Vinod Kumar Shukla
Delhi : When Zohran Mamdani, the New York Mayor, wrote to UAPA accused Umar Khalid in solidarity with him, it was actually part of a template under which ilk of such people operate and the meeting of Umar’s father with Mamdani in which the handwritten note was handed over was actually extension of the game plan to globalize the issue to put pressure on Indian judiciary. But not only their fake narrative is called out but the story of the other side is also told. The fact of the matter is that five out of the seven accused of 2020 Delhi violence against Hindus were granted bail still they tried to question the Indian judiciary and put the government in dock by trying to build a narrative like free speech is trampled, democracy is compromised and Muslims are victimised in India. Interestingly other minorities are flourishing.
But the facts are contrary to media reports, social media plants and attempted global outcry. While denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjil Imam in the matter, the SC clearly argued that both of them were ‘masterminds’ and the material on record made out a ‘prima facie case’ against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court, actually, relied on an expansive statutory definition of a ‘terrorist act’ as Section 15 of the UAPA has an exceptionally broad definition of terrorism. It goes beyond specifying weapons such as explosives, firearms, or poisons and includes acts committed through ‘any other means.’
But the eco-system was defending these terror accused right from the time of their arrest and is still defending. The SC being the highest judicial authority, efforts were doubled to get them bail when the case was listed. In the pre-rejection scenario, attempts were made to influence, indict and intimidate the SC while in the post-rejection scenario the court is abused, accused, castigated with words like ‘Miscarriage of Justice’ by People’s Democratic Party leader Ilteja Mufti are used while for some others democracy is under threat with this decision. Arguments like ‘Bail is Rule, Jail is exception’ were put forth without using mind. Cases under UAPA and those made out to be terror cases are undoubtedly exceptional, so the court has every right to give a ruling to keep them in jail for planned violence against Hindus.
The most favourite argument of these cabals has been that the bail was denied to Umar and Imam for them being Muslims. So, the question arises, do they consider them greater Muslims by any chance and Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed as lesser mortals for bail being granted to them.
‘In praise of Dr Umar Khalid, from one historian to another’ are the words of Ramchandra Guha whose purported message was to grant him relief on the grounds of his excellent PhD dissertation. There is no harm in Guha calling Umar a Historian but granting bail to him for his scholarly PhD is a far-fetched argument. Is it so that if the judiciary doesn’t give him bail, qualification and wisdom of judges would be in question for Umar being a scholar from JNU and Imam studied both in IIT and JNU. Another argument was posed that they are lodged in jail for over five years so they should have been granted bail by now. The court ruled that being in jail for five years should not be used as a ‘trump card’ to get bail. People like Guha conveniently forget that fake cases on Lt Colonel (now Colonel) Srikant Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya, Swami Assemanand and others who remained in jail for over eight years and theory of Saffron Terror was concocted by the then ruling dispensation to draw a parallel against Islamic terrorism. None of these people’s free speech was discussed, rather the ecosystem that Guha belongs to wanted them to rot in jail forever. However, they all were exonerated from the NIA court.
Interestingly when defenders of Umar and Imam talk about their rights, they conveniently turn a blind eye to 53 innocent people killed in violence targeting Hindus that included IB officer Ankit Sharma, constable Ratan Lal and Dilber Negi. The then DCP Amit Sharma was grievously injured by the mob with women and children allegedly working as shields. The question is: Who instigated the mob? Do those killed have any right or not? Will any JNU professor write about personnel feats of any of the violence victims? Will they defend only outlaws and not the victims?
There are serious allegations against Umar who openly declares that ‘India is in illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir’ while Imam wants five lakh Muslims (not Indian) to cut North East from the rest of India at the Chicken’s Neck corridor but their words are counted as free speech and freedom of expression. In nutshell, those defending Umar and Imam are supporting persons who want to wage a war against India and secede Jammu and Kashmir from the country, even though they are innocent for some. Ilhan Omar too has the same opinion as Umar and Mamdani equates Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a war criminal who is interfering into the internal matters of a sovereign nation.
The logic about Umar and Imam being part of the premier institutions is being given to provide them relief. Another bunch of their supporters had argued the reason for them not getting bail is because they are educated and the incumbent government is afraid of educated people. People offering such arguments should fix the qualifications and institutions who should be treated as terrorists and who not and from which institutions no one should be touched. Anyone from JNU committing crime certainly not. Now, The father of Umar Khalid was invited to the US who at one point was associated with the banned terrorist organisation called SIMI. Did he groom his son in such an environment where speaking against and hurting India came with snap of fingers.
The most hilarious argument to defend Umar Khalid is to generate sympathy by creating stories about his partner who stopped eating Chinese food, her favourite, ever since Umar was arrested. Apparently, the newspaper writing such stories wanted to help Umer’s partner to end her craving for Chinese food by indirectly telling SC that it should give Umar bail. Their contention seems that the court was allegedly interfering in the right to food of Umar’s partner. Is this the way the legal system should work?
If they are accusing the judiciary of being controlled by the government, for the allegation the judiciary is competent enough to defend itself from anyone challenging its autonomy and impartiality or it wants to live with such allegations. But those levelling allegations must also give their opinion about other rulings of the judiciary that suited them. There are many such cases. This shows the level of intelligence of the people supporting Khalid, Imam and others. Umar is a future leader is what is said about him like Kanhaiya Kumar too was the future leader but the Congress doesn’t accept him even the present-day leaders when he was not allowed to canvas for the Mahagathbandhan in Bihar and not allowed to share dais with Rahul Gandhi on insistence of Tejaswi Yadav. The Congress meekly accepted it.
Now, does anyone’s high educational qualification is enough to absolve him/her from criminal or terror related offences? By this logic none of the doctors from whom over 3000 KG of explosive was recovered at Al Falah University in Faridabad and many other doctors arrested from Lucknow, Kashmir, Faridabad and other parts of the country. There was an IIT graduate Ahmad Murtaza Abbasi who was given a death sentence for attacking Gorakhnath Temple in Gorakhpur. The list can go very long.
Many supporters of Umar and Imam like CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat call their action as the struggle for the defence of Democracy and the Constitution. The government is faced to deal with Left Wing and Islamic extremism both. But appeasement politics forces even the Congress leaders and many other political outlets including AIMIM to openly criticise the SC judgment of denying bail to Umar & Imam. Saharanpur MP Imran Masood, who is ill-famous for his threat of cutting Narendra Modi into pieces, is talking about bail being the fundamental right and Khalid deserved it. Many are still searching which book tells bail is a fundamental right. Priyank Kharge calls it double standards asking why Khalid remains behind bars while high-profile convicts walk free on bail. Udit Raj has termed the decision as “unfortunate”. A former JNU professor wrote a Facebook post in their praise and shared a poem of Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish. However, she also wrote in her Facebook post that they were irritating and she was not always in agreement with them but this was selectively buried. Some have questioned the slapping of UAPA and strong stand taken against them. But being selective is their most valuable qualification.
Why so? Because they are very clear in their minds but clever by half in public perception. One thing is also obvious that they will stick to their agenda without considering right and wrong and devise, create and present any argument to defend them so what if they stand exposed.