Georgetown fellow Badar Khan Suri, an Indian citizen, was targeted over his personal views on Palestine, supporters say. Washington, DC – Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown University, has been a vocal critic of efforts to silence pro-Palestine protesters and academics amid Israel’s war in Gaza. Those efforts reached new heights under the administration of President Donald Trump, which last week took the extraordinary measure of detaining and seeking to deport Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident married to a US citizen. Then, immigration authorities came for one of Hashemi’s own students. Earlier this week, agents detained Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which Hashemi directs. “It’s shocking, and it sort of confirms our worst fears that authoritarian repression on American universities is expanding under the Trump administration,” said Hashemi. Civil liberties groups and rights observers have decried — and challenged — Khalil’s attempted deportation, which Hashemi and other observers describe as an extension of the anti-Palestinian bias in the US government. That has often involved conflating anti-Jewish sentiment and support for Hamas, which the US categorises as a “terrorist organisation”, with statements criticising Israeli military action or support for Palestinians, they say. But Hashemi and his colleagues see the targeting of Suri, who is in the US on a student visa, as going a step further, given that he was detained not for public protests but for his alleged personal views. Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown who focuses on Palestinian-Israel affairs, said the Trump administration’s enforcement efforts appear to be entering “a different realm with this case”, extending beyond student visa holders and US residents sanctioned for their protest activity. “This person seems to have been targeted, not for his activism,” he said, “but simply for being suspected of holding certain views.” For its part, the US Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday confirmed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had approved Suri’s deportation. Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Rubio made the determination by citing the same law used to justify the attempted deportation of Khalil. It is a provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the secretary of state power to remove any non-citizen whose presence in the US is deemed to have “adverse foreign policy consequences”. McLaughlin accused Suri of “actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media”, without providing further details. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for further information from Al Jazeera. She also said Suri “has close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior adviser to Hamas”. On Wednesday, Suri’s wife, Mapheze Saleh, confirmed to Al Jazeera that she is a US citizen. Meanwhile, Ahmed Yousef, a former adviser to assassinated Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, confirmed to The New York Times that Suri was his son-in-law. Yousef told the newspaper he had left his position in the political wing of Hamas over a decade ago and has publicly criticised the group’s decision to attack Israel on October 7, 2023. He said that Suri was not involved in “political activism”, much less support for Hamas. Suri has roundly rejected the allegations against him, his lawyer, Hassan Ahmad, told US media. His legal team, which includes the Virginia office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has filed a petition at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking his release. He remained at a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centre in Louisiana on Thursday. In a statement on Wednesday, Georgetown University also said it supports its community members “rights to free and open deliberation and debate, even if the underlying ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable”. Meanwhile, the Alwaleed Center issued a passionate defence of Suri on Thursday, saying he has become the victim of a “campaign by the Trump Administration to destroy higher education in the United States and punish their political opponents”. Both Suri and his wife Saleh had previously been singled out by “Campus Watch”, a project out of the Middle East Forum that says it “reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North American universities”. Critics have accused the project of being a tool to silence criticism of Israel in higher education. Hashemi, meanwhile, described Suri as a “very respected and serious academic”. “In many ways, [Suri] was the exact opposite to Mahmoud Khalil, in the sense that he was not an organiser or a leader. He was simply a researcher and postdoctoral fellow at our centre,” Hashemi said, “who was just working on themes of minority rights, majoritarianism and the problem of authoritarianism.” Elgindy, meanwhile, said the Trump administration continues to embrace a “dangerous conflation” when it comes to complex discussions of Palestinian rights and resistance. “Really any expression of solidarity with Palestinians or criticism of Israel is deemed in and of itself, to be both anti-Semitic and inherently supportive of terrorism and Hamas,” he said. Elgindy described a “genuine atmosphere of fear” when it comes to open academic debate on the complex realities that define the Israel-Palestine conflict. “It really cuts to the heart of academic freedom — if people have to censor themselves, if students are afraid to ask certain questions or raise certain points because maybe someone in the class is recording and is going to share with some of these extremist groups out there that have been doxxing students,” he said. “The intent is to chill debate and to make people second guess whether they should express certain views at all.” On Thursday, Congressman Don Beyer, who represents northern Virginia, also weighed in on Suri’s detainment, calling it a violation of his right to “due process” and a “blatant attack on the First Amendment”, referring to the US Constitution’s protections for freedom of speech. His statement offered a preview of the principles likely to be raised in federal courts. The Trump administration has taken the broad position that those constitutional rights are not extended to temporary visa holders or even US permanent residents. But courts have largely upheld the right of immigrants to enjoy free speech, the freedom of assembly and other basic liberties. Beyer called for a judge to swiftly make a ruling on Suri’s challenge to his imminent deportation, pointing to “the administration’s track record of attempting to deny constitutional rights in ways that are difficult to undo before judicial remedies can be provided”. Earlier this week my constituent, Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown postdoctoral fellow, was detained outside his Rosslyn home. He remains in detention despite not being accused of a crime, a clear violation of his constitutional rights. He must be released.https://t.co/PTQvM0ys2k pic.twitter.com/aUpPVFuQ0k — Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) March 20, 2025 Late Thursday, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from immediately deporting Suri. His lawyers told Reuters news agency he was awaiting a date for a hearing in immigration court. Both Hashemi and Elgindy, meanwhile, pointed to the need for the academic community to take a firm stand against Trump’s actions, while acknowledging the difficult landscape educators and administrators face. Beyond the risks to professors on temporary work visas, Trump has also pledged to cut federal funds to institutions that do not take severe enough measures against protesters and “agitators”. His administration has already cut $400m in grants and contracts for Columbia University. “I think the worst is yet to come,” Hashemi said. “Unless the people stand up and push back.” Follow Al Jazeera English:...

National spokesman for the Middle Belt Forum, Luka Binniyat, speaks to AJIBADE OMAPE on life in the 130 Battalion, Nigerian Army barracks, and the Dimka coup of February 13, 1976, which led to the disappearance of two officers, among other issues How did your early experiences in the barracks shape your view and understanding of Nigeria’s military and political history? As a young boy growing up in the barracks, immediately after the civil war in 1970, we only had inkling that there was a time when civilians were in power. However, I was too young to understand what was going on, but from 1970, all I knew was that General Yakubu Gowon (retd.) was in power and he was eventually overthrown. Life was okay at that time, and the social environment was fair, but life in the barracks was not the same as life outside the barracks. So, we had no idea about the sociology outside the barracks, but each time we were in town, we mixed very well; the society was very stable. They retained their offices for a long time; we knew the military governors by heart. Our whole life revolved around military rule; everything was military. We had no idea what political parties were. Then the coup that overthrew Gowon happened, then General Murtala Muhammed came on board. When he came on board, there were all kinds of rumours about whether Gowon had been killed or had escaped. Life under Murtala was tough; even as kids, we knew that civil servants were being sacked, and we heard about people being arrested and put in jail. We also heard that you had to be very careful with how you spoke about certain issues. Our parents went to Mammy Market at that time, and you would hear all kinds of stories about how the nation was tense, especially within the military. So, it didn’t come as a surprise when Murtala was killed by Dimka and his gang, who coincidentally happened to be the people giving military instructions. That was when we began to hear that Christian soldiers had killed a Muslim General, and the barracks were silently polarised. Some people were caught, and as soon as they were caught, they were tried and executed. But these two gentlemen, Sergeant (Clement) Yildar and Captain Dauda Usman, escaped, and many myths were woven around them. To this day, nobody knows what has become of their fate. Would you say growing up in the barracks shaped the person you are today? Absolutely! Two things shaped my whole outlook today: growing up in the barracks and the most cosmopolitan place you could ever be in this country because almost every tribe and every religion was represented in the barracks. So, you get to know the culture of several people, the kind of food they ate, the type of traditions they followed during marriages, the language they spoke, and how you related with them, based on certain things they did in their area. Growing up in the barracks helped me to witness different tribes and cultures. I was in the barracks when I went to school. I attended Government College, the same school that Ibrahim Babangida and General Abdulsalami Abubakar attended. From there, I came into contact with what you call radicalism. I started reading books on socialism, I started understanding what politics was all about, and then coming back to the barracks, I discovered that having the regimented military way of life was not the kind of thing I wanted. I wanted freedom and all that. So, growing up in the barracks shaped my whole viewpoint about life. As a child of parents who fought side by side for the entire three years of the ‘Ojukwu War’, and also in the Nigerian Civil War, what were some of the lessons you learned about national unity, loyalty, and conflict? Well, to be honest with you, growing up in the barracks, we had this feeling that the Igbo were the enemies of Nigeria. But when you mix with the Igbo, you don’t see that. I started my primary school at St. Paul Primary School in Ozala, which is now in Enugu State, and some of my closest friends as kids were Igbo, and I was a bit of an adventurous kid. I didn’t see what people were saying about the Igbo. They were very nice and friendly people. I would be in their place, trek back through the forest at night, and be safe. So, I didn’t understand what people were saying, but in general, we were made to look like Igbo people were not supposed to be part of Nigeria. Growing up in the barracks, I felt that was an unfair thing. The Hausa or the northern people had a strong bond. The issue of the Middle Belt and Arewa was not there at all. The bond was forged as a result of the hatred of the Igbo. The Yoruba and the Mid-westerners were rather aloof. The northern people didn’t like the Igbo at all. Unfortunately, the people of the Middle Belt, in my childhood, were also part of that kind of arrangement. But we, as children, didn’t see that at all. I learned about national unity and loyalty among different tribes. In the barracks, you had no choice; it was a regimented environment, and you obeyed orders. There was a strong cohesion among all the tribes. But as I mentioned, the Igbo were somehow marginalised. The Igbo were not much in the army anyway because most of them left during the Biafran uprising. So, there were few Igbo in the military. We didn’t meet many of them in the barracks at that time. But the barracks were a place where you could be sure that Nigeria was quite united. There was nothing like politics, nothing like a Muslim or a Christian soldier. Of course, people were very inclined to their tribal limits, but that didn’t mean that there was tension about where you came from. Being the child of soldiers, were you at some point considering becoming a soldier? When I went to Government College, I started knowing what it meant to have certain basic rights, and it was because we were bullied; our school was very famous for bullying. I compared it to the regimented life in barracks, and I didn’t find it very appealing to be a soldier. I didn’t want people screaming at me, bossing me up and down, and giving me orders; I didn’t like that. It wasn’t a good choice for me. I was thinking of becoming a surveyor or a miner. I wanted my freedom. Can you vividly recall the morning of February 13, 1976, when Lt. Col. Bukar Dimka announced the coup? What was your first reaction upon hearing about the coup? Well, it was one of excitement, so to speak. We didn’t know the implications of a change of government. But the way the barracks was tense, we knew that something was going to happen. The bugle was blown, and the soldiers hurriedly dressed and got to the parade ground. They would get their instructions, come back, and dress in their war fatigue. Then we were worried. Was there going to be a war? Then my father would come back home, and every place was tense. That was when I started getting this sentiment of Christianity and Islam because it was being made to look like it was Christian soldiers assassinating a Muslim general. So, it was quite a tense moment for us. How did the atmosphere in the barracks change following the announcement? After Dimka made that broadcast, we felt that Gowon, who was removed from power and was a Christian from Benue-Plateau, might be brought back. We grew up knowing Gowon as our head of state, and some of us children were happy that Gowon could return because we grew up knowing Gowon and his wife, Victoria Gowon, as the people who ruled Nigeria. To us as kids, he (Gowon) was a good leader because there was a package given to our parents; they called it the Jerome Udoji package. My father was able to buy a motorcycle, and it was the equivalent of purchasing a fine car today. We liked him for that, though we started witnessing inflation but didn’t care. We were happy that perhaps Gowon might return, but unfortunately, the coup failed. As the coup failed, some people were arrested. It looked like it was the Christians who were apprehended. In the barracks at that time, if you were a serving soldier, you had to be extremely careful about how you spoke. As children, we saw Dimka as a hero; we also saw the two gentlemen who escaped and were put on the wanted list as great heroes. So, from that time, there has been a decline in national unity. We discovered that the people who bonded together very closely as northerners felt very aggrieved that an army General from Kano, who was the head of state, was killed, and then, we who were Christians from the North, were proud that our soldiers tried to bring back General Gowon. In my experience, that was the decline of national unity. What do you think were the lasting consequences of the failed coup on the Nigerian military and governance at the time? When we were growing up, promotion in the barracks was based on connections, especially for the other ranks; you had to know someone, and we heard that they were given bribes before getting promoted. So, the role of soldiers as a professional fighting force was seriously diluted, because they went into areas that they had no business. Under IBB, I came to understand that they didn’t want a military that was formidable and organised. So, the professionalism of the army was seriously set back by the military rule. That’s quite a big irony. And that’s why I think today, the military are doing everything they can because they enjoy under civilian rule, I have friends who are retired generals; they are enjoying much more under civilian rule, they are more relaxed and can do their jobs the way they should. So, military rule was a big setback for Nigeria as a fighting force. The execution of Dimka and other alleged plotters was swift. Looking back, do you believe justice was served, or do you think there were underlying political motives at play? I didn’t read the trial of these generals, especially that of Bisalla. But from what I have now, Bisalla may have been roped. And that is why I say the Dimka coup was the beginning of this national disunity. Bisalla developed Benue-Plateau in a manner that the northern leaders were very unhappy with. As Chairman of the Middle Belt Forum in Kaduna State, how do you see your role in advocating justice or closure? I am now the national spokesman for the Middle Belt Forum. I have now been promoted to the National Working Committee. We are going to bring in the chairman for Kaduna State sometime. So, that is what I have been advocating. Our federal legislators should table this matter before their colleagues at the National Assembly and make a debate from there. Then our people who are close to the corridors of power should also meet President Bola Tinubu for a possible setting up of a state panel because if the matter is not concluded, I think the spirit of Dimka and co. will still be hovering over this country as long as the final decision is not taken about it. So, we are advocating a state pardon. But if it has to take certain steps, we encourage our legislators to initiate these steps so that we end this matter once and for all. You recently recalled in a publication the legendary status of Capt. Dauda Usman and Sgt. Clement Yildar, who were both declared fugitives. Why do you think their fate remains unknown nearly 50 years later? I think it is because they are people of the Middle Belt stock. They are what Nigerians are wrongly calling minorities. If Ojukwu himself carried out a civil war, and in the course of it, millions of people lost their lives, if it could be so forgiven, why is it that these two gentlemen, almost 50 years after the coup, they were not tried in absentia to find out their involvement? Nothing is said about them. So, they have become more like a forgotten fugitive. That’s why we in the Middle East are saying that these people should be given state pardon either alive or dead, or they should be tried so that if they are convicted, we know that they are convicted even post-mortem. So, it is not fair. These are citizens of Nigeria who were involved in a serious activity that certainly changed the course of the country’s history. They should not be abandoned like that; something has to be said about them officially. If these men are still alive, what steps should be taken to bring them back into the national conversation? After I made that publication, I called on their relations who are alive. Their children are grownups now. Captain Usman had children at that time. So, they should be in their 50s now. I don’t know why they are timid about coming out to say, ‘We are the children of these people, and we think that our parents should be given fair trial.’ I cannot be crying more than the bereaved. You spoke about the decline in national unity. How would you suggest that the people in power help to ensure national unity among citizens of the country? You cannot operate theocracy and democracy side by side. Nigerians are not united and cannot be united as long as some parts of the country are secular, and the other part is non-secular. I am from Southern Kaduna, from the Middle Belt, but I cannot go to Kebbi State and live the life I should live as a Nigerian with all my rights and privileges in place. Why? It is because I’m a Christian. Why did you say so? There are certain things I will do which will incur the wrath of the state. So, how can there be unity when some parts of the country are looking at the constitution as subservient to Sharia law? How can we call ourselves united? That’s why we are asking for serious reform in the country. We should have a new constitution; it is also affecting the military. When the entry points for people from the South and the Middle Belt differ from people from the core north, how can there be unity when there is no justice? How can my child, who is from the Christian North, score 200 in JAMB or 240 points in JAMB, and he cannot study Medicine at Ahmadu Bello University, but a child from Zamfara State who scored 120 is allowed to study Medicine? How can there be unity? What do you feel about the book that was recently launched by former military head of state, Ibrahim Babangida? To us in the Middle Belt, it was a book deliberately written to whitewash his sins against the Nigerian state. The book has sparked more controversy than it has provided information to the general public. He admitted that he should be held responsible for the annulment of the June 12 elections, yet he did not take full responsibility, as he also shared much of the blame with other figures, virtually all of whom are no longer alive today. He made some serious omissions regarding what he did to the Middle Belt. The Middle Belt did not lose as many officers at any time as it did under IBB, except perhaps during the Civil War. Babangida ensured that some of the most talented and brave officers from the Middle Belt were crippled for a crime in which he was successful, namely coup plotting. Mamman Vatsa, who was his close friend, was a Middle Belt man from Niger State. Therefore, the Middle Belt does not regard the book as something worth celebrating. He (IBB) did not mention in the book what he did to the people of Zangon Kataf. He didn’t refer to how he ensured that Major Gen. Zamani Lekwot and the Atyap elders were given a kangaroo judgement. He went to Zangon Kataf and declared that Major Gen. Zamani Lekwot and the others arrested during the infamous Zangon Kataf crisis of 1992, on trumped-up charges related to the Zangon Kataf violence, were guilty until proven otherwise. So, he made numerous omissions. Do you think this book will achieve it’ aim of making the writer look clean in the eyes of Nigerians? The book has caused more anger than it has made any serious revelations. IBB’s book was an annoying attempt to whitewash his heinous sins against the Nigerian state. In one breath, he claimed to take responsibility for the annulment of June 12, while at the same time placing the blame on other characters that are dead. As a master coup plotter, IBB ensured the killings of military officers from the Middle Belt far more than we probably lost during the Nigerian Civil War, all over allegations of the same coup that he was a beneficiary of. He was also selective in his memory, omitting his handling of the Zangon Kataf crisis, where he shamelessly took sides with the settler Hausa/Fulani community of Zangon Kataf and subjected Lekwot to one of the most ignominious trials in Nigeria’s history. IBB’s memoirs, just like the character of the author, will continue to stoke controversy until the end of time.

THE recent attacks on members of the Shiite Islamic Movement in Nigeria by soldiers during the group’s annual procession to mark the International Quds Day in Abuja call to mind the crowd management deficit of the security agencies. Reports say soldiers blocked the protesters with a tank and opened fire to disperse them. Media reports indicate that five members of the Shiites were shot dead, but the lawyers to the group declared that 26 members were killed. Over 30 persons sustained various degrees of life-threatening injuries, and about 274 were arrested by the soldiers and were later handed over to the police and kept in detention, including 60 minors. A police officer lost his life in the needless clash. While the group said they were attacked unprovoked, the Nigerian Army insisted that the group “became violent, disrupted law and order, and started engaging the troops”. The Army’s claim does not justify the killings. The Nigerian government and its security agencies are notorious for their intolerance of opposition under this democracy, especially in the past 10 years. They are noted for escalating peaceful protests, cooking up tales to justify the repression of opposition and killing of innocent protesters with impunity. Despite the denial, the Judicial Panel of Inquiry and Restitution held that nine unarmed persons were killed, 22 sustained gunshot injuries and 15 others were assaulted by the soldiers and the police during the 2020 #EndSARS protests at the Lekki Tollgate in Lagos. The August 1-10 #EndBadGovernance 2024 protests started on a peaceful note but were later mismanaged by the security forces. 31 citizens were lost to the unfortunate protest, 1,135 were arrested and are awaiting trials across the country, and trillions of naira were lost. Government repression of the Shiites assumed an alarming dimension in 2015, with security agencies using live bullets to hack down the group, including men, women, and children, during a procession in Zaria, Kaduna State. Human Rights Watch records that on December 12, 2015, the Nigerian Army killed 347 members of the Shiites during a procession on the allegation that they stood in the way of the convoy of the Chief of Army Staff, Yusuf Buratai, and tried to kill him. Rather than prosecuting the erring soldiers in the Zaria killings and getting justice for the victims as recommended by a Kaduna Judicial Commission of Inquiry, the state prosecutors brought charges against 177 members of the group in the killing of “Corporal Dan Kaduna Yakubu, the only military casualty in the crisis”. In decent countries, security agencies act professionally as agents of the state and not of the government in power. The converse is the case in Nigeria. Security agencies act with impunity when it comes to anti-government protests and give adequate protection to pro-government protesters. Nigerian security agencies must act in defence of the people, especially the weak. The Shiites have a right to engage in processions and protests under the law. Security agencies have become fixated on the use of excessive force and live ammunition during crises. This is disingenuous. The police and other security agencies must have a crowd control template for handling protests and processions. The police should be regularly trained in crowd management and control. The police deploy tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters and employ technology to apprehend offenders later elsewhere. Nigerian security agencies must borrow a leaf from this civilised professional practice. The killings allegedly committed by security agencies should be investigated, and the offenders must be brought to justice. No matter the alleged uncooperative disposition of the Shiites, the government must respect their rights and religion as constitutionally enshrined. It should devise a workable strategy to manage them.