A popular activist for masses, yet struggles to find support among liberal groups who secretly fears unapologetic Muslims due to their Islamophobia
Noam Chomsky famously stated, “there are only two positions on free speech, you either defend it for the views you hate or you reject and accept the fascist”. This simply means, if you are able to accept the dissent to the level that you hate the discussion but still allow it for the sake of healthy discourse, then you understood the meaning of co-existence properly. In a country like India where people of different faith, different caste have lived together, co-existed together, the demand for accepting opposite views is compulsory to run a smooth democracy. This nation is home to Sikh and Muslim population too, whose religious identity often directly contradicts with Hindu faith, and these communities have lived together for thousand of years. However after the independence, or just before the independence, the idea of co-existence started to crumble, opposite views became unbearable for the majority. If one speaks for the religious identity of his community, it was seen as criminal act. This very aggression for accepting the Hindu idea of identity only, whitewashed all other ethnic groups and their spaces for dissent. This is why barely putting the urgent issues of his community, Sharjeel Imam becomes sensational and controversial element in India. He became the talk of the town as some anti-national person, a man who wish to break India etc. As if India is so fragile and vulnerable that one speech of one person will break it or make it. And then his case goes to judiciary for years without any justice, shattering the idea of India, where one can’t even talk about the upliftment of his community in an unapologetic way without being dragged into courts.
Sharjeel Imam is a litmus test for liberal and secular society of India, where religious intolerance is permanent phenomenon, he is a litmus test for the real freedom of speech, a test for hidden Islamophobes, who avoids to embrace him when he comes with his complete Muslim identity. A Muslim who is non-compromising for his faith, who is not afraid to start any debate with taking his religious line in the centre stage, is true test. A Muslim activists who talks about social and structural changes in democratic setups where political space should be determined according to Muslim population. The limit of liberal support is that they can only stand behind those Muslims who are not visibly embracing their Muslim identity, like Javed Akhtar fan club or somewhat likes fan of Umar Khalid. When Sharjeel is contesting election from BahadurGanj seat for Bihar Assembly elections, he is actually trying to present a model for Indian Muslims for their development in his constituency. Although he talks about Muslim upliftment as his core issues, but always ready to lead other marginalised community too.
“we will raise the issue of minority empowerment and devise long-term plans to make Bahadurganj and Seemanchal a centre of our emerging discourse—so that youth from Bahadurganj become ambassadors of marginalised classes from across India”. -Sharjeel Imam (30 August 2025, Outlook)
Majority versus Majority debate
The misrepresentation that happened in Imam’s case is somewhat confusing the debate of minority versus majority clashes. When he encourages the idea of political and social advancement of his Muslim community, then it is presented as a direct attack on majority community. His idea of uplifting his people, is looked as if he trying to threaten the existence of majority community. Contrary to the belief of majority, who is often ready to be offended on small matters, Imam is not even bothering to mention core politics of majority, still he is targeted. His innocent politics for Muslims is taken as disturbing element in the political discourse of Hindu faith. In reality, Sharjeel Imam was the only one at the time of CAA, who gave call to all the non-Muslim thinkers and activists to come and support CAA in favour of Muslims. Yes he never takes dictation from majority community, or he doesn’t talk about the alliances with them if that undermines his Islamic identity, but nonetheless he is not afraid to embrace the idea of inclusiveness. As a Muslim one’s political duty is to take care of another community as well if they are oppressed, so people like Imam can not ever think of erasing the political or religious discourse of majority community.
“Unless we start talking about structural and constitutional changes, there is no way out of political marginalisation of Indian Muslims. These systemic changes include proportional representation in elections, Muslim reservations (divided internally into caste groups), federalism, autonomy from majoritarian oversight in religious issues”.-Sharjeel Imam (27 August, 2025, Scroll)
“for the marginalised classes in general and for the Muslims especially, an ideological breakthrough is urgently needed. Repeating worn-out and clichéd slogans ad nauseam will not help us. Justice has to be the keyword. Democratisation, decentralisation, proportional representation, the way [of conducting] elections, minority reservation with internal quotas for the backward classes, and genuine religious autonomy. These should be statutory guarantees. We have to reimagine the future of our democracy for the sake of all marginalised sections”. – Sharjeel Imam (30 August 2025, Outlook)
The idea of civil disobedience
When we talk about Imam, then often times, the main accusation comes against him is that he is anti-national. And he tried to break the social fabric of unity among communities and created law and order situation by giving the call of road-blockade in Assam and other parts of India. But what people forgets, it was just an act of civil disobedience and not by any means breaking Assam from India, it was an act of extreme dissent but not an act of violence. When CAA came, Muslims were frustrated from 70 years of oppression by various governments, the community was socially and economically were worse than the most oppressed Dalit community. 370 in Kashmir just happened two months ago, On top of that citizenship bill added fuel to the fire, so the anger reached to the boiling point in Muslims across India, in that situation any sensible leader would give the call of civil disobedience to Muslims as Imam did. And that is why he gave the call for road-blockade in all cities across India. However, if BJP govt would have taken back the CAA bill, then Imam would have withdrawn the call for road-blockade without any delay. Someone, opposing one act is not trying to break India. Similar type of civil disobedience has happened during the time of Jay Prakash Narayan in seventies, but his act is praised in the text-book of India as heroic, however when a Muslim gives a call with same sort of disobedience then it becomes greatest controversy on national channel till date.
On the other hand, Imam was the only activist who kept asking his followers for non-violence from the stage, trying to curb the anger of his own people, so that things doesn’t go out of hand, still he was accused for violence is something undigestible.
Trying to separate Assam from mainland India
Another dangerous accusation that came his way is that Imam was trying to cut the Assam from India. He did say that India should be forced to not enter in chicken neck for few days, but his demands didn’t came in void. The people of Assam were most vulnerable against citizenship issue and they are still struggling for it. So his statement were meant to force the government to listen to the demands of people of Assam. The continuous communal environment of Assam, was something that should bother any Muslim sympathizing leader with true intentions like Imam. When he was trying to cut Assam from India, then he was actually asking it to do it in a civil disobedience way for a month or a smaller period of time, so one can leave no choice for government to rollback all citizenship bill without any if and buts. He was not trying to make a country from India within India, it was an absolutely non-sense to consider civil disobedience of Imam, as a demand of separate state or country. After six years of his incarnation, things in Assam are still communal, which justifies his statement where he was so much concerned for Muslims of Assam.
Larger conspiracy case of Delhi violnece
The utter and most damaging part of Sharjeel’s case that came his way, was Delhi riots case. He got slapped with charges of Delhi riots when he was already locked up a month before riots in pre-detention. Also he left Delhi soon after he withdrew his protest from Shaheen Bagh protest site. No whatsapp chat, no group was ever found in which Imam ever participated before the violence. How come one can slap someone for the violence in his absence. His strong ideology in politics made him targeted for which he was accused of violence. As Delhi riots became good opportunity to paint Imam as most dangerous person for his unapologetic Muslim politics. Everyone knew that Imam will get bail in all his cases from Assam to Delhi but Delhi violence is a case, which will easily destroy his political career so he was framed in a manner, he can never really overcome from. The idea was to give great setback to Imam’s politics, so nobody after him dares to set discourse based on Muslim identity.
Political dissent was turned into Delhi violence case
Any violence that occurs in any part of the country is condemnable act. No one ever should face the Delhi riots like situation. The writer herself visited the hospital in that night of riot, and I found out that both the community was harmed in the same manner in the violence. A Hindu was killed and a Muslim was killed too. There was bloods and bloods on the floor of hospital, and one can’t distinguish the blood if it was from a Hindu man or a Muslim man. The pain and agony in the eyes of both Hindu family and a Muslim family can’t be described in the words. One feels helpless in these situation question why it happened and why nobody is able to contain it before it spread like wildfires. A riot is something that doesn’t see religion, people kill each other in a merciless way that is shame for humanity. Any man who believes in humanity, will never ever allow any riot to happen under his watch. A man like Sharjeel Imam who takes care of his cats in the cell, can’t be taken as a someone who could plan the killings of majority community. In fact he is the only one who tried to protect majority too like while CAA was in it’s peak.
A political dissent of CAA was turned into Delhi riots case against Imam, making him vulnerable and defenceless against something he can’t even think of, let alone participating in pre-planning of Delhi violence. In Indian political discourse there is no space for political dissent maybe, that is why opposing a government, and criticizing a law becomes a criminal act for an activist, for which you spent 6 straight years in pre-detention without bail. Indian democracy has a long way to go, before it learns how to incorporate opposite voices gracefully without jailing them.
Leave a Reply