‘Free Umar’ narrative hit with Kashmir and SIMI-linked allegations

New Delhi: A day after the Supreme Court refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, Javed Beigh waded into the debate with an unsparing post arguing that the controversy is being falsely framed as a “political prisoner” story.

In a detailed post on X, he said it is really about ideology, networks and the kind of politics that India should stop romanticising.

Beigh does not see Khalid as a victim of optics but as a “dangerous man” whose worldview, in his telling, is rooted in an ideological ecosystem that is repeatedly sanitised abroad and repackaged at home through the language of civil liberties.

In his post, Beigh cited Khalid’s past remarks on Kashmir to claim that his positions are not merely dissent but hostile to the Indian state.

UMAR KHALID IS DANGEROUS MAN. HE DESERVES TO REMAIN IN JAIL:

This is what SYED UMAR KHALID has said on record on KASHMIR:

"Basically I am against the occupation of Kashmir by the Indian state and I make it very apparent that I am not from Kashmir, but I believe that what is… pic.twitter.com/fcZ6nK2voh

— Javed Beigh (@JavedBeigh) January 6, 2026

He also pointed to Khalid’s family background, alleging links to organisations such as SIMI and Jamaat-e-Islami, and argued that these affiliations, and the ideological commitments they represent, are exactly what gets downplayed when supporters push the “free Umar” narrative.

"His father, SYED Qasim Rasool Ilyas, founder of "Welfare Party of India" served as a senior member of the banned Islamic Terrorist organisation - SIMI (Students' Islamic Movement of India), which started as the student wing of JIH," he said.

Beigh also pushed back at the idea that international solidarity letters or notes are automatically moral badges.

He argued that foreign politicians, global commentators and sections of activist circles often treat such cases as symbolic fights against “majoritarianism”, without engaging with what he alleges is the ideological project behind the accused.

In that framing, he said, the optics become the story, and the substance gets buried.

The post further broadened the argument beyond one bail order to a larger warning about how politics travels across borders.

Beigh referenced Bangladesh as a cautionary backdrop while making his case about ideological networks and the risks of normalising them, pointing to how quickly minority insecurity can become part of the region’s political churn.

Khalid’s supporters and civil liberties groups reject this characterisation, arguing that the case is being politicised, that the accused have spent years in custody without trial, and that stringent bail standards under UAPA make prolonged detention easier even before guilt is proven.

Amnesty International, among others, has raised concerns in the past about the use of UAPA and prolonged pre-trial detention in riot-related cases, calling for due process protections and fair trial standards.

SIMI has been a banned organisation in India for years, with bans periodically extended through the legal process, a reality often cited by those who argue that ideological ecosystems matter in assessing threats. At the same time, critics argue that “association” claims and political labelling cannot substitute for proven culpability in court.

Beigh’s post, bluntly, is an attempt to break the “free speech and prison” frame and drag the argument to a harsher place: ideology, intent, and the political networks he says are being laundered through sympathy.

Those he is attacking reject the premise and insist that the only question that matters is due process. But the post highlights that the fight is no longer just over bail; it is over what story India is being asked to believe.