Why is the BJP scared of displays of support for Umar Khalid?

Authorities across multiple Indian cities have recently intensified efforts to suppress public expressions of support for Umar Khalid, a prominent activist currently imprisoned without trial. These measures include arrests, restrictions on public discussions, and the removal of online content linked to his cause. The actions appear to reflect growing unease within the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the increasing visibility and popularity of Khalid among sections of the population. In Mumbai, police arrested Abhirup Paul, a former student of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, on August 7 for allegedly chanting pro-Khalid slogans during a campus event. Just two days later, in Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) officials revoked permission for a seminar discussing Khalid's book Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power. Earlier in the month, a protester in Bengaluru faced an FIR for displaying a banner reading “Umar Khalid zindabad” (“Long live Umar Khalid”) during demonstrations calling for the resignation of the education minister. Meanwhile, Instagram removed access to the “Free Umar Khalid” profile in India following pressure from the Modi government. In Goa, two individuals were detained for expressing support for Khalid at an event commemorating the resignation of the education minister. Legal experts argue that these actions lack constitutional justification. Arvind Narrain, a Bengaluru-based lawyer, academic, and president of the Karnataka unit of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), stated that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to advocate for the release of those accused under laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). He emphasized that Khalid, though an accused individual, does not lose his fundamental rights to free speech and expression simply because he is under investigation. The perception of Khalid as an “anti-national” figure by Hindu nationalist groups has placed supporters at risk of state scrutiny. This narrative began in February 2016 when Khalid and two other JNU students were charged under sedition laws for organizing a protest. Since then, he has been repeatedly targeted for his criticism of Hindutva ideology. His supporters claim that rather than diminishing his influence, these attacks have amplified his standing, particularly due to his refusal to conform to narrow identities such as Muslim or communist. Despite the legal challenges and political pressures, public interest in Khalid has continued to grow. In April, PUCL organized a packed event in Bengaluru to discuss a book about Khalid, indicating sustained public engagement. Banojyotsna Lahiri, Khalid’s partner and a researcher based in Delhi, suggested that the recent crackdowns were a response to the rising mainstream acceptance of Khalid’s cause. She noted that initial campaigns for his release had minimal support, yet the police did not intervene at the time. Now, however, she believes the state feels compelled to act due to the broader societal shift toward open advocacy for Khalid. Lahiri highlighted that the BJP appears increasingly sensitive to any dissent against its policies, labeling critics as “anti-national.” She encouraged supporters of Khalid to continue voicing their concerns despite intimidation. However, she acknowledged the difficulty in doing so, citing instances where even within protest movements aligned with the BJP, topics related to Khalid’s imprisonment remained off-limits. During a 36-day sit-in organized by the Cockroach Janta Party in Delhi, questions about Khalid were avoided entirely by movement spokespeople, reflecting the broader reluctance to address his plight openly.