On May 16, 2025, a letter was issued by a coalition of civil society members, academics, and public intellectuals in defense of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who currently serves as Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science at Ashoka University in Haryana. The letter campaign condemned the recent summons issued to him by the Haryana State Women’s Commission, calling it a targeted attack stemming from a deliberate misreading of his social media posts on recent hostilities between India and Pakistan.
The letter states that Professor Mahmudabad “has recently been maliciously targeted by the Haryana State Women’s Commission” following a series of social media posts he made. According to the statement, while his posts were a critique of jingoism, they were interpreted by the Commission as inflammatory. The Commission accused him of a range of serious charges: “vilifying India’s army,” “violating dignity and outraging women’s modesty,” “disparaging women in uniform,” “attributing malicious communal intent to the Government of India and Indian Armed Forces,” and “inciting communal distress and attempting to disturb internal peace.”
The letter contests these allegations, stating, “The Commission has completely, and it seems deliberately, misread his posts.” It further argues that these actions have been amplified by a section of the media, which “have also chosen to distort and misquote him in order to malign his image and spread misinformation.”
The signatories of the letter offer a detailed interpretation of Professor Mahmudabad’s original posts, asserting that he praised the strategic restraint of the Indian armed forces. He also observed that the distinction between terrorist groups and the Pakistani military had broken down. His comments on women officers appearing in media briefings were intended, they argue, as positive. He described their presence as “important” and as “proof that the secular vision of the founders of our Republic is still alive.”
Also Read | Free speech and India
Furthermore, the statement emphasise that Professor Mahmudabad was drawing attention to a larger issue: that nationalism must not blind citizens to ongoing injustices. He referred to Colonel Sofia Qureshi, who has been lauded in right-wing media circles, and invited these same voices to “equally loudly oppose mob lynching and the bulldozing that Indian Muslims and others are frequently subjected to.”
The supporters point out that Professor Mahmudabad’s posts were driven by “a clear moral vision of what being a good citizen means.” It describes his language as the voice of a “true patriot who is concerned with the lives of both soldiers and citizens.” The authors of the letter argue that nothing in his posts could reasonably be construed as offensive to the army, to women, or to the nation.
They also provide context about Professor Mahmudabad’s background. “Anyone acquainted with Prof. Khan knows that he has been engaging with and writing about issues of national, regional and international importance for many years,” the letter states. It notes his deep knowledge of languages, his work at the grassroots level, and his consistent advocacy for peaceful dialogue.
One of his posts, titled The blind bloodlust for war!, used references from both the Gita and Islamic texts to reflect on the ethical dilemmas involved in armed conflict. He questioned wars “driven by egos, pride and self-interest.” They point out that these are not the words of someone attempting to destabilise society but of a public intellectual engaged in moral reasoning.
The authors of the letter sharply criticise the Haryana State Women’s Commission, calling its actions “preposterous.” They argue that “even praising the army, albeit while criticising those who clamour for war,” can now lead to harassment and censorship. They contrast the Commission’s energy spent pursuing Professor Mahmudabad with its inaction in the face of real threats. “There is a much stronger case for summoning those who have made rape threats against Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri’s daughter or against the Madhya Pradesh Minister who called Colonel Sofia Qureshi a sister of the Pakistanis,” the statement says.
Furthermore, they argue that the Commission has no authority to act in this matter. “Neither does the Commission have the legal jurisdiction to issue this summons to Prof. Khan nor does keeping an eye on the issue of cross-border terrorism or UGC Codes of Conduct falls under its ambit,” they state. They describe the Commission’s summons as part of a larger pattern of encroachment on constitutionally protected speech. “Freedom of speech continues to be under threat from forces that seek to spread hatred and destabilize India,” the statement warns.
Also Read | Should teachers share their political opinions with students?
The letter concludes with two clear demands. First, it calls on the Haryana State Women’s Commission to “retract its summons and issue a full and public apology to Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad for the manner in which it has deliberately and maliciously slandered him.” Second, it urges Ashoka University to support its faculty member, especially in this moment of crisis. “He has done nothing except carry out his duties as a teacher, a citizen and a person who believes in harmony and peace,” the authors note.
The letter has been signed by hundreds of individuals from academic, literary, and civil society backgrounds, reflecting broad support. The signatories frame the summons as part of a larger threat to free expression and academic freedom, calling for the protection of constitutional values and the space for critical thought in a democracy.
COMMents
SHARE