Supreme Court of India on May 21, granted interim bail to Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a political science professor at the prestigious Ashoka University, while sharply criticising his recent actions as “unreasonable and provocative.” The court’s remarks, which included a reference to “dog whistling,” have brought renewed attention to Ali Khan’s controversial social media post and his family’s historical ties to the creation of Pakistan. The decision has also sparked debate about freedom of speech and its extent.
Background of the Case
The controversy erupted following a Facebook post by Ali Khan Mahmudabad, in which he commented on Operation Sindoor, a military operation conducted in response to a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Pahalgam that claimed 26 lives. Instead of focusing on the attack, Ali Khan’s post took aim at Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who briefed the media during the operation, and raised issues such as mob lynching, diverting the discourse from India’s counter-terrorism efforts. The Supreme Court described this as an attempt to polarise communities through subtle provocation, terming it “dog whistling.”
The Haryana State Women’s Commission took exception to the post and issued a notice to Ali Khan, demanding his appearance. When he refused, questioning the commission’s jurisdiction and motives in a public statement, the commission filed an FIR against him. A political leader also lodged a complaint, leading to Ali Khan’s arrest by the Haryana Police. A local court subsequently sent him to 14-day judicial custody, prompting his legal team, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, to file a bail petition in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Observations
While granting interim bail, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of Ali Khan’s actions, stating that his behaviour was unbecoming of an educated individual, particularly a professor at an elite institution like Ashoka University. The court did not halt the ongoing investigation or quash the FIR, instead ordering the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to expedite the probe into the matter. The bench emphasised that Ali Khan’s attempt to shift the narrative during a time of national mourning and decisive action against terrorism was unjustifiable, even under the guise of freedom of speech.
The court’s use of the term “dog whistling” underscored its belief that Ali Khan’s post was designed to provoke and polarise communities through veiled references. “When the country was united in its resolve to counter Pakistan’s aggression, such actions cannot be condoned,” the bench observed, signalling that freedom of expression has limits in sensitive national security contexts.
Ali Khan’s Political and Historical Legacy
Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who is also known for his political activism and association with the Samajwadi Party, has been a vocal commentator on social media, often focusing on issues related to Muslim interests and critiquing the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological affiliates. His posts have frequently stirred debate, with him being accused of promoting a Muslim identity-based narrative under the veneer of liberalism.
The Supreme Court’s remarks have also brought Ali Khan’s family history into the spotlight. His grandfather, Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan, known as the Raja of Mahmudabad, was a prominent figure in the Muslim League and a close aide of Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The Raja played a pivotal role in the creation of Pakistan, serving as the treasurer of the Muslim League and providing financial and ideological support to the two-nation theory that led to India’s partition in 1947.
Historical records reveal that the Raja of Mahmudabad was a proponent of a hardline Islamic vision for Pakistan, advocating for a state governed by Quranic laws. In a 1939 letter to historian Mohibul Hasan, he wrote, “Islam is totalitarian—there is no denying it. It is the dictatorship of the Quranic laws that we want—and that we will have—but not through non-violence and Gandhian truth.” This stance placed him at odds with Jinnah, who publicly maintained a more inclusive vision for Pakistan to avoid alienating potential supporters.
The Raja’s involvement extended beyond ideology. He was instrumental in forming the Muslim National Guards, an organisation accused of communal violence against Hindus and Sikhs before, during, and after the partition.
His family’s vast estate in Mahmudabad, then a prosperous talukdari in the United Provinces (now part of Sitapur district in Uttar Pradesh), included properties worth hundreds of crores, such as Lucknow’s Butler Palace.
The Property Dispute and Pakistan Connection
Following the partition, the Raja of Mahmudabad faced a dilemma: securing his dream of Pakistan while preserving his extensive properties in India. Historian Ishtiaq Ahmed notes that on August 13, 1947, a day before Pakistan’s official formation, the Raja left Quetta for Zahedan, Iran, in a calculated move to maintain ambiguity about his citizenship. This strategy aimed to protect his Indian properties by claiming he was not in Pakistan when it was formed.
Despite his efforts, the Raja’s properties were confiscated under India’s Enemy Property Act of 1968, which targeted assets belonging to Pakistani nationals. The Raja, who formally accepted Pakistani citizenship in 1957, spent much of his post-partition life in Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, with brief returns to India to manage his estate.
His son, Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan, known as Suleman Mian, continued the legal battle to reclaim the Mahmudabad estate after his father’s death in 1973. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Suleman Mian’s favour, but the decision was overturned by an ordinance under the Congress-led UPA government, which faced accusations of yielding to political pressures.
UPA’s failure
While the UPA government recognised the dangerous implications of the ruling and attempted to address it through the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance in 2010, political pressure led to the ordinance lapsing without it being converted into permanent legislation.
The ordinance correctly stated that “once an enemy property is vested in the Custodian, it remains so, regardless of whether the enemy, enemy subject, or enemy firm ceases to be an enemy due to reasons like death.”
The NDA government’s 2017 amendments addressed the failure to codify this principle into permanent law.
These changes expanded the definition of ‘enemy subject’ to include legal heirs, regardless of nationality, bolstering national security and preventing the use of Indian soil for terrorism or anti-India activities.
The 2010 political inaction allowed the Mahmudabad family to potentially reclaim assets worth thousands of crores, including Butler Palace, parts of Hazratganj, Halwasiya market, and Mahmudabad Qila. These properties, amassed by a family whose patriarch supported India’s partition, symbolise a betrayal of those who endured Partition’s violence.
The Congress-led UPA government’s failure to address this through the 2010 ordinance, succumbing to pressure from Muslim groups and the Mahmudabad lobby, revealed its hypocrisy. A party claiming to champion secularism prioritised vote-bank politics over national security, enabling a family tied to Partition to regain significant wealth and influence.
The NDA government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, further strengthened the Enemy Property Act in 2017, ensuring that even the heirs of “enemy” nationals could not claim confiscated properties. Suleman Mian, who served as a Congress MLA from Mahmudabad in 1985 and 1989, passed away in 2023, leaving his sons, including Ali Khan, to grapple with the family’s complex legacy.
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision and its pointed criticism of Ali Khan have reignited discussions about the intersection of free speech, communal politics, and national security.
The case also underscores the enduring impact of partition on India’s socio-political landscape. The Raja of Mahmudabad’s role in creating Pakistan, coupled with his family’s attempts to retain their Indian properties, highlights the contradictions faced by many Muslim League leaders who sought to benefit from both nations. Ali Khan’s continued use of the “Mahmudabad” title reflects a connection to this history, raising questions about how historical legacies shape contemporary political identities.
As the SIT begins its investigation, the case is likely to remain a flashpoint in debates over nationalism, identity, and the limits of dissent in India. For now, Ali Khan Mahmudabad remains free on interim bail, but the Supreme Court’s admonition serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between free speech and responsible discourse in a polarised world.
Comments