India Rejects US Lawmaker's Letter on Umar Khalid | Quick Digest
India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) strongly reacted to New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's letter concerning activist Umar Khalid, terming it 'prejudice'. The MEA emphasized judicial independence and advised a focus on responsibilities.
MEA criticized US lawmaker Zohran Mamdani's letter.
Mamdani's letter was regarding activist Umar Khalid's detention.
India termed the letter 'prejudice' and stressed judicial independence.
MEA urged Mamdani to focus on his own responsibilities.
The incident highlights diplomatic friction over internal judicial matters.
Multiple Indian news outlets corroborated the MEA's strong reaction.
India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) strongly rebuked New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani over a letter he wrote concerning the detention of Indian activist Umar Khalid. The MEA characterized Mamdani's intervention as 'prejudice' and advised him to focus on his own responsibilities, underscoring the principle of judicial independence. This incident sparked significant coverage across major Indian news platforms, including the Times of India, NDTV, Telegraph India, and News18, all of whom reported on India's strong diplomatic response. Mamdani, an Indian-American politician, had reportedly addressed concerns regarding Khalid's ongoing detention in India, where he was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case and has been in judicial custody since September 2020. India's reaction also came amid broader diplomatic exchanges, with some reports suggesting it was part of a larger context of 'jabs' at the US concerning internal affairs, including trade-deal tussles and even comparisons to incidents like an ICE shooting in the US. The MEA's stance reiterated India's firm position against external interference in its internal judicial processes, emphasizing that such matters are handled by an independent judiciary. The government's response highlighted a consistent diplomatic policy of rejecting perceived foreign meddling in sovereign legal issues. This event underscores the sensitivities surrounding human rights and judicial processes when they become subjects of international scrutiny and political commentary.
Read the full story on Quick Digest