Why the right wing detests Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad and his ilk

There has been a temporary respite in the Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad issue with the Supreme Court granting him conditional interim bail. However, the case is far from over since the court has refused to stay the investigation and referred the allegations to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) composed of senior Haryana police officers.

How long that is going to take and how long Mahmudabad’s ordeal will be prolonged is anyone's guess. Most such cases seem to last forever in contemporary India, with the trial itself turning into an inordinate punishment.

The issue raises several questions, not only in terms of the validity of the charges brought against Mahmudabad, but also in terms of the wider concerns regarding equality before the law, as well as freedom of speech in a democratic polity.

Double standards

Many independent observers and Opposition leaders have raised the matter of double standards — one for BJP leaders Vijay Shah and Ram Chander Jaangra, who made blatantly obnoxious remarks about Col Sofia Qureshi and the women who lost their kin at Pahalgam, and another for Mahmudabad, whose remarks can at best be read only as a tongue-in-cheek rebuke of right wing supporters and not against the nation, or against any women involved, or even the government, by any stretch of imagination.

The general consensus is that it is primarily because he is a Muslim.

Watch | Bail to Mahmudabad: 'SC remarks could have chilling effect on free expression'

Even as this may be partially true, such reduction to a single rationale is somewhat overly simplistic, and one is constrained to ask if there is something more to the picture than meets the eye.

We see that several other people, including Muslims, have also criticised the government over Operation Sindoor, but only Mahmudabad seems to have been singled out for ‘special’ treatment. What is it about him that discomfits the right wing and invites their ire?

Erudite lineage

To fully understand this, a brief look at history is essential. The Mahmudabad Estate, founded in the 17th century, became one of the largest feudal estates in the Kingdom of Awadh. Its rulers, originally known as Nawabs, later adopted the title of "Raja" — a designation believed to have been conferred by a Mughal emperor to encourage unity between the Muslim rulers and their predominantly Hindu subjects.

Sustaining a centuries-old Islamic tradition of scholarship and literature but at the same time maintaining a modern, scientific and non-sectarian approach, the Mahmudabad Khans are testimony both to the syncretic culture of the country and to the rank falsity of right-wing propaganda about Muslims being backward, uneducated "puncture menders" and potential terrorists.

Prof Mahmudabad’s family has a long-standing legacy of scholarship, poetry, and patronage of knowledge and education. His great-grandfather, Maharaja Sir Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan, Raja from 1903 to 1931, mooted a university in Lucknow. He donated Rs 1 lakh for the establishment of Lucknow University and became its founder-member in 1920. He was a trustee of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College of Aligarh and donated Rs 50,000 for its development.

Later, he was actively involved in forming the Aligarh Muslim University, contributing Rs 1 lakh and becoming its first Vice-Chancellor in 1920. He was a renowned scholar and a poet who wrote extensively under the pen name ‘Mohib’.

Also read | How Indian universities have systematically crushed student dissent since 2014

Mahmudabad's grandfather, Sir Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, served as the Raja from 1914 to 1973. A close friend of Motilal Nehru, he initially opposed the idea of Partition. However, under the influence of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he came to support it, and emerged as a leader of the All India Muslim League.

In 1945, he migrated to Iraq, and later, in 1957, moved to Pakistan. However, disillusioned by the political culture of Pakistan, he eventually left and settled in London. His wife and son remained in India as Indian citizens. Sir Amir Ahmad Khan was also a distinguished poet in both Urdu and Persian.

Return of the scion

Mahmudabad’s father, Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, received his education in Iraq, Lucknow, and England. Following doctoral research in astrophysics at Cambridge, he worked as an astrophysicist at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste.

After his father’s death, Ahmed Khan returned to India where he assumed responsibility of the Mahmudabad Estate and the family’s numerous charitable concerns. He was a Congress MLA from Mahmudabad for two terms and a popular figure in the Avadh region of Uttar Pradesh.

Ahmed Khan had an inter-faith marriage. His wife Rani Vijay is the daughter of Jagat Singh Mehta, an eminent diplomat, academic and author, who worked closely with Prime Ministers Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Morarji Desai, and was India's foreign secretary from 1976 to 1979.

Scholar of repute

Prof Mahmudabad himself is a historian, political scientist, writer and poet, currently serving as the head of the Department of Political Science at Ashoka University. He earned his MPhil and PhD in Historical Studies from the University of Cambridge.

If there is one thing that the right wing fears and hates most, it is intellect. Fascism, in all its forms, is fundamentally anti-intellectual; it can thrive only in an environment of ignorance and inanity, of gullible support and submission.

He also studied Arabic at the University of Damascus in Syria and is known for his scholarly contributions to Islamic studies, South Asian and Middle Eastern politics, and modern history and for his historically important archival work in digitising centuries-old manuscripts in Arabic and Persian in the custody of the Mahmudabad estate.

Even from this short enumeration, the fault lines must be fairly obvious. The Mahmudabad lineage represents everything that is anathema to the right wing.

All that they despise

Not only are they Muslim, but also erudite, cosmopolitan and international. Their openness to other cultures and faiths is vouched for by their education and their readiness to accept spouses from other communities.

Sustaining a centuries-old Islamic tradition of scholarship and literature – as valuable and as important as Sanskrit and other linguistic/community traditions in the making of India – but at the same time maintaining a modern, scientific and non-sectarian approach, the Mahmudabad Khans are testimony both to the syncretic culture of the country and to the rank falsity of right-wing propaganda about Muslims being backward, uneducated "puncture menders" and potential terrorists.

Watch | As Indian universities crush dissent, admins gain iron grip on teaching staff

If there is one thing that the right wing fears and hates most, it is intellect. Fascism, in all its forms, is fundamentally anti-intellectual, it can thrive only in an environment of ignorance and inanity, of gullible support and submission; hence its intolerance of everything that even remotely smacks of intelligence or critique, whether it be discourses, people or institutions.

What was the offence?

Apart from his erudite lineage, Mahmudabad is undoubtedly guilty of being intelligent and critical, and furthermore of being refined and articulate, a set of crimes unpardonable to the advocates of aggressive nationalism who proudly compete at attaining evermore obnoxious levels of crudity in their language and behaviour.

Faced with the complex language and subtle reasoning of Mahmudabad, which they could hardly decipher let alone fully comprehend,they reacted in the only way they knew: brutally, with the help of the state machinery and the penal system.

And, when he brought his nuanced critique out of the closed spaces of classrooms and academic fora to the open spaces of social media, he became a significant threat to the jingoistic clamour orchestrated by right wing supporters and media alike.

Faced with the complex language and subtle reasoning of Mahmudabad, which they could hardly decipher (the Haryana Women's Commission Chairperson, when speaking to the media, and their lawyers in the Supreme Court, when asked by the judges, could not pinpoint where or what was objectionable in Mahmudabad’s posts), but vaguely realised was critical of them, they reacted in the only way they knew: brutally, with the help of the state machinery and the penal system.

The parallels with the classic case of the brawny bully tackling an infinitely more intelligent but physically weaker adversary are only too evident.

Matter of property

Incidentally, there is also the "small matter" of ownership of the property of the Mahmudabad estate worth several thousand crores, spread over Lucknow, Sitapur, Nainital and Mahmudabad.

Watch | 'The Family Man’ Praveen Kumar interview I 'Standup comedians are easy targets'

All this was confiscated by the government during the India-Pakistan war of 1965 under the Enemy Property Act because the then owner was Sir Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, who had taken up Pakistani citizenship. After his demise, his son was engaged in a protracted legal struggle which was rewarded by a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court in 2005, ordering for the return of the properties.

However, the return of the properties was stalled through several ordinances and finally revoked through an amendment of the Act, enacted with retrospective effect in 2017 by the BJP government, widening the definition of 'enemy subject' to include legal heirs, irrespective of their nationality.

A case is still pending in the Supreme Court against the amendment, and in its light, it may not be entirely off the mark to assume that a characterisation of Mahmudabad, the current heir, as an anti-national will certainly not be unhelpful for the government's cause in the court.

Veiled warning

Be that as it may, the fact cannot be ignored that the case is a none too veiled warning to all academics, scholars and writers out there. The unambiguous message being sent out is that, whatever your lineage, standing or reputation, you are under surveillance and even a minor transgression will invite the wrath of the State.

It is in effect a pre-emptive strike on critique, an act of blanket pre-censorship, intended to spawn a culture of fear and silence among those who might want to express disagreement or dissent.

Even as the reactions of the right wing are predictable, the Supreme Court’s response in the case has been extremely disappointing in its downright negligence of the constitutional provisions for freedom of speech and the several key judicial precedents laid down by the apex court itself. Mahmudabad was granted bail, but the judges’ in-court observations and the conditions laid down in the order leave a lot to be desired in terms of the inherent values of a constitutional democracy.

Mahmudabad's 3 major ideas

Before we go into the court’s observations, an understanding of what Mahmudabad actually said in his Facebook posts will be helpful.

There are three major ideas that he puts across.

The first idea

The first is a condemnation of Pakistan and a justification of India's military response to the terrorist killings in Pahalgam. He observes that “the Pakistan 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, Operation Sindoor has “reset all received notions of Indo-Pak relationships as the response to terrorist attacks will be met with a military response”, he says. It has put “the onus on the Pakistani military to make sure that it cannot hide any longer behind terrorists and non-state actors”, he adds.

The second idea

The second is appreciation for Indian women officers appearing in press briefings, as a sign of the fundamental difference between India and Pakistan in constitutional and democratic equality, but with a caution that the “optics” of a Muslim woman army officer becoming the public face of the armed forces will be counterproductive unless "right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi" express in the same vein their concern for victims of mob lynching, bulldozing etc.

The third idea

The third is a call for peace that even Mahatma Gandhi would endorse: “The loss of civilian life is tragic on both sides and is the main reason why war should be avoided...There are those who are mindlessly advocating for a war but they have never seen one, let alone lived in or visited a conflict zone. Being part of a mock civil defence drill does not make you a soldier…”

Court’s rap

It is extremely surprising that, during the hearing, Justice Surya Kant observed that Mahmudabad was engaging in “dog whistling” that may have hurt the sentiments “on the other side” and that he could have used "polite, respectful and neutral language."

Also read | Being a cartoonist in ‘too much democracy’ - hear it from Hasif Khan

“There is a right to free speech etc…where is the duty?,” Justice Kant asked, and noted that some of the professor’s words had a “dual meaning”. Coming down heavily on students and professors who expressed their solidarity, Justice Kant warned the academic community against making “irresponsible statements,” and reminded them that they are “not outside [the Court’s] jurisdiction.”

One cannot help but ask if their observations are based on an actual reading of the posts, and if they are, whether they comprehended the language. And, if they have not been able to properly understand it, how can they expect three police officers in the SIT to do so?

Freedom to offend

More importantly, it raises a fundamental constitutional question: can social media posts that are unpopular or perceived as unpatriotic be excluded from the protection guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), which upholds the right to freedom of speech and expression?

Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the State may impose restrictions on free speech only on eight specific grounds: the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.

However, as the Supreme Court has consistently held, such restrictions must be reasonable, proportionate, and directly connected to one of these grounds — they cannot be arbitrary or excessive.

In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the court held in March 2025: "In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected."

Judicial travesty

It is a judicial travesty that even with astute and insightful judgments as precedents, judges are still swayed by considerations such as popular sentiment, national crisis, dual meaning, the nature of the language, etc., while ignoring — even verging on subverting — the substantial constitutional protection accorded to freedom of speech.

What is at stake here is the very meaning of "freedom of speech" and its value in a democracy. No freedom of speech is required to say that which is acceptable to everyone. It’s needed for saying unpleasant truths, for expressing dissent, for showing disagreement, and for articulating critique. It is the soul of democracy because democracy is based on dialogue, and dialogue is possible only if there is the space for disagreement.

As Salman Rushdie puts it eloquently, “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” It is this freedom that a civilised society accords to scholars, artists, poets, philosophers and public intellectuals, for it is through their thoughts and their critiques that every society moves one slow step after another towards the creation of a better world. It is also the freedom that a fascist State fears the most.

Mahmudabad is a public intellectual and the outcome of his case will tell whether India survives as a democracy, however frail or flawed it may be, or has fully caved into regressive majoritarianis