Umar Khalid, an Indian political activist and former student leader, recently completed 1000 days in jail without a trial. He has been detained since his arrest on September 13, 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the Delhi riots that occurred earlier that year. Since then, Khalid has been involved in various social and political causes, particularly related to minority rights, social justice, and freedom of expression. He has been a vocal critic of the Indian government’s policies and has participated in several public debates and discussions. Khalid recently completed 1000 days in jail without a trial. He has been detained since his arrest on September 13, 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the Delhi riots that occurred earlier that year. Khalid’s case has attracted attention and raised concerns about the prolonged detention of individuals without a trial in India.
“These 1,000 days are not just about Umar but they also mark 1,000 days of shame for the Indian justice system,” said independent journalist Ravish Kumar at a public meeting organised by a group of activists, journalists, and advocates to mark 1,000 days of student-activist Dr Umar Khalid’s incarceration.
Also, read The Appalling State of Muslims in post-colonial India
Who is Umar Khalid?
Umar Khalid is an Indian political activist and former student leader who gained prominence for his involvement in student politics and activism in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi, India. He emerged as one of the prominent faces of the “Justice for Rohith Vemula” movement, which demanded justice for a Dalit research scholar who died by suicide in 2016. Khalid was also associated with the “Stand with JNU” movement, which emerged after a controversial event took place on the JNU campus in February 2016. He was accused of sedition along with other students for allegedly raising anti-national slogans during the event. However, it’s important to note that Khalid has denied the charges.
Khalid’s continued incarceration without a trial raises questions about the delays in the judicial process and the impact it has on an individual’s fundamental rights. Activists and supporters have criticized the prolonged detention and have raised concerns about the fairness of the legal system. They argue that Khalid’s case exemplifies a broader pattern of using legal processes to suppress dissent and stifle activism.
Read here, “The Kerela Story” Controversy in India
JNU Sedition Case
Umar Khalid was one of the students accused of sedition in connection with a controversial event that took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in February 2016. The event sparked a nationwide debate as allegations were made that anti-national slogans were raised during the gathering. Khalid and other students were charged with sedition, which they denied. The case is still ongoing, and opinions about the incident remain divided.
Also, read India Ranks 161st in Terms of Journalistic Freedom- RSF
Labelled as part of “Tukde Tukde Gang”
Umar Khalid was labeled as part of the so-called “Tukde Tukde Gang” by some political groups and media outlets. The term was used to refer to individuals allegedly involved in activities aimed at dividing India. Khalid’s association with certain leftist groups and his involvement in student activism contributed to these allegations. Critics accused him of promoting anti-national sentiments and engaging in activities that threatened national unity.
Read here, Muslim OBC Reservation scrapped by BJP government of Karnataka
Controversial Speeches and Views
Khalid’s speeches and public statements on various issues, including Kashmir, nationalism, and social justice, have generated controversy. Some of his viewpoints and statements have been perceived as radical or provocative by certain sections of society, especially the right-wing media and the supporters of the current regime of BJP. These views, along with his activism, made him a prominent and polarizing figure in public discourse.
Also, read India- The Killing of Gangster-Turned-Politician Atiq Ahmad
Prolonged Detention Without Trial
One of the main controversies is the prolonged detention of Umar Khalid without a trial. As mentioned earlier, he has been in jail for an extended period without a verdict in his case. Critics argue that this extended detention without a speedy trial raises concerns about due process and fundamental rights. Critics argue that his arrest reflects a broader pattern of using legal mechanisms to silence political opposition. The prolonged detention of Umar Khalid without a trial has raised concerns about the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Critics argue that the extended period of incarceration without a verdict undermines the right to a fair and speedy trial, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They contend that this extended detention can have severe psychological and emotional effects on the individual and their families.
Read here, UN Defender Demands End to Crackdown on Kashmiri Activists
Allegations of Political Targeting
Some individuals and groups’ view Khalid’s arrest as an act of political targeting. They claim that his activism, outspokenness, and involvement in student movements have made him a target of the government, which seeks to suppress dissenting voices. Critics of Khalid’s arrest claim that it is a result of his political activism and outspoken nature, particularly his vocal opposition to certain government policies. They argue that the arrest is an attempt to intimidate and silence dissenting voices, thereby curbing democratic freedoms. Some believe that Khalid’s arrest is part of a larger pattern of targeting activists and intellectuals critical of the current government of BJP.
Also, read The Saudi-Iran Deal and its Implications
Application of Stringent Laws
Umar Khalid’s arrest under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has sparked controversy. The UAPA is a stringent anti-terrorism law in India, and critics argue that its broad provisions can be misused to stifle dissent and curb freedom of expression. Concerns have been raised about the potential misuse of such laws to target individuals engaged in peaceful political activism. The UAPA is a stringent anti-terrorism law in India, and critics argue that its broad provisions can be misused to stifle dissent and curb freedom of expression. The use of the UAPA in Khalid’s case has raised similar concerns about the scope and misuse of the law.
The UAPA allows for preventive detention and empowers authorities to designate individuals and organizations as “terrorist” entities. Critics argue that the broad definitions and provisions of the law can be abused to suppress legitimate dissent and political opposition. They call for a re-evaluation of the use of such stringent laws to protect civil liberties.
Read here, Festival turns bloody after Hindutva Mob Burnt Centennial Mosque
Fairness of Investigation
Some have raised questions about the fairness of the investigation into Khalid’s case. Critics of Khalid’s arrest argue that the evidence against him may be weak or insufficient, and his arrest might be based on political motivations rather than concrete evidence. They call for a transparent and impartial investigation to ensure justice is served. Some critics of the arrest have also alleged political interference in the investigation, suggesting that it may have been influenced by the government’s agenda rather than being conducted objectively and impartially.
Also, read Dehumanizing Representation of Tribals and Muslims in the Oscar fame RRR
Delayed Justice
Khalid’s extended detention raises concerns about the delay in the delivery of justice. Such delays undermine the principle of justice itself. Prolonged pre-trial detention not only affects the individual’s life and reputation but also hampers their ability to mount an effective defense, as witnesses’ memories may fade, and evidence may become less reliable over time. Khalid’s prolonged detention without a trial infringes upon his fundamental rights, including the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial. The right to a speedy trial is considered a fundamental aspect of criminal justice systems, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to indefinite detention without being presented with evidence and having their case heard in a timely manner.
Khalid’s prolonged detention without a trial reflects a troubling erosion of democratic values in India. It raises concerns about the fair and impartial treatment of individuals who express dissenting opinions or engage in activism. Such actions can create a chilling effect on free speech, discouraging people from voicing their opinions and participating in democratic processes.
Read here, Pro-Khalistan Activist Amritpal Singh declared fugitive- What is happening in “India’s Bread Basket” Punjab?
