Col Sofiya Qureshi, a Muslim, was appointed as one of GoI's spokespersons during the recent India-Pakistan conflict. This carefully considered tactic was designed to produce good optics internationally and send a secular message to audiences in India and Pakistan.
In Pakistan, the media portrayed the conflict as a Hindu attack on Muslims and claimed - falsely - that bombing of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan was actually aimed at mosques. They also aimed to change the narrative on Pahalgam from a terrorist attack to a Hindu-Muslim conflict. By appointing Qureshi as a spokesperson, GoI sought to demonstrate that Indians of all faiths were united against Pakistan-backed terror.
Sadly, social media have been sending a very different message of anti-Muslim hate since the Pahalgam attack, and Qureshi's appointment has barely curbed it. Comments on her appointment have resulted in two very different cases against two very different people. Thereby hangs a tale.
In one case, Madhya Pradesh minister for tribal affairs Kunwar Vijay Shah described Qureshi as a 'sister' of the Pahalgam terrorists and their Pakistani supporters. Madhya Pradesh High Court was outraged and ordered the filing of an FIR, which the BJP chief minister Mohan Yadav did while criticising Shah for disobeying the party line at a time of war.
Later, Shah apologised profusely for his phraseology, claiming he had no intention to cast slurs on Qureshi or the other female spokesperson, Wg Cdr Vyomika Singh. On Monday, the Supreme Court castigated the minister for trying to 'wriggle out by tendering a facade of an apology which is akin to shedding crocodile tears'.
The thing is, persons of Shah's ilk are so used to denouncing Muslims as traitors that they are unable to trim their terminology when the party line changes. Their communal rhetoric normally gets them lots of 'likes' and 'smileys' on social media. They find it difficult to change in exceptional situations like this war, when the party frowns instead of smiles.
Shah was not arrested - the Supreme Court has constituted an SIT of senior police officers and sought a probe status report by May 28, but stayed his arrest - and may never spend even a day in judicial custody for questioning. Many critics of BJP have spent years fighting cases of inciting communal disharmony. But BJP supporters can spew communal hate, confident of lenient treatment.
In the second case, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor of political science at Ashoka University, was arrested by the Haryana Police for 'acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, inciting secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities and insulting religious beliefs'.
Mahmudabad had highlighted the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Qureshi's appointment, and had added, pithily, '...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 added that while the optics of press briefings by Qureshi and Singh were important, 'optics must translate to reality on the ground, otherwise it's just hypocrisy'.
Criminal complaints against Mahmudabad were filed by Renu Bhatia, chair of Haryana Women's Commission, and Yogesh Jatheri, a BJP youth activist. Prima facie, the complaints are nonsense. By demanding an equally secular line in domestic affairs, how on earth could the professor be accused of inciting secession or armed rebellion? Or of subversive activities, or insulting religious beliefs?
In earlier times, the court would have thrown out the complaints as frivolous. But now, the courts routinely admit such petitions. On Tuesday, the Sonepat district court sent Mahmudabad to judicial custody till May 27. Even if the accused ultimately goes free, the acute harassment and mental agony he suffers is an incentive to bear injustice silently rather than fight for one's rights for years.
Mahmudabad's main crime is that he is a Muslim. Many Hindu critics (including myself) have said similar things and - till now, anyway - are not in jail. 'This is clearly some kind of witch-hunt,' said Maya Mirchandani, head of Ashoka's department of media studies. In a post on X last week, Mahmudabad said that he was exercising his 'fundamental right to freedom of thought and speech', and dismissed Bhatia's complaint as 'censorship and harassment'.
Foreign secretary Vikram Misri claimed during the conflict that it would be 'a surprise to Pakistan to see citizens criticising their own government'. He added that tolerance for comments made by former J&K governor Satyapal Malik - critical of GoI after the Pulwama attack picked up by Pakistani authorities - was 'the hallmark of any open and functioning democracy'. Subsequent events have provided ample material for Pakistani smirks.
A petition seeking Mahmudabad's release has been filed with the Supreme Court. Kanchan Gupta, senior adviser, I&B ministry, said the arrest was initiated by local authorities and 'the central government has nothing to do with it'. He added, 'The political part of it is also with the state and not the central government.' This indirect admission of political considerations is the best reason for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case forthwith.
In Pakistan, the media portrayed the conflict as a Hindu attack on Muslims and claimed - falsely - that bombing of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan was actually aimed at mosques. They also aimed to change the narrative on Pahalgam from a terrorist attack to a Hindu-Muslim conflict. By appointing Qureshi as a spokesperson, GoI sought to demonstrate that Indians of all faiths were united against Pakistan-backed terror.
Sadly, social media have been sending a very different message of anti-Muslim hate since the Pahalgam attack, and Qureshi's appointment has barely curbed it. Comments on her appointment have resulted in two very different cases against two very different people. Thereby hangs a tale.
In one case, Madhya Pradesh minister for tribal affairs Kunwar Vijay Shah described Qureshi as a 'sister' of the Pahalgam terrorists and their Pakistani supporters. Madhya Pradesh High Court was outraged and ordered the filing of an FIR, which the BJP chief minister Mohan Yadav did while criticising Shah for disobeying the party line at a time of war.
Later, Shah apologised profusely for his phraseology, claiming he had no intention to cast slurs on Qureshi or the other female spokesperson, Wg Cdr Vyomika Singh. On Monday, the Supreme Court castigated the minister for trying to 'wriggle out by tendering a facade of an apology which is akin to shedding crocodile tears'.
The thing is, persons of Shah's ilk are so used to denouncing Muslims as traitors that they are unable to trim their terminology when the party line changes. Their communal rhetoric normally gets them lots of 'likes' and 'smileys' on social media. They find it difficult to change in exceptional situations like this war, when the party frowns instead of smiles.
Shah was not arrested - the Supreme Court has constituted an SIT of senior police officers and sought a probe status report by May 28, but stayed his arrest - and may never spend even a day in judicial custody for questioning. Many critics of BJP have spent years fighting cases of inciting communal disharmony. But BJP supporters can spew communal hate, confident of lenient treatment.
In the second case, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor of political science at Ashoka University, was arrested by the Haryana Police for 'acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, inciting secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities and insulting religious beliefs'.
Mahmudabad had highlighted the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Qureshi's appointment, and had added, pithily, '...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 added that while the optics of press briefings by Qureshi and Singh were important, 'optics must translate to reality on the ground, otherwise it's just hypocrisy'.
Criminal complaints against Mahmudabad were filed by Renu Bhatia, chair of Haryana Women's Commission, and Yogesh Jatheri, a BJP youth activist. Prima facie, the complaints are nonsense. By demanding an equally secular line in domestic affairs, how on earth could the professor be accused of inciting secession or armed rebellion? Or of subversive activities, or insulting religious beliefs?
In earlier times, the court would have thrown out the complaints as frivolous. But now, the courts routinely admit such petitions. On Tuesday, the Sonepat district court sent Mahmudabad to judicial custody till May 27. Even if the accused ultimately goes free, the acute harassment and mental agony he suffers is an incentive to bear injustice silently rather than fight for one's rights for years.
Mahmudabad's main crime is that he is a Muslim. Many Hindu critics (including myself) have said similar things and - till now, anyway - are not in jail. 'This is clearly some kind of witch-hunt,' said Maya Mirchandani, head of Ashoka's department of media studies. In a post on X last week, Mahmudabad said that he was exercising his 'fundamental right to freedom of thought and speech', and dismissed Bhatia's complaint as 'censorship and harassment'.
Foreign secretary Vikram Misri claimed during the conflict that it would be 'a surprise to Pakistan to see citizens criticising their own government'. He added that tolerance for comments made by former J&K governor Satyapal Malik - critical of GoI after the Pulwama attack picked up by Pakistani authorities - was 'the hallmark of any open and functioning democracy'. Subsequent events have provided ample material for Pakistani smirks.
A petition seeking Mahmudabad's release has been filed with the Supreme Court. Kanchan Gupta, senior adviser, I&B ministry, said the arrest was initiated by local authorities and 'the central government has nothing to do with it'. He added, 'The political part of it is also with the state and not the central government.' This indirect admission of political considerations is the best reason for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case forthwith.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
Consulting Editor at ET