The full-page feature in The New York Times has condemned Khalid’s four-year imprisonment, describing it as “the price of dissent in Modi’s India.”
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — The prolonged detention of former student leader Umar Khalid without trial has drawn a significant international attention. A recent full-page feature in The New York Times has condemned Khalid’s four-year imprisonment, describing it as “the price of dissent in Modi’s India.” The report has fueled debates globally, questioning the handling of dissenting voices within India’s judicial system.
The New York Times article titled, “4 Years in Jail Without Trial, Price of Dissent in Modi’s India,” discusses Khalid’s imprisonment in the context of his activism and critiques the lengthy judicial process. The report has since gone viral on social media, shared widely by activists, journalists, and public figures who have raised concerns over judicial delays in cases involving political dissenters.
Senior editor of The Wire, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, shared the article and expressed criticism towards Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, remarking that if the Chief Justice had directly acknowledged Khalid’s situation, perhaps his case would have been given due priority. “If the judge had spoken to Bhagwan about Umar rotting in jail for four years without trial, perhaps Bhagwan would have intervened,” Sherwani wrote, highlighting her frustration with the judicial process.
Prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan also shared the report, questioning the judiciary’s role in safeguarding citizens’ rights. Similarly, blogger Rahul compared Khalid’s detention to the case of Ashish Mishra, an accused in the killing of eight people, who was granted bail. He argued that while some high-profile defendants receive timely bail, activists like Khalid are left without trial for years, exposing disparities within the system.
The New York Times report also quoted Khalid’s family members and several other political activists, who have pointed out that the consequences of dissent appear more severe for Muslim activists. The article suggested that the judicial system might be weaponised against critics, particularly those from minority communities, reflecting a worrying trend of intolerance.
The article has sparked a broader discourse on social media, with many questioning the impact of Khalid’s imprisonment on India’s democratic framework. While many humanitarian, social, and political activists have voiced their frustration over Khalid’s prolonged detention, comparisons to other cases have reignited debates on selective judicial rigor and alleged biases in the application of justice.
The report’s international attention has underscored growing calls for transparency in India’s legal processes and fair treatment for political dissidents. The article’s publication has fuelled discussions about the potential reform of judicial procedures to prevent prolonged detentions without trial, ensuring the right to a fair and timely judicial process for all citizens.
