内容摘要：The scene turned chaotic as people surged towards the aid parcels, desperately trying to seize whatever they could, causing the security personnel to flee.

The scene turned chaotic as people surged towards the aid parcels, desperately trying to seize whatever they could, causing the security personnel to flee.

I know that some of my former friends have deep ties to Israel. Some have family who live there. Some may be grieving, too, worried over what comes next.I do not ignore their fear or uncertainty. I do not deny their right to safety.

This is where, I suspect, we confront the unspoken cause of the irreversible divide.Israel’s security cannot be achieved at the expense of Palestine’s freedom and sovereignty.That is not peace, let alone the elusive “co-existence”. It is domination – brutal and unforgiving.

This kind of loss, profound and lasting, gives way to clarity born from rejection. It sharpens your appreciation of loyalty and authenticity in relationships.Perhaps the people I thought I knew, I did not know at all. And perhaps the people who thought they knew me, did not know me at all.

There is a reckoning under way. Like most reckonings, big or small, near or distant, it can be messy and painful.

We are trying to navigate a pitiless world that, on the disagreeable whole, punishes dissent and rewards compliance.Police, media and courts converge to turn a Muslim scholar into a threat – on the flimsiest of words and the strongest of biases.

Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a professor of political science at Ashoka University, has become the latest hate figure manufactured by Hindu nationalists in India with backing from the police and judiciary. A crime that Mahmudabad has not committed is being attributed to him, and he is now being asked to prove his innocence – a classic case of “guilty until proven innocent”. The more he pleads his innocence, the deeper the suspicion grows against him as the Supreme Court of India has already cast doubt on his intent and made adverse observations about him before setting up a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to scrutinise two Facebook posts containing 1,530 words. Despite the clarity of his posts, Mahmudabad is expected to explain himself and dispel suspicions created by the highest court in the land.In these posts, Mahmudabad criticised Pakistan for harbouring terrorists while praising India’s military action against its neighbour. He highlighted the applause received by two female military officers – one of them Muslim – who presented India’s case on the global stage. However, he warned that if the daily persecution of Muslims in India did not cease, these optics of inclusivity would remain mere hypocrisy.

What Mahmudabad wrote had been expressed by countless others before him in different ways. Yet suddenly, Renu Bhatia, the head of the Women’s Commission of Haryana, appeared fuming at a news conference, accusing Mahmudabad of insulting the two female officers. Her charges left many bewildered. Mahmudabad responded through his lawyers, explaining his posts thoroughly. But Bhatia was unsatisfied, even if failing to substantiate her allegations. When questioned by a TV anchor to identify specific words or sentences demeaning to the female officers, she could find none. Still, she insisted that her feelings of offence were sufficient proof that something must be wrong with Mahmudabad’s posts – that he must have written something horrible. She argued it wasn’t her job to pinpoint offensive phrases; it was the police’s responsibility to uncover what might offend her.After her accusations, Mahmudabad’s posts underwent intense scrutiny by numerous individuals and media outlets. No distasteful or insulting content was found. Academics and members of civil society rallied behind Mahmudabad, expressing outrage over the actions of the Women’s Commission.