Has India’s democracy failed its Muslims? Jailed scholar triggers debate

Sharjeel Imam is a 38-year-old Muslim scholar from Bihar. He studied computer science at IIT Bombay, worked as a software engineer and later became a doctoral student at Jawaharlal Nehru University. His research focused on the political history of India’s Muslims. He also helped organise the Shaheen Bagh sit-in against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

From prison, Imam gave The Quint a lengthy interview on September 29. He said India’s roughly 210 million Muslims have “practically zero say” in democracy. He criticised the Constitution’s centralisation of power and described Indian secularism as Islamophobic and parochial. He also challenged the ideas associated with Gandhi, Nehru and Hindu nationalism.

The interview matters because it questions India’s founding political framework, not just current government policy. Imam’s claims have intensified an already polarised argument over minority rights, representation and whether Indian democracy protects Muslims equally.

Sharjeel Imam was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly inciting violence through speeches at anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests. He was later charged with rioting, murder, attempted murder, sedition and promoting enmity on religious grounds. Several laws were used, including a stringent anti-terror law.

Nearly a dozen Muslim students and activists, including JNU scholar Umar Khalid, were also arrested as alleged conspirators in the 2020 Delhi riots. Imam was already in prison when the violence began, but prosecutors still charged him in connection with the case. The article says the activists remain in jail without trial and have repeatedly been denied bail.

Rights groups describe this continued detention as a “gross abuse of power” and an example of judicial oversight. They argue the accused are being treated as “guilty until proven innocent.” The article presents the cases as evidence of alleged systemic targeting of Muslims.

India’s Muslim population is enormous. The article describes it as nearly 200 million people and later quotes Imam giving a figure of around 210 million. Either figure makes Indian Muslims one of the biggest Muslim populations in the world and the world’s largest minority group.

The article says Muslims form roughly 14 percent of India’s 1.4 billion people. That share is large in absolute terms, yet Imam argues that the community has “practically zero say” in India’s democracy. His complaint focuses on political influence and representation, not simply population size.

This gap between demographic scale and political power drives the article’s central debate. The question is whether a democracy serving a huge Muslim minority has protected its rights and representation. The answer remains contested, with Imam describing exclusion as systemic and linked to India’s founding political ideas.

Passed in 2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act gave non-Muslim refugees from India’s neighbouring countries an expedited pathway to Indian citizenship. The law was introduced after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government won a second term. Its religious distinction made citizenship the focus of a major national dispute.

The United Nations called the CAA “fundamentally discriminatory” against Muslims. Nationwide protests followed, led largely by Muslims and especially Muslim women. The most prominent demonstration was a weeks-long sit-in at Shaheen Bagh, a densely populated Muslim neighbourhood in southeastern New Delhi.

Shaheen Bagh became the protest movement’s centre and helped make Imam a prominent organiser. He was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly inciting violence through speeches. The protests therefore connected a citizenship law with wider fears about equal rights, political representation and the place of Muslims in India.

The Delhi violence broke out in February 2020, the month after Imam’s arrest. Anti-CAA sit-ins in Muslim neighbourhoods of northeast New Delhi were attacked by mobs. The article says hate speech from leaders of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party incited those attacks. It also stresses that no violence had occurred before Imam’s arrest.

Although Imam was already behind bars when the violence began, he was charged with rioting, murder, attempted murder, sedition and promoting religious enmity. Nearly a dozen Muslim students and activists, including Umar Khalid, were arrested as alleged conspirators in the riots.

The accused remain in jail without trial and have repeatedly been denied bail. Rights groups call this a gross abuse of power and a case of judicial oversight. The legal consequences have therefore extended into prolonged pretrial imprisonment under several laws, including a stringent anti-terror law.

India’s secular framework is constitutionally nonreligious, while Hindutva is the Hindu nationalist project described in the article. The RSS, Hindutva’s ideological parent, aims to transform secular India into an ethnic Hindu state. The article presents these approaches as opposing political visions, but Imam says they share important foundations.

He argues that both “secular” and Hindutva frameworks depend on myths of uniformity and strong centralisation. He criticises the Constitution’s “enshrined centralisation” and says Indian secularism is particularly Islamophobic and parochial. He also attacks Gandhi and Nehru for ideas he believes helped define India as a uniformly tolerant civilisation.

Imam’s claim is that a system can appear secular while still denying Muslims meaningful representation and rights. This makes the debate broader than Hindu nationalism alone. It asks whether India’s political structure itself leaves too little room for minority autonomy, representation and dissent.

A democracy based on majority rule must also protect minority rights. Otherwise, elections can empower the largest group while leaving smaller communities without safety, representation or equal access to justice. The article’s central concern is that India’s nearly 200 million Muslims may have little political influence despite their size.

Protection requires enforceable constitutional rights, independent courts, fair political representation and laws applied equally. It also requires institutions that can challenge government power. The article highlights allegations that Muslim activists were jailed without trial, repeatedly denied bail and treated as “guilty until proven innocent.” Those claims show why legal safeguards matter beyond elections.

The forward issue is whether India’s democracy can convert formal citizenship into meaningful participation. Imam’s interview presses that question by linking current prosecutions to centralisation and foundational ideas. A durable democracy would need majority rule to coexist with equal rights, dissent and credible accountability.