects” of chaos and violence will most probably quote Mahatma Gandhi or Dr. B.R. Ambedkar or Jayaprakash Narayan. Each of these iconic spirits would have had serious reservations about the Citizenship (Amendment) Act; each would have blessed voices of dissent against a law that was palpably discriminatory. The anti-CAA protests can be traced back to the promises that lay at the heart of the republican and democratic India project.
This very idea of “intellectual architects” and their presumed culpability for violent acts by others is deeply problematic. If accepted as a working proposition, then who would be deemed to be the “intellectual” godfather of Nathuram Godse? Or, closer to our time, who was the “intellectual architect” of the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat?
If this novel concept of criminal responsibility of such “intellectual architects” gains any kind of judicial respectability, then we shall be weaponising the very idea of free thinking. Article 19 will be dead.
Harish Khare was editor of The Tribune.
This article went live on September twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty five, at fifteen minutes past one in the afternoon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
