When Silence Is Not Security

By Inderjit Badhwar

In a country that prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, the arrest of a respected academic for a social media post should send a chill down our collective spine. This week’s India Legal cover story by senior journalist Dilip Bobb dives into the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad—a scholar of repute at Ashoka University—and the disturbing legal and constitutional questions it raises about free speech, academic autonomy and the state of democratic discourse in India.

The story’s urgency lies not just in the FIR filed against Prof Mahmudabad over a Facebook post—one that expressed anguish over the violence in Gaza—but in the Supreme Court’s decision to grant him bail only on the condition that he refrain from making public statements. It is this judicially endorsed gag order that makes this case more than just another instance of State overreach. It marks a worrying precedent: that freedom can be conditional, and that silence may now be the price of liberty.

Prof Mahmudabad’s post, made in a personal capacity and without incitement to violence, was part of a long tradition of academics engaging with global issues from a humanitarian perspective. To criminalize such expression—and then to curb further speech through the country’s highest court—risks undermining the very liberties that form the bedrock of our Constitution.

What makes this development even more consequential is its timing. India is in the midst of a global diplomatic outreach through Operation Sindoor, aiming to expose Pakistan’s terror links and position itself as a model of stability and progressive democracy. Our pitch to the world is based not just on military might or economic performance, but on soft power—on being a pluralistic society that respects dissent, dialogue and the rule of law.

But that pitch must be backed by lived realities. When a historian known for his balanced, erudite voice is hounded by the State and effectively silenced by the judiciary, we must ask: What message are we really sending to the world? Can a democracy that cannot tolerate a Facebook post claim moral superiority over regimes that silence critics by design?

This is not just about one professor or one post. It is about the contours of free expression in today’s India. About the shrinking space for critique. And about a judiciary that should be the guardian of our liberties, not a reluctant participant in their erosion.

Dilip Bobb’s masterful piece goes beyond the headlines and into the heart of the matter. It examines what the Mahmudabad case tells us about the shifting balance between liberty and control, and whether India’s democratic soul can withstand the pressure of hyper-nationalism and institutional submission.

As India seeks the sympathy of the world for its justified concerns about terrorism and security, it must remember that its greatest strength has always been moral authority—born from its Constitution, sustained by its courts, and defended by its people. We cannot afford to lose that strength. Not now. Not ever.

The post When Silence Is Not Security appeared first on India Legal.

This article first appeared on India Legal