– Dr. M. Iqbal Siddiqui
On 22 April 2025, a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley, J&K, claimed 26 lives, including 25 Indian tourists and one Nepali, among them newlyweds and children. Five militants, armed with M4 carbines and AK-47s, targeted civilians in a chilling assault linked to The Resistance Front (TRF), a Pakistan-backed proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba. The TRF initially claimed responsibility, citing opposition to non-local settlement post-Article 370’s revocation, before retracting its statement. India responded with Operation Sindoor on 7 May, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and along the Line of Control, escalating Indo-Pak tensions. Global leaders, including US President Donald Trump, EU chief Ursula von der Leyen, and UN chief António Guterres, condemned the attack, urging de-escalation, while Pakistan’s offer of a neutral probe was rejected by India, citing past failures.
Yet, the fallout extended beyond geopolitics. In India, the tragedy sparked a sweeping crackdown, with over 71 individuals arrested, predominantly Muslims and vocal dissenters, for social media posts, speeches, or artistic expressions deemed “anti-national.” From a professor invoking constitutional values to a folk singer wielding satire, the state’s response has targeted critics across communities, raising urgent questions about free speech, communal bias, and the erosion of India’s democratic and secular ideals.
Indo-Pak Tensions and the Weaponisation of Patriotism
The Pahalgam attack demanded a robust response, and India’s military, diplomatic, and rhetorical actions were swift. However, what began as national outrage morphed into a witch hunt. The government’s narrative of unity has been weaponised to silence dissent, disproportionately targeting Muslims and critical voices. Over 1,500 Kashmiris were detained for questioning, and at least 90 faced charges under the Public Safety Act (PSA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), laws enabling indefinite detention without trial. Independent media outlets like The Wire faced restrictions for reporting on Operation Sindoor’s ‘excesses’, while authorities demolished homes of alleged militants’ families in Kashmir, deepening local alienation.
This trajectory poses a fundamental question: Is India safeguarding its unity or stifling its diversity under the guise of nationalism? The arrests of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, and AIUDF MLA Aminul Islam, and legal action against folk singer Neha Singh Rathore, among others, suggest a threat to the secular and democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.
Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad: Academic Dissent as Sedition
Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a historian and political scientist at Ashoka University, is a public intellectual known for his commentary on Muslim identity, secularism, and nationalism. Hailing from a royal family with pre-Partition Muslim League ties, his identity adds complexity to perceptions of his critique.
The Statement: On 8 May 2025, Mahmudabad posted on X:
“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. I am very happy to see so many right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofia Qureshi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings… be protected…”
He praised the diversity of India’s armed forces, specifically Colonel Sofia Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, who briefed the media on Operation Sindoor, but cautioned against symbolic gestures without addressing mob lynchings and arbitrary demolitions.
The Arrest and Legal Action: On 18 May, Haryana Police arrested Mahmudabad in Delhi following complaints by BJP Yuva Morcha’s Yogesh Jatheri and Haryana Women’s Commission chairperson Renu Bhatia. Two FIRs were filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):
- First FIR: Sections 152 (endangering sovereignty), 196(1)(B) (promoting enmity), 197(1)(C) (prejudicial to national integration), and 299 (outraging religious feelings), alleging his posts undermined national integrity.
- Second FIR: Sections 353 (public mischief), 79 (insulting a woman’s modesty), and 152, claiming his remarks on women officers risked unrest.
Procedural lapses marked the arrest: Mahmudabad was driven from Delhi to Sonipat without clear communication, denied medication, and initially held without counsel. A magistrate remanded him to police and judicial custody, with police seeking his laptop from Lucknow.
Supreme Court Intervention: On 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, granted Mahmudabad interim bail, ruling his post “patriotic in essence” and criticising the misuse of Section 152 of BNS. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued the arrest was a deliberate attempt to silence dissent, positioning the case as a potential landmark for free speech.
Reactions: Over 1,200 academics, including historian Mukul Kesavan, condemned the arrest as an assault on academic freedom. The Ashoka Faculty Association called the charges “groundless,” while Amnesty International labelled Section 152 a rebranded sedition law. Political leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi noted Mahmudabad’s Muslim identity as a factor, with Congress’s Pawan Khera stating, “His mistake is his name.”
Analysis: The vague charges and procedural irregularities suggest targeted harassment, with selective enforcement – compared to unpunished divisive remarks by BJP leaders like Vijay Shah – highlighting communal bias and undermining Article 14’s promise of equality.
MLA Aminul Islam: Political Speech as National Threat
Aminul Islam, a three-time AIUDF MLA from Assam, represents Muslim minority concerns in a polarised state.
The Statements: At a rally on 23 April, he said:
“Pulwama was a conspiracy… Pahalgam could be one too. If there is no independent probe, we will believe this was a political conspiracy by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah.”
Although his call for a neutral probe was labelled provocative, it remained within the bounds of political expression.
Legal Action: Charged under BNS Sections 152 (endangering sovereignty), 196 (misinformation), 197(1) (instigation), 113(3) (abetment), 352 (assault), and 353 (public mischief), Islam was initially granted bail but detained under the National Security Act (NSA) on 15 May. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma labelled him a threat to national integrity.
Reactions: AIUDF disowned his comments, but opposition parties criticised the NSA’s use against an elected representative, signalling a trend of criminalising dissent.
Neha Singh Rathore: Folk Satire Meets State Fury
Bhojpuri folk singer Neha Singh Rathore is known for viral songs critiquing governance failures.
The Statements: On 23 April, she posted on X:
“Pahalgam attack is a massive intelligence failure… this is not governance, it’s a circus.”
She accused the BJP of communal polarisation amid national mourning.
Legal Action: On 27 April, Lucknow’s Hazratganj Police booked Rathore under BNS Sections 152, 196(1)(a-b), 197(1)(a-d), 302 (hurting religious sentiments), 353(1)(c), and 353(2), plus IT Act Section 69A. Though not arrested, the FIRs signal potential future action.
Reactions: The cultural community decried the charges as intimidation, arguing that satire is protected speech vital to democracy.
Mass Detentions in Assam and Meghalaya: A Pattern of Suppression
In Assam, 71 individuals, including journalist Md Jabir Hussain, Md A.K. Bahauddin, Md Javed Mazumder, and Md Muzahirul Islam, were arrested for “inflammatory” posts or conspiracy theories about Pahalgam, often under the NSA. In Meghalaya, Anil Bania and Simon Shylla faced similar charges. Most were Muslims or from minority communities, reinforcing fears of communal targeting. Assam Chief Minister Sarma defended the crackdown as necessary for peace, but human rights groups condemned it as collective punishment, often without due process.
Freedom of Expression vs. National Security
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, subject to “reasonable restrictions” for sovereignty and public order. Yet, the post-Pahalgam arrests, bolstered by laws like the PSA and UAPA, raise critical questions: Are opinions now equated with sedition? Is the guise of national interest being used to justify communal profiling? The Supreme Court’s 2022 sedition law review urged re-examining colonial-era laws, but BNS Section 152 replicates their suppressive intent, as Amnesty International noted in Mahmudabad’s case.
The Dangerous Path of Democratic Backsliding
The Pahalgam aftermath reveals a disturbing drift. Arrests, media censorship, and home demolitions reflect a strategy to silence dissent under the guise of security. From Mahmudabad’s constitutional critique to Rathore’s satire, the state’s message is clear: dissent is under siege. The law, once a shield for liberty, is now a sword of silence, disproportionately targeting those who have different opinions. Selective inaction against BJP leaders’ divisive remarks underscores this systemic reshaping, eroding India’s secular fabric and replacing debate with suspicion.
As we project ourselves as global defenders of freedom, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: you cannot champion democracy abroad while dismantling it at home. National security must not become a euphemism for national submission.
The Soul of the Republic
The Pahalgam tragedy tests India’s democratic soul. Will fear throttle freedom, or will the judiciary and civil society uphold the secular, pluralistic ideal – an India that listens before it silences? The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Mahmudabad offers a glimmer of hope – but the Constitution’s promise will endure only if citizens and institutions stand firm against authoritarianism.
Sources:
- “Pahalgam Attack Sparks Crackdown on Dissent,” The Hindu, May 2025.
- Amnesty International, “India: Arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad a Clear Attack on Free Speech,” May 2025.
- “Media Faces Censorship Amid Pahalgam Fallout,” The Wire, May 2025.
- “Assam MLA Detained Under NSA for Pahalgam Remarks,” The Indian Express, May 2025.
- “Bhojpuri Singer Neha Rathore Booked for Pahalgam Post,” NDTV, April 2025.
- Human Rights Watch, “India’s Crackdown on Dissent Post-Pahalgam Violates Rights,” May 2025.
- “Operation Sindoor Targets PoK Camps After Pahalgam Attack,” The Times of India, May 2025.
- “Kashmir Faces Mass Detentions, Demolitions After Pahalgam Attack,” Kashmir Observer, May 2025.
- Various X posts and media reports, The Indian Express and Hindustan Times, April-May 2025.
- Supreme Court of India, “Ali Khan Mahmudabad vs. State of Haryana,” May 2025.
