Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and the Bail Debate: The Right-Wing Take

The debate around Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and other Delhi riots accused who have not yet been granted bail has once again come into focus. From the right-wing perspective, the issue is not as simple as “judicial delay” or “denial of justice.” I thought of writing this post because many in India only trust left-wing channels, which causes them to miss important fact-based points shared by the right-wing.

Adjournments and CJI’s Remarks

First of all, let us understand what an adjournment is. Simply put, it is when a court hearing or trial is postponed to a later date instead of being completed on the scheduled day.

Out of the 14 adjournments in Umar Khalid’s case, 7 were initiated by his own legal team. This was mentioned by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud himself in his interview with Barkha Dutt.

Umar Khalid Bail Plea: Multiple Adjournments, Withdrawal — Source: Lawbeat

“I do not want to comment on the merits of the case but I must tell you one thing which is lost sight by a lot of people when it comes to Umar Khalid‘s case, can you imagine that the case was adjourned, they were at least seven if not more adjournments which were sought by the council appearing for Umar Khalid and eventually the application for bail was withdrawn.” – CJI Chandrachud

Justice Chandrachud noted that, on social media, a one-sided narrative often takes hold, leaving judges with no space to defend themselves. He added that if one looks closely at the actual proceedings in court, the reality is far more nuanced than what is portrayed online.

While some “fact checkers” online have attempted to dismiss this claim by relying on surface-level sources, it is reasonable to trust the CJI more on this matter. As head of the judiciary, he had direct access to both official and indirect records of adjournments.

The Delay Tactic

According to many on the right, Khalid and Imam’s legal strategy is clear. If the trial begins, conviction is almost certain. Thus, their team is accused of deliberately delaying proceedings by filing fresh petitions, often citing a “change in circumstances.” The idea is to drag the trial as long as possible and eventually claim bail on the grounds of delay.

Notably, some petitions that caused delays were also filed by other accused who are already out on bail.

The Judicial Tactic Explained

The strategy seen here is not unique. It is a common tactic in the Indian judiciary:

Lawyers repeatedly file petitions (often citing new circumstances).
Each petition leads to adjournments, dragging the trial.
Eventually, the accused can argue that their right to a speedy trial (protected under Article 21 of the Constitution) has been violated.
On that ground, they can seek bail due to judicial delay.

This slow erosion of the process not only stalls justice but also erodes public trust in the judiciary. Something that many argue is part of the plan.

CJI on Unseen Angles

In an interview with Barkha Dutt, CJI Chandrachud hinted that there are angles in the case that cannot be revealed to the public. Right-wing commentators believe this may refer to multiple coordinated fronts behind the Delhi riots.

One example often cited is ISIS member Arshad Warsi (not the actor), who was in contact with Sharjeel Imam. Warsi allegedly helped decide the content of pamphlets that were distributed to mosques and Muslim neighbourhoods prior to the riots to incite violence. He was later arrested in the Pune ISIS module case.

Sharjeel Imam and Arshad Warsi — Sharjeel Imam’s connection with Arshad Warsi. Source: indiankanoon.org/doc/156202283/

Arrest of Arshad Warsi — Arshad Warsi arrested

There are also allegations of foreign funding and terror groups like PFI supporting the protests and unrest.

Umar Khalid PFI — Umar Khalid met with other accused people in the PFI office to discuss funds for riots. Source: indiankanoon.org/doc/156202283/

The Seriousness of the Delhi Riots

The 2020 Delhi riots were not minor incidents of unrest. They claimed the lives of 53 people, including Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma. For many, this underscores the gravity of the case and why justice cannot be indefinitely postponed.

Right-Wing Response

Right-wing commentators like Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Kushal Mehra have now openly criticized the delay of trials. They argue that instead of dragging the matter endlessly, the trial should begin as soon as possible, and justice should be delivered. In their view, it is time to see through legal manoeuvres and bring the culprits to justice. The longer the delay, the more the perception of judicial inefficiency grows, and that benefits only those seeking to evade accountability.

It is also important to understand that, though we can call for quick trials, courts in India are bound to follow established legal procedures. Every step, adjournments, evidence submission, witness examination, bail hearings, has to comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Evidence Act, and constitutional safeguards like Article 21 (right to life and liberty, including speedy trial).

Judges cannot simply “override” these protocols, even if they suspect delaying tactics. If the defense files a petition citing “change in circumstances” or another procedural ground, the court is obliged to hear it and decide. Ignoring or fast-tracking outside the rules would open the door to appeals, accusations of bias, or even the case collapsing later.

Delays often frustrate people. However, they’re also part of the judiciary, ensuring the trial stands on solid legal ground.

Left-Wing Response

The left-wing argues that delays aren’t only due to Khalid’s side and that long undertrial detention is unfair. While these points deserve acknowledgment, they don’t erase the fact that half the adjournments were filed by Khalid’s own team and that Sibal’s strategy clearly aims at running down the clock.

They also say Hindu mobs who killed during the riots haven’t faced equal scrutiny. But the distinction is clear: Hindu rioters were violent on the ground, yes, but they did not make the kind of provocative, mass-scale mobilizing speeches Khalid and Sharjeel Imam did that led to loss of lives. Khalid mobilized crowds by invoking the Kashmir issue, while Sharjeel Imam spoke about separating Assam from India and attempted to provoke people through pamphlets referencing the Babri Masjid dispute. Videos of their speeches can be accessed easily on social media platforms. That’s why the charges against them are different and why delaying the trial feels like a deliberate tactic.

My Take

It is important to examine cases from every angle instead of blindly accepting one-sided propaganda. Dhruv Rathee does not question the opposition, while journalists like Shiv Aroor do not question the ruling party. So it’s up to us, the citizens, to collect points from both sides and analyze it.

I have tried to provide proof for all the points in this post, but they can also be independently validated online. I would highly recommend going through the Indian Kanoon link (indiankanoon.org/doc/156202283/) to read more about the case.

Rather than dismissing everything right-wing as lies, citizens should review the available evidence and ask: Is a separatist attitude acceptable for the country? Does this kind of behaviour warrant bail? This cannot simply be brushed off as freedom of speech, because in this case, speech directly incited violence and led to the loss of 53 lives and the injury of thousands.

In India, there are rarely open-and-shut cases. Even Ajmal Kasab, a convicted terrorist, was given a fair trial. By that standard, it is certain that Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid will also receive a fair hearing once their trial begins, especially since their offences, while serious, are not on the same level as Kasab’s. That is why the trial should begin without further delay. So their actions can be properly examined, and justice delivered swiftly.

Communal Harmony in India: Easier Than We Think?

After celebrating Onam and engaging in numerous social activities, my introvert battery hit rock bottom. I needed a desperate recharge. So what do I do? Naturally, I retreated to every introvert’s most favourite new-gen comfort zone: scrolling endless Instagram reels. Nothing says “I’ve had enough of people” quite like being a couch potato, locked up in your house, while going through everyone else’s social lives.

As I scrolled through the multiple Onam-related posts, I couldn’t help but appreciate the inclusivity in Kerala. Malayalees across religions, whether they are Hindus, Christians, or Muslims, celebrated Onam with equal enthusiasm. Everyone welcomed Mahabali with open arms. A few voices did try to stop their communities, saying Onam is a “Hindu festival,” but not many paid attention. That’s a good sign. People are choosing to step out of religious bubbles to celebrate together.

Still, Kerala, often praised as a secular state, has been showing sporadic worrying signs of exclusion. Just before Onam, a teacher told students not to participate in the festival because “our religion doesn’t allow it.” The outrage led to her suspension, but this mindset isn’t limited to one person. How widespread is the thought? No one can quantify. It’s impossible to analyze each and every Indian’s thought. However, there is an increasing number of cases that advocate for exclusionary behaviour. You are penalized for celebrating other festivals, or for respecting someone else’s god, or for chanting something as simple as “Bharat Mata ki Jai.”

India guarantees freedom of religion for all communities. But if we use that freedom only to exclude ourselves from others, we risk creating deeper divides. True communal harmony comes from participation: joining in festivals, enjoying each other’s food, and refusing to see other faiths as “untouchable.”

For India to stay secular, this effort has to come from all of us. We’ve come far since independence, but there’s still a long way to go. It’s up to us to ensure religion doesn’t become a wall, but a bridge.

***

Photo by Saran Indokera

Book Review: Being Hindu in Bangladesh

There’s so much I want to say about Being Hindu in Bangladesh, a book written by Avishek Biswas and Deep Halder, but I don’t think my words would do justice to my emotions. Whatever I write would be a watered-down version of what I felt while reading.

The authors are sons of refugees who once fled Bangladesh. They wrote this book during Sheikh Hasina’s rule, a time when they could safely visit Hindu areas and speak openly with locals, scholars, and researchers about the past.

It was a deeply uncomfortable read. Especially as I kept coming across recent posts from people in Bangladesh on Reddit, worried about the country slipping back into radicalism. It felt like history was repeating itself. On top of that, there were people, including the global and Indian left-leaning media, trying to downplay the communal angle in Bangladesh so as not to flare up Islamophobia. As an ex-leftist, this behaviour is all too familiar. I was once part of that ecosystem.

Despite being a Hindu, I could not acknowledge the persecution that Hindus faced in neighbouring regions. The data was there for everyone to witness, yet I was blind. I believe this is true for many Hindus. We are raised with strong secular values, which often makes it uncomfortable to openly acknowledge or speak about atrocities against our own community. Personally, it was difficult to break out of that mindset and accept the reality that Hindus did face genocide in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Kashmir. Adding to that is the consistent bias of left-leaning media, which often avoided reporting anti-Hindu communal incidents both in India and abroad. This selective activism played a key role in my decision to step away from the leftist ecosystem.

Sahidul’s narrative states: ‘The genocide orchestrated and masterminded by Pakistan, began on the night of March 25, 1971 … Three million were killed (in East Pakistan), 200,000 to 300,000 women were violated in the most diabolic ethnic cleansing since the days of the Holocaust. And these are just rough estimates. How much does the world or even the subcontinent talk about it?

Most Painful Part of the Book

The most aching part for me was the quiet optimism in the book. Written during Sheikh Hasina’s rule, the authors were hopeful about the secular path Bangladesh was taking. They welcomed the ban on JeI and the arrests of those involved in the Hindu genocide of 1971. I read those pages, and then Al Jazeera’s headline from a few days back: “Bangladesh Supreme Court lifts ban on Jamaat-e-Islami.” I feel a mixture of emotions.

The authors also appreciated the death sentence awarded to a Jamaat leader involved in the 1971 genocide of Hindus. That sentence, too, has now been overturned in current-day Bangladesh under Yunus’s rule. Makes you wonder – is justice so fickle?

Opposition to Bengali Because It Was Too “Hindu”

From the book, I learned that Pakistan was opposed to Bengali in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) because they considered the language “too Hindu” as opposed to Urdu. When East Pakistan demanded a new nation on the basis of Bengali culture, Pakistan thought Hindus were responsible for this “brainwashing”, which is what led to the genocide.

The Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight for complete cleansing of the Bengali and Hindu identity. Even the press secretary of the third president of Pakistan, Yahya Khan, said that this operation was to ‘brainwash the people, wean them off their Bengali mores and make them true Pakistanis … The Hindu influence must be eradicated root and branch and the people who were misguiding the innocent and illiterate masses must be liquidated.’

Recent headline on newspaper about Tagore's home being vandalized in Bangladesh — Tagore’s Home Vandalized in Bangladesh. News Source: NDTV

Truth be told, I was thinking while reading the book, how long would it take for the pro-Pakistan radicals in Bangladesh to go after anything related to Tagore, the Hindu writer of Bangladesh’s anthem “Amar Sonar Bangla” (My Golden Bengal), and then the vandalism of Tagore’s home happened. I wouldn’t be surprised if they replace the anthem, too, at some point in the future.

Jogendra Nath Mandal – The Dalit Leader Who Chose Pakistan

It’s from the book that I came across the name Jogendra Nath Mandal for the first time. He was a Dalit leader and a close associate of Dr. Ambedkar. At the time of Partition, Mandal chose to side with Pakistan, believing it would offer Dalits greater freedom and rights than a Hindu-majority India. He motivated many Dalits to migrate with him, promising an escape from caste oppression.

Mandal, the man who wanted Pakistan to become a land of Dalits and Muslims.

But what they found was a harsher reality. Regret followed soon after. Mandal eventually fled Pakistan and returned to India. Sadly, many Dalits who followed him to Pakistan lacked his privilege and means and were left behind. His popularity waned after that, and he died a lonely death in West Bengal. To quote the book:

Mandal had come to India from East Pakistan as a broken man. Arguably, the tallest Dalit politician in pre-partition East Bengal, Mandal had lost most of his followers after he chose Pakistan over India, stood with Muhammad Ali Jinnah and became the law and labour minister. Mandal had thought Dalits and Muslims would behave like brothers in the newly-created Pakistan. They didn’t, and as communal tension rose and Hindus left East Pakistan for India in large numbers, Jogendranath Mandal came to be looked at as a short-sighted leader at best and a self-serving politician at worst.

Dr. Ambedkar, upon learning about the persecution of Dalits in Pakistan, urged them to return to India. However, most were unable to leave, trapped by circumstances beyond their control.

I encourage everyone to read the following Reddit post that offers a more complete account of Jogendra Nath Mandal’s life. It includes his resignation letter to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Dr. Ambedkar’s heartfelt appeal to Dalits living there.

Jogendra Nath Mandal: The Dalit Leader Who Chose Pakistan.
byu/UdayOnReddit inIndianHistory

Mandal’s story reminds us never to forget history or its lessons. These accounts were documented by key figures of that era for a reason. Not to be ignored, but to help us reflect, understand, learn, and avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

Quotable Quotes from Being Hindu in Bangladesh

‘Yes, only two people might have died in Noakhali in last year’s violence. But look around and you will find boys and men without an arm or a leg walking around. They will remind you of what was.’

What was it like in 1946? When freedom from 200 years of British rule was becoming a reality, Bengali-Hindu women and men, in village after village in Noakhali district of undivided Bengal, the same place where we now are, were r*ped and killed, or forcibly converted. Then too, it had started with fake news.

‘I have never been able to forget those days,’ she says, ‘when neighbours became rioters and friends became murderers. The stench of blood haunts me to this day.’

‘I remember he would come and tell us to make sure no one made any sound, and make sure that the children remained silent. It should appear from outside that the college building was deserted. Or else, a mob could come and kill us all. But my seven-month-old sister cried out in hunger. We gave her some treacle to make her stop crying, but she would start wailing soon after. My father told us that we had to kill her as she simply wouldn’t stop crying. And her wails would bring the mob to us. She cried and cried, till she cried no more.’

In other riots, religion was the point of disagreement. In Noakhali, religion was also the instrument that ended the disagreement. The attacks in Noakhali on Hindus by Muslims ended when the Hindus became Muslims.

‘But it’s a mistake that all democratic governments make in trying to control one set of extremists. They often play with the other set that looks less worse than the other (but) in the course of time, they all become Frankensteins’ he said.

There’s something about discovering forgotten buildings where powerful men once lived, touring villages where they spent their boyhood. It is like sifting through dog-eared, yellowed pages of history. So much of what once was still hangs in the air. So many stories are kept alive by village elders who saw history take shape.

Conclusion

The book details several atrocities that are too graphic to include in this blog post. I strongly encourage everyone to read Being Hindu in Bangladesh for a clearer and unbiased understanding of the condition of Hindus in the country.

***

Photo by Prabhala Raghuvir

Why Do Hindus Vote for BJP?

I’m a Palakkad native, and I had travelled home just to vote during the Lok Sabha elections. To make it clear, I have no loyalty to any political party and have voted for different parties over the years based on their performance and activism. I believe pledging unwavering support to any single party prevents us from critically examining their flaws. However, this time, voting for the CPI(M) was not an option, as I am well aware of its shortcomings during its second term in power.

I decided I would vote for Congress in the Lok Sabha elections. But then October 7 happened, and I saw Congress’s response to it, especially how they tried to silence Shashi Tharoor in Kerala for criticizing Hamas. It came as a shock and played a key role in changing my decision. That’s when I realized, unfortunately, this party is no different from those it criticizes. The Opposition parties in India excel at criticizing far-right Hindu groups, but avoid condemning far-right Islamist groups in society, fearing backlash from supporters.

People call out the BJP and RSS for sheltering far-right Hindus. But how is Congress different if it shelters far-right Islamists? Both cater to extremes. BJP voters are criticized for supporting a party that allegedly wants to turn India into a Hindu nation. Congress voters should ask themselves the same question: why support a party that mollycoddles groups that have once openly called for turning India into an Islamic nation? How would it make the majority of Hindus feel?

So, when people ask why Hindus vote for the BJP, the answer is simple. If the choice is between far-right Hindus and far-right Islamists, many Hindus will pick what feels safer. Left-leaning Hindus may sympathize with Islamist groups, seeing them as victims. But most in the community, just like any other community, vote on the basis of safety.

Congress and Islamist Ties

In the upcoming Nilambur by-election in Kerala, the Welfare Party has now openly declared its support for the Congress candidate.

To the uninitiated, the Welfare Party is the political arm of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, a group known for its fundamentalist views. This group shares roots with the Jamaat movements in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are often accused of anti-Hindu activities.

As per the New Indian Express report, “It’s learned that the Welfare Party, backed by Jamaat-e-Islami, has put forward various demands, including making it an associate party of the UDF. However, no assurance has been received in this regard so far.” This is a common far-right Islamist tactic in democracies across the world: try to join mainstream parties to gain power, resources, and reach. Once these groups gain enough strength, their true agenda emerges, often centered around enforcing religious doctrine. We see this happening in Bangladesh today. A similar pattern unfolded in Iran in 1979, when leftists and Islamists joined forces to establish an Islamic regime. This led to widespread persecution and the exodus of many Persians, some of whom sought refuge in India.

Many leftists, in both India and abroad, often align with Islamist groups unknowingly, driven by a genuine desire to support the persecuted and uphold justice. However, this well-meaning approach is frequently exploited by far-right Islamist groups for their own agenda. It’s fair to say that many on the left still operate with this same mindset, unaware of the long-term consequences.

Such Islamist groups remind me of the Persian movie “The Seed of the Sacred Fig” (playing on Amazon Prime), a 2024 crime drama film directed by Mohammad Rasoulof. The movie starts with an explanation of strangler figs, a type of parasite that grows on a host tree’s branches. As they grow, their roots reach the ground and thicken. Eventually, they wrap around the host tree, in a way “suffocating” it. Over time, the host tree dies from lack of light and nutrients, while the fig survives independently. I hope Congress and other left-leaning parties realize that they are the “hosts” in this equation.

Both the Welfare Party and SDPI have been trying to win Congress’s favour in Kerala. Their open support was clearly visible in places like Palakkad (my hometown). The fact that Congress is not distancing itself from these groups is a matter of concern. The party appears to seek the support and votes of such groups to win, which may explain its consistent silence or hesitation in condemning Islamist acts. But how far are they willing to go? Will there come a time when they finally strike deals with the devil because they can’t win anymore without their support or votes?

Valid Concerns

Can you really blame Hindus for refusing to vote for parties that associate with groups that seem more likely to drag India down a path similar to Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Let’s not forget the current state of Bangladesh. JEI has played a significant role in steering Bangladesh toward radical Islam. If India were ever to become an Islamic nation, it wouldn’t resemble the UAE or Bahrain. It would more likely mirror Pakistan or Bangladesh, where radical Islamist groups wield substantial influence. Unlike the Gulf nations, which strictly ban and suppress such groups, India still hesitates to even name them. The moment any criticism is raised, it’s quickly dismissed as Islamophobia by human rights activists.

No One’s Truly Secular

In the end, no one is truly secular. Most people vote thinking, “Which party is best for my community?” — not for the nation. That’s why, in Kerala, Congress is the preferred party for many Christians, and a large section of Muslims support the Muslim League. So why is the burden of voting on the basis of secularism placed only on Hindus?

***

Feature Representative Image Source: Shutterstock

Book Review: “I Am A Troll” by Swati Chaturvedi

I finished I Am a Troll by Swati Chaturvedi last night. It’s an insightful read if you’re unaware that the BJP, like all major parties, has a dedicated IT cell.

However, if you’re already familiar with the BJP’s IT cell, the book doesn’t offer much new, apart from a few interviews with former BJP insiders who strongly criticize the party. But in Indian politics, this isn’t unusual. Members who leave any party, be it the BJP or Congress, often openly highlight its flaws. This trend isn’t unique to the BJP.

The book also points out that Modi’s official Twitter handle follows some controversial right-wing accounts like OpIndia, which is a valid observation. This is somewhat unusual; I’m not aware of any left-leaning political leader or party officially following social media influencers or accounts considered far-left. In that sense, this could be something unique to the BJP, and worth re-evaluating if it raises credibility concerns.

All that aside, the author’s pro-Congress bias is evident. She claims Rahul Gandhi was becoming as popular as Modi and predicted strong results for the Congress in the 2019 elections (the book was published in 2017). She lays emphasis on Rahul Gandhi’s social media growth, rather than his on-ground political performance. Chaturvedi presents his increasing followers and engagement as indicators of his strength and popularity, which feels selective and somewhat misleading. To appear balanced, she briefly mentions 2–3 false narratives that were pushed by the Congress IT cell, but downplays their impact.

The writing has its issues. Critiquing someone’s views is fine, but body-shaming, stereotyping Indian men, and mocking someone’s English skills feels unprofessional, especially from a journalist aiming to be objective. For example, consider the sample below, where she generalizes right-wing “trolls”.

Chaturvedi also complains that trolls refuse to engage with her reasoning on why the BJP is problematic, yet admits she zones out when they begin to speak. This contradiction weakens her argument and suggests a similar unwillingness to listen.

Interestingly, the book indirectly acknowledges that mainstream media was largely pro-Congress in 2014 (and still is in states like Kerala), which made it difficult for the BJP to be heard without strong social media outreach (reference to this is below).

These are a few minor concerns I had with the book, but overall, it provides a revealing look into political online warfare, though not without its caveats.

Personal Takeaways from American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden

I’ve watched many documentaries on Bin Laden, but what sets American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden on Netflix apart is that the U.S. intelligence officers themselves are narrating the incident. It shows a side of intelligence officers we rarely see or acknowledge: one that’s vulnerable, emotional, and capable of error, just like any of us.

The fact that they faced extreme guilt after 9/11, plus humiliation from those who expected them to have superhero capabilities, shows us that intelligence work is a thankless job. You’re not remembered for the hundred attacks you prevented, but for the one you didn’t.

We tend to view intelligence agencies as all-knowing, supreme beings capable of preventing every threat. But they are made up of people just like you and me – flawed, prone to mistakes, and constantly learning how to address loopholes.

Almost every terrorist attack in the world has been labelled an “intelligence failure.” In most cases, including Mumbai’s 26/11, intelligence agencies had some idea that an attack was likely. But without knowing exactly when, where, or how, they couldn’t act decisively. Acting on vague information risks wasting resources and creating false alarms.

We owe our intelligence officers greater respect and appreciation, not just criticism.

Another key takeaway was the deep distrust the U.S. had toward Pakistan. They chose not to inform Pakistani authorities about the Osama bin Laden raid, fearing it would be sabotaged. This seems to negate Pakistan’s constant claims of being a victim of terrorism rather than a supporter of it. After the raid, the Pakistan army tried to shoot down the U.S. Navy SEALs’ helicopter. If they are actively involved in the fight against terrorists, why resist when others take them down for you?

One U.S. intelligence officer mentioned that Al Qaeda had regular contact with Pakistani nuclear scientists. It makes you think of Pakistan’s constant nuclear blackmail. Are they using it against the U.S. as well by implying that if Pakistan collapses or goes bankrupt, its nuclear arsenal could fall into the wrong hands (such as the terror groups that want to take down America)? Is this how they get their IMF loans approved? Perhaps this fear is why the U.S. continues to be soft on Pakistan, even though it sheltered the prime suspect in the 9/11 attacks. We will never know.