Janice R. Andrews
Umar Khalid, a prominent Indian student activist and vocal critic of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), has been imprisoned since September 2020. Accused of instigating riots during the anti-CAA protests, Khalid has spent four years in detention without bail or trial. As a crucial court hearing approaches in Delhi, the case has reignited concerns over whether the Indian government is using his incarceration to suppress dissent.
The Arrest of Umar Khalid
Khalid, a former student leader from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), gained national attention for his opposition to the CAA. The controversial legislation offers an expedited path to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, which critics argue discriminates against Muslims.
During the protests, Khalid urged peaceful resistance, declaring, “We will fight this with a smile and non-violence.” However, the demonstrations turned deadly in February 2020, leading to communal violence that claimed over 50 lives, predominantly among Muslims. Authorities allege Khalid orchestrated the violence, leading to his arrest under India’s Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a stringent anti-terrorism law. Khalid has consistently denied the allegations, asserting that his role was limited to peaceful protests.
Four Years Without Bail or Trial
Since his arrest, Khalid has been detained in Delhi’s high-security Tihar Jail, with his case yet to proceed to trial. Despite three failed bail applications in lower courts and 14 postponements by the Supreme Court, Khalid continues to await his day in court. Critics argue this prolonged detention without trial violates fundamental principles of justice and due process.
The UAPA, under which Khalid is charged, allows authorities to detain individuals for extended periods without a formal trial, ostensibly to address threats to national security. However, activists claim the law is often misused to silence dissent. Angana Chatterji, a scholar and activist, called the UAPA “a repressive law,” adding, “The government, judiciary, and state forces are complicit.”
A Pattern of Targeting Dissidents?
This isn’t the first time Khalid has been accused of anti-national activities. In 2016, he was charged with sedition for protesting the execution of Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri militant convicted in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. Such incidents have made him a high-profile target for government scrutiny.
Political scientist Zeenat Ansari views Khalid’s detention as emblematic of broader discrimination against Muslims in India. “This injustice seems rooted in his identity as a Muslim and his outspoken political views,” she said.
Misuse of the UAPA
The UAPA, introduced in 1967 to protect India’s sovereignty, has increasingly replaced sedition laws to prosecute activists and dissenters. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau reveals a surge in UAPA cases, particularly in states governed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Sumit Ganguly, a senior fellow at Stanford University, expressed skepticism over the legitimacy of many UAPA cases. “Few of the cases lodged against individuals meet the standard of genuine security threats,” he said.
Claims of Religious Bias
Khalid’s imprisonment has intensified accusations of bias against Muslims, who constitute 14.2% of India’s population but remain underrepresented in Parliament and other institutions. While Khalid identifies as an atheist, Ansari believes his Muslim background and criticism of government policies made him a target.
“The message is clear: Muslims are not allowed to raise their voices, even if it is to demand justice or uphold constitutional values,” Ansari said.
The BJP, however, denies allegations of bias. Jamal Siddique, president of the BJP’s Minority Committee, stated, “In India, the law applies equally to everyone, regardless of class, caste, or religion. UAPA is only enforced on those attempting to destabilize the nation.”
Shrinking Democratic Space
Khalid’s case underscores growing concerns about the erosion of democratic freedoms in India. International organizations and rights groups have repeatedly criticized Modi’s government for stifling dissent and curbing free speech.
Chatterji emphasized, “Criticism of the state and government is a fundamental right, not sedition. It is an exercise of citizenship.”
Broader Implications
Khalid’s continued detention has broader implications for Indian democracy and the country’s Muslim community. Ansari believes silencing Khalid is part of a larger pattern of marginalization. “By targeting voices like Umar Khalid’s, the government isn’t just silencing individuals; it is erasing an entire community’s ability to advocate for itself,” she said.
Despite these challenges, supporters remain hopeful ahead of Khalid’s upcoming hearing in Delhi. They view the case as a test of India’s commitment to justice and democracy.
The Way Forward
As the court hearing nears, all eyes are on Delhi to see whether Khalid’s case will finally move forward. For many, the outcome will serve as a litmus test for India’s judicial system and its ability to uphold democratic values.
The larger question remains: Is Khalid’s detention a legitimate response to national security concerns, or is it part of a broader effort to suppress dissent? His fate, and the precedent it sets, could have far-reaching consequences for activists, minorities, and democratic freedoms in India.
