Dear @gautambhatia88, I read it, the whole of it, several times, because I thought I'd write a long rebuttal. I couldn't, because I was too busy. But since I had most of the material ready, I've converted everything into bullet points for easy reading. Everything I say about what Sharjeel Imam says is from his interview. The history and counterpoints are mine. So here it is. What I disagree with, what I agree with, and why I have deep reservations even where I agree. 1. His foundation is faith - He says his politics comes from his faith. - He bases liberty, justice and equality on tawhid. He calls justice and equality "transcendental values". - He calls nationalism, materialism and even despotism and casteism branches of shirk (idolatry). Some of these he's right to oppose, but the frame is theological. Political questions become questions of faith. - In a republic, laws have to make sense to every citizen. If the base is theology, everyone who doesn't share that faith is left out. This is where I part ways with his politics completely. For me, citizens' rights must come from citizens. Once you bring God into it, things get convoluted and murky. Whose God? Whose interpretation? And what happens to the citizen who doesn't believe? Most of what follows comes from this disagreement. 2. No place for fraternity - He treats Muslims as a separate nation, like Iqbal and Jinnah did. - He calls the idea of an ancient, united Indian nation a myth, and dismisses the idea that Indians are "all brothers." - He wants a deal between communities. I want a fraternity of citizens. Ambedkar said without fraternity, liberty and equality don't mean much. - He calls the Constitution a "roadblock" and says he's not part of the "Save the Constitution club." 3. He never answers the obvious questions He never calls his position political Islam. But it starts from the same place: politics based on faith. Classical Islamic jurisprudence already has positions on non-Muslims, law and governance. If you build your politics on tawhid, you have to tell us where you stand on these. He doesn't. - Nothing on dhimma or sharia. Nothing on how a tawhid-based order would treat non-Muslims, atheists, ex-Muslims, women or LGBTQ people. - In his religious framework, he lists allying with "people of the book" and monotheists as a Qur'anic mandate. - Would he give minorities in a Muslim-majority country what he demands for Muslims in India? He never asks. 4. Selective history - He says "two nations" never meant two territories. But Iqbal's 1930 address proposed a consolidated North-West Muslim state, and the 1940 Lahore Resolution talks of "independent states." - He treats Perry Anderson's The Indian Ideology as the final word, and dismisses its Indian critics (like Chatterjee, Kaviraj and Menon, all from the left) as weak attempts. I'm not a scholar. I simply read the critiques of Anderson, and found enough in them to have serious doubts. - He uses Azad against Nehru, but Azad was a firm opponent of the League's two-nation politics. - He calls the 1946 vote an "ijma" of educated Muslims that still carries weight. But only a small, propertied section could vote. And "Muslims voted for Partition" is exactly the line the Sangh uses to question Indian Muslims' loyalty even today. - He's right that Bihar 1946 is forgotten. But he skips Direct Action Day. And he says nothing about the women abducted and assaulted by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike in 1947. CONT+

Let me end by saying he should be free, unequivocally. - He has been in custody since 2020 and should get bail. You can't keep a man in jail for six years while his trial drags on. A former Supreme Court judge said he should have got bail much earlier. - Defending his freedom doesn't mean defending his politics.