Did Ashoka University Prof. Violate the Law—or Just Offend Some Sentiments?
May 19, 2025
The arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad points to a troubling truth about how law enforcement operates in an increasingly polarised public sphere: in a politically charged atmosphere, the threshold for prosecuting an ordinary citizen—academic or not—can be alarmingly low. All it takes is one complaint, one misreading, or one wilful distortion of a public remark. The system, instead of examining the context or the merit of what is said, responds as if the outrage itself is evidence of wrongdoing.
Khan’s social media posts were not hidden, vague or anonymous. They were public and appear to be carefully worded and clearly based on academic and political analysis, as noted by an in-depth analysis by Alt News. The professor raised difficult questions about war talk, communal issues and political messaging—all topics well within the scope of a political science professor. But once outrage was stirred, that context no longer seemed to matter.
One village sarpanch filed a complaint alleging that Khan’s post disrespected a Muslim army officer and hurt national sentiment. Separately, the Haryana Women’s Commission interpreted the same post as an insult to the dignity of women in uniform. But neither FIR nor the commission’s notice could point to language that directly targeted, demeaned, or insulted any woman, nor did the posts advocate disloyalty to the nation.
The FIR claimed that Khan accused “mad armymen” of escalating tensions, though this line was said to have come from a private conversation and is not recorded in writing, according to Alt News. The fact-check outlet also noted that the women’s commission accused Khan of calling the woman officer a “painted face”—a phrase that does not appear in any of his posts.
The accusations don’t seem to be based on what was actually said, but on how some people chose to read or present it. In today’s charged atmosphere, intent and nuance seem to matter little—what counts is how something is perceived, especially when that perception is shaped by politics.
The police moved quickly on May 18, filing charges within hours under laws related to threatening national unity, hurting religious feelings and insulting women’s dignity. These laws seem flexible enough to be used based on the political mood rather than the facts of the case. The professor’s long academic career, his role as a department head and his history of reasoned public writing did nothing to shield him.
In theory, a functioning democracy ought to demand a higher bar for arresting a citizen, particularly for speech. It should consider context, intent, and whether the statement in question actually violates any law. But in a moment of heightened nationalism, these filters collapse. Instead, the system acts with urgency not to investigate or clarify, but to demonstrate alignment with dominant sentiments—even if that means acting against reason.
It is important to note that Khan was not accused of leaking military secrets, inciting violence or defaming individuals. He appeared to question what he called the political “optics” of war, alleging contradictions in state messaging and critiquing civilian warmongering. These are uncomfortable but necessary points in any healthy democracy. However, the remarks were construed as attacks on women, the military and the nation itself. And that was enough.
That an FIR based partly on verbal claims made in a private setting was treated as seriously as a public incitement tells us how casually the bar for legal action can be lowered when sentiment overtakes scrutiny. That the women’s commission cited words not present in Khan’s post—and still proceeded with a formal complaint—shows how loosely such institutions can operate when aligned with political winds.
Meanwhile, Alt News points to a similar incident involving a minister from the ruling party, who publicly insulted the same army officer by calling her a “sister of terrorists.” He was not arrested. The police acted only after the High Court stepped in—and even then, the court noted that the FIR had been drafted “in such a way that it can be quashed,” as reported by The Hindu, revealing a clear lack of intent to pursue the case seriously.
Law enforcement must answer to the rule of law—not the rule of mood.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
