Free speech shouldn’t depend on your political affiliation. From jailed teachers to harassed journalists, India’s unequal justice system reveals a deepening rot. Dissent is not disloyalty. It is democracy.BY Navin Upadhyay
BY Navin Upadhyay
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the United States saw the release of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary accusing President George W. Bush of negligence and suggesting ties to Middle Eastern oil lobbies that may have contributed to the tragedy. Despite its incendiary claims, the film grossed over $200 million worldwide, and Moore faced no legal repercussions or accusations of disloyalty. The U.S., even amidst national trauma, upheld free expression, allowing dissent to coexist with grief. Contrast this with India after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. Here, a troubling duality prevails: one set of laws for ordinary citizens and another for those aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), eroding the democratic principles India holds dear.
Since the Pahalgam attack, authorities across several Indian states have arrested around three dozen persons over social media posts deemed “anti-national” or critical of the Indian Army. In Jharkhand, a youth was detained and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In Assam, around 20 people were arrested for allegedly insulting the army, hurting national pride, or praising the enemy. In Tripura, eight individuals—including retired teachers Jawhar Debnath and Kuldip Mandal, student leader Jahirul Islam, and others—were taken into custody over similar remarks. Tripura Police have also issued public warnings against sharing provocative content online.
READ: No Headway in Tracking Pahalgam Attackers After Four Weeks
Absolutely astounding that Professor Mahmudabad was arrested for this post! I can’t disagree with any of this! pic.twitter.com/ePkVYCoOBS
— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) May 18, 2025
In Delhi, Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was detained for a post about Operation Sindoor—India’s retaliatory strikes against terror camps in Pakistan—following a complaint from the BJP’s youth wing. In Uttar Pradesh, a journalist was briefly held for questioning the government’s security measures, released only after public outcry. These cases reveal a pattern: citizens, from academics to journalists, face swift punishment for dissent, often under draconian laws like UAPA.
Similarly, in a move that has sparked outrage and intensified allegations of selective justice, the Manipur Police filed an FIR against Paojakhup Guite, the Delhi president of the Kuki Students’ Organisation, for allegedly making threatening remarks against the Meitei community. The charges, citing provocation and incitement, stand in stark contrast to the continued inaction against several Meitei leaders and groups in Manipur who have delivered openly inflammatory speeches or encouraged vigilante violence over the past year. Critics argue that this glaring disparity highlights a deep-rooted bias in law enforcement—where minority voices, particularly from the Kuki-Zo community, are swiftly criminalized, while incendiary rhetoric from dominant groups goes unchecked or is even normalized—further eroding public trust in the justice system.
READ: From Delhi to Manipur: Kukis Unite to Demand FIR Withdrawal
Yet, political leaders operate with impunity. Madhya Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Jagdish Devda claimed the Indian Army “bows at the feet of Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” politicizing its apolitical role. The Congress called it “shameful,” but no action followed. Similarly, Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah made derogatory remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who briefed the media during Operation Sindoor, insinuating a communal link by calling her the “sister” of terrorists. Despite a court-ordered FIR, criticism from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court, and public outrage, Shah remains in office, with the BJP issuing only a “warning.” Posts on X, such as one from @aratrika_g08, highlight this disparity: “Kunwar Vijay Shah roams free despite a court-monitored probe, while Ashoka’s professor is arrested.”
Even opposition leaders face selective scrutiny. Karnataka Congress MLA Kothur Manjunath called Operation Sindoor a “failed exercise,” questioning its efficacy: “Nothing was done. Just to show off, they sent three-four flights overhead and returned. Will that compensate for the 26–28 people killed in Pahalgam?” He raised concerns about the strike’s targets, asking if the perpetrators were killed and why border security failed, labeling it an “intelligence failure” amid conflicting media reports. The BJP condemned his remarks, but no legal action was taken, suggesting that political stature, regardless of party, often shields leaders from the consequences faced by ordinary citizens.
ALSO READ: From Delhi to Manipur: Kukis Unite to Demand FIR Withdrawal
This double standard extends to media and societal behavior. Independent news outlets and YouTube channels critical of the government’s handling of Pahalgam or Operation Sindoor have been blocked or restricted. The Annual South Asia Press Freedom Report 2024-25 notes the “choking of independent websites” and “arbitrary detentions” of journalists under the guise of national security. Yet, TV channels spreading blatant misinformation or vicious propaganda face no repercussions, despite public ridicule. Similarly, no action has been taken against those who harassed Kashmiri students or fueled anti-Muslim hysteria online and on air post-Pahalgam, actions that deepen communal divides and exploit the tragedy for divisive agendas.
Ashoka distances itself from arrested faculty. What a joke of a university. If you can’t stand by your faculty reeling under pressure from the state, please quit calling yourself a “liberal arts university”. https://t.co/Vpy5jGAs7A
— Dr. Ruchika Sharma (@tishasaroyan) May 18, 2025
The Pahalgam attack demanded unity, and Operation Sindoor showcased the Indian Army’s professionalism, exemplified by officers like Colonel Qureshi. Yet, the government’s selective crackdown—arresting citizens while shielding influential figures—reveals a deeper malaise. Laws like UAPA disproportionately target minorities, intellectuals, and dissenters, while BJP leaders, and occasionally opposition figures, evade accountability. This risks alienating communities and amplifying the divisions the attackers sought to sow.
India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but its enforcement is uneven. If a professor’s post warrants arrest, why does a minister’s communal slur against a military officer go unpunished? If dissent is branded anti-national, why are political leaders exempt? The judiciary, which intervened in Shah’s case, must ensure impartiality. The government must prioritize equal justice over political loyalty. Unlike the U.S., where Fahrenheit 9/11 sparked debate but not censorship, India’s silencing of dissent post-Pahalgam weakens its democratic credentials. Colonel Qureshi deserves respect, not slander. The professor from Delhi, the youth in Jharkhand, and the teachers in Tripura deserve their voices. And India deserves a legal system that holds all accountable, regardless of power or position.
