‘Umar Khalid Is Completely Innocent, Victim Of Grave Injustice’

In a bold Facebook post that has ignited nationwide debate, senior Congress leader and former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijaya Singh passionately defended jailed activist Umar Khalid, calling him “completely innocent” and a victim of “grave injustice.” Singh has described Khalid, a former JNU scholar accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, as a “brilliant academic” rather than a traitor, urging his immediate release.

Sharing an article titled “Ek Itihaskar Ki Baat” on Khalid’s research, Singh declared, “Umar Khalid is innocent and is facing grave injustice. He is a PhD scholar, not a traitor by any standards. He should be released immediately.” He accused the BJP and RSS of conspiring to “falsely implicate Muslims,” highlighting a pattern of selective prosecution under anti-terror laws like the UAPA. “This is the politics of engineered hate,” Singh added, citing a recent Aligarh incident — where those who wrote “I Love Mohammad” on a temple wall turned out to be Hindu — to illustrate his point. He ended his post with “Jai Siya Ram.”

Khalid, who has spent over five years in prison denying politically motivated charges, is currently awaiting a Supreme Court decision on his bail plea. Singh’s remarks, timed amid these hearings, have reignited discussions on the balance between liberty and national security, and allegations of institutional bias against Muslim undertrials.

Meanwhile, the BJP responded fiercely, labeling Singh’s comments “anti-national” and accusing Congress of “standing with riot masterminds instead of victims.” Party spokespersons claimed this was proof of Congress’s “appeasement politics dressed as activism,” echoing criticisms of Singh’s past defenses of activists linked to Bhima Koregaon and anti-CAA protests.

Supporters praised Singh as a courageous statesman defending constitutional principles. “This is a rare voice questioning institutional bias,” said one commentator, arguing that Muslim undertrials face prolonged incarceration while others are freed. They view Singh’s post as a stand against selective justice in a system where dissent is often criminalized.

Critics, however, dismissed it as political opportunism. “Singh is playing with identity and faith for mileage,” remarked a political analyst, recalling his history of controversial statements. They argue that defending Khalid undermines national security narratives, especially amid rising communal tensions.

Singh’s invocation of “Jai Siya Ram” added a personal, devotional layer, contrasting with his accusations of hate politics. This has polarized opinions: some see it as a unifying call, others as divisive.

As the Supreme Court resumes hearings, Singh’s words have amplified the debate on justice and democracy. Is this the act of a principled leader, or a calculated move? Either way, it underscores India’s uneasy discourse on dissent, with echoes of Singh’s post resonating beyond social media into the core of national conversations.