Shambhavi Siddhi
In denying bail to Sharjeel Imam, the Delhi High Court has again demonstrated how India’s judiciary is being weaponized as a tool for political retribution, where dissent is criminalized, and justice is compromised.
Sharjeel Imam, a key figure in the organization of the largest sit-in protest in contemporary India—the Shaheen Bagh protest—and a Muslim intellectual presently under unlawful detention by the Indian State, exemplifies one of the most prominent and essential voices advocating for Muslim autonomy within India. Sharjeel Imam’s arrest in January 2020 was not merely the detention of a student leader; it represented the suppression of one of the most incisive Muslim voices challenging India’s repressive trajectory. Charged under sedition and anti-terror legislation, Imam became a target because he dared to promote a political stance that rejected both Hindutva’s dominance and the superficial promises of liberal secularism. His imprisonment appears intended to silence him; however, it has paradoxically served to amplify his ideas, transforming his name into a symbol of steadfastness for Muslim intellectual and political autonomy in a nation where both are increasingly scrutinized.
Currently, Imam transcends the status of a mere prisoner; he embodies a symbol of the ongoing struggle to redefine the meaning of resistance in India. Furthermore, amid ongoing debates about his candidacy in the Bihar elections, his ideas are moving beyond academic circles and directly entering the electoral arena.
Dismantling the Myths of Indian Democracy
Imam’s perspective penetrates the illusions that uphold India’s self-image. For him, Hindutva transcends the emergence of a single party or ideology; it represents the logical progression of a state project initiated during colonial times, which has institutionalized Hindu dominance throughout the judiciary, bureaucracy, and public life
However, Imam does not limit his critique to Hindutva alone. He is equally rigorous in his scrutiny of secular liberalism, which purports to provide protection but concurrently disciplines Muslims into folkloric minorities. Under this paradigm, Muslims are welcomed in terms of food, music, and festivals—yet are excluded from political agency. When they articulate their rights independently, they are immediately branded as “radical.” It is at this juncture that Imam’s lucidity challenges the state’s authority. He demonstrates that both Hindutva and secularism constitute components of the same machinery: one overtly exclusionary, the other subtly suffocating. Both frameworks deprive Muslims of the autonomy to envision themselves as sovereign political entities.
Imam’s most radical move is his insistence on Muslim intellectual and political autonomy. He rejects the demand that Muslims must speak the language of the majority to be heard. Instead, he calls for theorizing from within Islamic epistemologies, historical memory, and decolonial frameworks. It is a refusal to accept a politics of apology, where Muslims must constantly prove their loyalty by embracing secular-liberal vocabularies. Imam insists that Muslims have the right to define their own aspirations — even if those aspirations unsettle the state. It is precisely this refusal to play the role of the “good minority” that makes him dangerous. He does not beg for tolerance. He demands agency.
Imam’s political orientation is deeply ingrained in the historical context. As a scholar of history himself, his MPhil thesis concentrated on the assaults against Muslims in Bihar in 1946 during Bakara Eid, which resulted in a massacre of thousands of Muslims. He further references memories of Muslim-led anti-colonial struggles in South Asia, global movements against imperialism, and Islamic political thought that predates the modern nation-state. In his own words –
“I am a student of Islamic modernism and its scholars, such as Jamaluddin Afghani and Muhammad Abduh of Egypt. Our own Akbar Allahabadi, Allama Iqbal, Maulana Azad, and Ali Shariati, the Iranian revolutionary, have shaped my understanding of politics as well as Islam. It is these people who inspired me to take up a study of Islam and history as an engineering graduate.”
Through this, he grounds himself in an Islamic epistemology. This historical foundation also renders his politics transnational. For Imam, resistance extends beyond Indian Muslims appealing to the Indian government; it encompasses broader struggles across the Global South. It involves positioning Muslim identity not as parochial but as part of a worldwide continuum of resistance. In doing so, Imam addresses one of the most profound concerns of the Indian state: the notion that Muslims might self-identify outside the confines of nationalism and refuse to be constrained by the binaries of loyalty and betrayal.
His detention, thus, pertains not to legal considerations; rather, it serves as an illustrative example of him. A Muslim intellectual rooted in Islamic epistemology represents a profound challenge to the Indian state. This is how dissent is managed in contemporary India. Imam’s imprisonment is not solely punitive; it is a strategic measure. It communicates to others the consequences of deviating from sanctioned narratives. However, incarceration can also serve to amplify one’s presence. Imam’s absence has transformed into a tangible presence, and his silence has become an echo. His name persists in discussions concerning Islamophobia, resistance, and political prospects. In attempting to erase him, the state has inadvertently rendered him impossible to ignore.
Bihar: From Prison to Politics
Imam’s entry into the upcoming Bihar elections is what transforms this story from intellectual dissent into political confrontation. Bihar is not incidental here. It is a state with a long history of social churn, where movements around caste, class, and communal justice have often redefined Indian politics. Imam is from Bihar, and his roots matter. His candidature would mark a break from the politics of dependency, where Muslims rely on secular parties for crumbs of representation. His campaign could redefine what it means to contest as a Muslim leader who does not dilute his concerns for acceptability. Sharjeel Imam is set to run for election in Semanchal one of the only Muslim-majority areas in northern India, which has the potential to influence the future of Muslims across the country significantly.
Electing and supporting Imam would mean endorsing a politics that names injustice without apology, that refuses the sanitized language of compromise, and that insists on calling oppression by its name. It would mean dismantling the false binary of the “good Muslim” who is rewarded for silence and the “radical Muslim” who is punished for dissent. It would mean refusing the moral blackmail of loyalty tests and asserting the right of Muslims to define their own politics on their own terms. Above all, it would be a confrontation with the state’s ongoing project of criminalizing Muslim intellectual thought, exposing how fear of an unapologetic Muslim voice is itself a symptom of the Indian state’s insecurity.
And beyond symbolism, it could shift political realities. If Imam enters the fray, it will force national attention on questions the state wants to suppress: What does it mean for Muslims to speak politically in their own language? What does it mean to refuse tokenism and demand autonomy?
Sharjeel Imam is not the first Muslim intellectual to be criminalized, nor will he be the last. But what makes his case unique is that he is being punished not for violence but for clarity. He is dangerous to the state because he dares to name the truth: that Indian democracy, as structured today, denies Muslims political subjecthood. Yet in this danger lies possibility. Imam’s thought reminds us that resistance cannot be extinguished by imprisonment. His ideas live in Bihar’s political conversations, in university debates, in the whispers of young activists, and in the growing realization that appeals to the state will not deliver justice.
As Bihar approaches the elections, the significance of this political event becomes even more profound and multifaceted. Supporting Imam transcends simple endorsement of a single candidate; it represents a broader affirmation of a political vision that unequivocally rejects marginalization and discrimination. It signifies a commitment to ensuring that Muslim agency is recognized as essential and non-negotiable in the democratic process. This support emphasizes that Muslim identity and rights are not superficial symbols or tokens to be used superficially but constitute an integral aspect of the social and political fabric of Bihar. The stance is unwavering, resilient, and enduring, demonstrating a profound commitment to inclusion, respect, and equality for Muslim communities within the state’s political framework. Imam’s politics asserts that resistance should no longer be confined to appealing to the constitution, the courts, or the benevolence of secular parties. Instead, resistance must entail reclaiming the right to think and act from within one’s own traditions.
For Indian Muslims—and for all marginalized communities—this presents both a challenge and an invitation. It demands courage to transcend frameworks that promise safety but ultimately result in silence. It necessitates faith in one’s own traditions, histories, and epistemologies as sources of political strength. Imam exemplifies this courage. Consequently, the state views him with apprehension, and his ideas continue to resonate, even from within a prison cell.
In Sharjeel Imam’s own words –
“This is the flame that Shaheen Bagh has ignited—though it may seem faint at present, it is, nonetheless, one of the greatest contributions of the movement to the future of Muslims in India. It represents the possibility of us becoming equal citizens and forming a modern Muslim community.”
“My words will remain, even if the fascists want to erase them.“
Shambhavi Siddhi is a first-year PhD candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant at Gender, Sex and Women’s Studies (GSWS)- University of Western Ontario, researching the epistemic resistance of Kashmiri women in Indian Occupied Kashmir. Drawing on the work of Sarah R. Farris and Lila Abu-Lughod, Shambhavi’s research further examines the femo-nationalist discourse that the Indian State formulates to further its occupation in Jammu and Kashmir. Shambhavi holds a master’s in French literature from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
