misplaced-outrage-khan-maligned-solidarity-with-subtlety

There is expected outrage generated by the particular ecosystem over the arrest of Ashoka University academic Ali Khan Mahmudabad over a Facebook post on May 8. He was arrested by the Haryana Police on Sunday, after two complaints were filed against him - one from the Chairperson of the Haryana Women’s Commission and another from a village sarpanch, who also happens to be an activist of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, the youth wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party. 

 

On the face of it, Khan has written an “academic post” on India’s retaliatory action against Pakistan over the Pahalgam terror attack that left 26 people dead. They were killed after their religious identities were confirmed.

 

The ‘500-word’ post is apparently an analytical piece coming from a political scientist who has studied in Cambridge and Damascus, capital of Syria, famous for Islamic studies. He has a doctorate in Political Science from Cambridge University.

 

While the post begins with a comment on India’s response to the terror attack, saying, “strategically India has actually begun a new phase in terms of collapsing distinction between military and terrorist (non-state actors) in Pakistan. In effect the response to any terrorist activity will invite a conventional response and so this puts the onus on the Pakistani military to make sure that it cannot hide any longer behind terrorists and non-state actors. In any case the Pak military has used militarised non-state actors to destabilise the region for far too long while also claiming to be victims on the international stage…”

 

However, the way Khan has concluded his post leaves hardly any scope for guess about his intentions. He has used all his skills, being a writer and a poet, to ensure subtlety. What outraged the sensitivities of the people who read and understood the post is his attempt to suggest that making Col Sophia Qureshi, a Muslim, address the press conference was mere “optics” and “hypocrisy” while, according to him, at the ground level the Muslims were not treated fairly.

 

“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,” he wrote, adding, “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 went on further, “for me the press conference was just a fleeting glimpse - an illusion and allusion perhaps - to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built.”

 

There does not seem to be anything “criminally offensive” in what he has written that should warrant his arrest. That would obviously be decided by the court whether his arrest was justified or not and whether he has breached the limits of the “freedom of expression” on not.

 

What those who are feeling outraged over his arrest, are missing, perhaps willingly, is what he wrote in conclusion: “As I said, the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united in its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea... Jai Hind.”

 

Although subtle, this remark maligns an entire nation by seeking to suggest that the “common Muslims” are perhaps not treated well in the country.

 

This, coming from someone, whose grandfather, Mohammad Amir Khan, the then ‘Raja’ of Mahmudabad in Awadh area of United Provinces, was a staunch supporter of Pakistan movement and its leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He financed the Muslim League. The family, obviously, migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition, but somehow returned back after some time.

 

Also read: Rahul on Jaishankar: Much ado about nothing

 

Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad is the grandson of Mohammad Amir Khan, a close associate and financer of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. His photograph with Jinnah still hangs in Lahore Museum.

 

Imagine, someone whose grandfather was an advocate of Pakistan who contributed whatever he could for its creation, is now preaching and pontificating India on secularism, the same place where his “disillusioned” grandfather returned to along with the family.

 

The outrage and anger he showed about the plight of “common Muslims” was not the same when the terrorists killed 26 persons in Pahalgam after confirming their religious identities. That day Khan wrote, “my heart goes out to all those who are victims of the cowardly and dastardly terrorist attacks in Pahalgam. The perpetrators must be brought to justice and made examples of. Prayers for the families who have lost loved ones. Photos and videos are so heartbreaking.” Sounds like a “token” reaction without a word of condemnation against the killings and their perpetrators.

 

Haryana Police in all likelihood may not be able to defend the case against Khan, the same way the Haryana Women’s Commission Chief Renu Bhatia could not defend it during a television show. But that does not mean Khan was not wrong or he is completely innocent.

 

There is an ecosystem working in the country, which acts in a subtle manner. This is the same ecosystem that built the narrative of “intolerance” and “mob lynchings” to the extent that anyone unfamiliar with India, would believe that the minorities in general and the Muslims in particular were not at all safe in India and they were being wantonly persecuted, like Khan suggested, that grassroots reality of common Muslims is different.

 

Building a narrative that sows the seeds of discord that too at a time when the entire country was fighting an actual war against any enemy, is criminal. Describing the press conference by a Muslim Army officer as mere “optics” and “hypocrisy”, indeed in a very subtle manner, is unacceptable. And that, too, coming from someone whose family had a great contribution in creation of Pakistan, will definitely touch the sensitivities and hurt the sentiments of people, the same way the “religious” sentiments many others get hurt. There is no difference between the two. Law must take its own course.