Sharjeel Imam’s September 29, 2026, interview with The Quint deserves attention not just because he has spent years in prison, but because he has openly discussed his religious beliefs, his views on India’s Constitution and his plans for future political mobilisation.
In the interview, Imam says he does not belong to the “Save the Constitution club”. He calls secularism a “lie and a trap” and argues that the first-past-the-post electoral system keeps Muslims on the margins of politics.
He also speaks about building an organisation that combines religion and politics, strengthens electoral influence, mobilises people and seeks changes in political representation and community autonomy. These statements offer a glimpse into his political vision and deserve serious scrutiny.
Imam’s remarks also raise questions for those who campaign for his release, including supporters of Umar Khalid. Are they opposing his detention, or do they also agree with his political and religious views? Do the academics, intellectuals and activists defending him share his criticism of India’s constitutional framework?
‘The Constitution is a roadblock for Muslims’
In the interview He says, “It is my belief that the Constitution in my speeches, is a roadblock to dignified existence of Muslim community and other religious minorities in India and hence I do not belong to ‘Save the Constitution club’.”
Imam challenges the constitutional arrangement itself, arguing that it does not provide Muslims with the political power and autonomy he considers necessary.
He objects to centralisation, territorial constituencies and joint electorates. He argues that a geographically dispersed minority can be left without adequate representation even when its members participate in elections.
He also advocates Muslim reservation, recognition of Dalit Muslims and Christians in his proposed framework, proportional representation and autonomous elected Waqf bodies.
Now the question arrives, if Imam believes the Constitution is a roadblock to the dignified existence of an entire religious community, do liberals agree with his diagnosis?
‘Secularism is a lie and a trap’
Imam rejects the conventional argument that secular politics and a Congress-led alternative to the BJP offer the best route to protecting minorities.
He writes that secularism “is actually a branch of the overarching nationalist framework, which the Hindutva framework is also a part of. The difference between the Secular and Hindutva framework… is merely of details, the core is the same, the myth of the existence of an ancient Indian nation…”
He also calls the secular consensus “a lie and a trap”.
In his view, both secular nationalism and Hindutva favour a unified nation-state and centralised power, leaving insufficient room for the political autonomy of distinct communities. He criticises Jawaharlal Nehru’s The Discovery of India as an example of what he calls nationalist mythmaking.
Imam argues that reliance on Congress can offer temporary relief without resolving the structural problems he identifies. He says a Congress-led government, “might bring temporary relief but it will not solve our problem… we will be trapped in this vicious BJP-Congress cycle.”
He goes further, arguing that supporting Congress uncritically “automatically hands a weapon to BJP” and forces Muslims “to defend our own oppressors.”
His preferred alternatives include regional parties and political traditions associated with Lohiaites, Communists and Ambedkarites, particularly where they support decentralisation and greater political agency.
Those who champion him as a defender of secularism must explain how they reconcile that portrayal with his own explicit rejection of the secular consensus.
Argument behind his manifesto
Imam’s political argument is rooted in a particular interpretation of Partition and the formation of the Indian Republic.
He claims that Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS opposed the Cabinet Mission Plan’s decentralised arrangements because these threatened established interests and would have given Muslim-majority regions greater influence at the Centre.
He writes, “Partition was forced on Muslims… The genesis of the post-colonial Republic itself lies in the denial of legitimate democratic aspirations of Muslims and other marginalised communities.”
He further argues that the post-Independence state was designed in a way that left Muslims without adequate guarantees and exposed them to violence.
He sees the present constitutional structure not as a neutral framework that can be improved through ordinary politics, but as the continuation of a historical exclusion.
The question is not whether people are entitled to revisit Partition or criticise the Constitution. They are. The question is whether those supporting Imam have examined the historical assumptions on which his proposed political order rests.
What did Imam say about blocking Assam?
In his speech at Aligarh Muslim University on January 16, 2020, Sharjeel Imam spoke about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the condition of Muslims in Assam and the need to move beyond conventional forms of protest.
One of the most controversial parts of the speech concerned Assam and the narrow corridor connecting the Northeast with the rest of India. Imam said: “If we have five lakh organised people with us, we can permanently cut off the north-east from India,” adding that even if this could not be done permanently, it could be done for a month or so. He also said, “It is our responsibility to cut off Assam.” He argued that blocking the route would put pressure on the government over the treatment of Muslims in Assam.
Imam’s defence is that he was discussing chakka jam, a form of road blockade, rather than calling for armed violence. In the The Quint interview, he says, “it is common knowledge for Urdu and Hindi speakers that the word ‘kaat’ (cut) is used for blocking of ways.”
Shaheen Bagh and Imam
The Shaheen Bagh protest began in December 2019, after Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The law offered a route to Indian citizenship for specified non-Muslim religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who had arrived by the end of 2014.
On December 15, 2019, women began a sit-in in Shaheen Bagh, in southeast Delhi. The protest grew into a major centre of opposition to the CAA and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). Women, students, families and activists participated. The sit-in continued for months and became widely known for its speeches, public meetings, artwork and demonstrations.
According to the prosecution in a Delhi High Court judgment dated September 2, 2025, Imam was involved in anti-CAA mobilisation in the days before the Shaheen Bagh sit-in. The prosecution alleged that he visited protest sites, helped mobilise students and argued for a more disruptive form of protest. It further alleged that, after events at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 15, he moved to Shaheen Bagh, where Road No. 13, also known as the Kalindi Kunj road, was blocked.
The prosecution claimed that Imam brought around 200 people from outside the locality and helped organise the blockade. It also alleged that the sit-in was not entirely spontaneous, but had been planned by a group of activists.
Imam’s account of Shaheen Bagh is particularly revealing because he presents himself as one of the people who helped turn a protest into a sustained blockade.
He says, “there would have been no Shaheen Bagh roadblock if not for a handful of us scholars from JNU, Jamia and IIT and later AMU… and our resolve to block that crucial highway.”
According to his account, the decision took shape on the night of December 14, 2019. On December 15, he encountered a marching crowd and was asked what should be done.
His response, he says, was, “We should block that highway over there,”
He describes a disagreement with an AAP MLA who wanted the protesters to leave, followed by a voice vote in which the crowd decided to remain. The blockade was then established overnight.
Imam argues that the movement continued for months, until the COVID-19 pandemic, and helped prevent the full implementation of the NRC. He also claims that Shaheen Bagh produced a new political discourse that reached students, professionals and readers across languages.
He accuses mainstream progressive narratives of erasing the role of Muslim organisers because of what he calls a “lack of intellectual depth especially regarding partition and Muslim issue”. He also alleges that some activists became interested in the movement once it turned into a “pro-fest”.
Religion, political power and organisation
The interview becomes more consequential when Imam explains what he intends to do if released.
He says, “If and when I am released, I intend to work with like-minded individuals across the nation to form an outfit or organisation to pursue the tasks and goals mentioned above; and seek alliance with other democratic and decentralising forces.”
He describes the immediate tasks as, “researching, writing and speaking, on various aspects of our discourse… Both the religious and the political aspect…”
He also calls for collaboration with young aalims, or Islamic religious scholars, to develop what he describes as a rationalist, empathetic and emancipatory religious discourse.
His proposed programme includes proportional representation, Muslim reservation, autonomous elected Waqf bodies, decentralisation, community safeguards and alliances with regional political forces.
He also proposes producing digital content in community languages and contesting elections selectively, depending on the prospects of victory and the BJP’s presence in a constituency.
Faith and the conviction
Imam also explains how Islam sustains him in prison.
He quotes the Quran, “For, without doubt, in the remembrance of God do hearts find satisfaction.” (13:28)
He adapts a statement associated with Antonio Gramsci to describe himself as “a pessimist because of my intelligence and an optimist because of my faith”.
He says Muslim political prisoners read the Quran, discuss religious interpretation, history and politics, and support one another in prison.
He also declares, “I take pride in the fact that I am among those chosen by the fascists to be incarcerated.”
Who is Sharjeel Imam, and why has he been in prison since 2020?
Sharjeel Imam, an IIT Bombay graduate and former research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, became a prominent figure during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests of 2019-2020.
He was involved in organising and addressing demonstrations against the CAA and the proposed National Register of Citizens. His speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University subsequently became the subject of police cases.
He was arrested on January 28, 2020. Multiple cases followed across different jurisdictions. He obtained relief in some individual cases but remained in custody in the larger conspiracy case relating to the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
In that case, Imam faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other provisions. The prosecution alleges that he played a central role in the conspiracy behind the violence. Imam has denied that his calls were for armed violence.
The Supreme Court rejected his bail plea, along with Umar Khalid’s, on January 5, 2026. The court distinguished their alleged roles from those attributed to five co-accused who were granted bail. The Delhi High Court subsequently rejected their bail applications on September 30, 2026.
The liberal defence
Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have received support from sections of India’s liberal, academic and intellectual community. Public figures, including Arundhati Roy, Amitav Ghosh and Ramachandra Guha, are named among those who signed appeals seeking intervention on liberty grounds. Protests have also featured slogans such as “Freedom for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam”, “Umar Khalid Zindabad” and “Sharjeel Imam Zindabad”. Mani Shankar Aiyar was also present at one such gathering.
Have those defending Imam addressed the views he has expressed about India, its Constitution and secularism?
To the liberals supporting him, a few questions are in order. Imam has called the Constitution a “roadblock” and secularism a “lie and a trap”. Do you agree with him? If not, have you said so publicly? And if you disagree, why do your campaigns focus so heavily on his release while giving so little attention to his own words?
To the academics and intellectuals who have supported him, have you examined his ideas about Muslim political autonomy, proportional representation and religiously informed political organisation? Do you agree with his interpretation of Partition and his criticism of secularism? If you do not, the public deserves to know where you stand.
CJP Protests and the Slogans Raised
The CJP protests, including CJP-1 and CJP 2.0, deserve the same scrutiny as any public campaign. Slogans supporting Imam and Khalid were reportedly raised at these gatherings.
What were the organisers asking for? A fair trial? An end to prolonged detention? Or support for the political views of the individuals they were defending?
These are not necessarily the same thing. An organisation can oppose prolonged detention without agreeing with everything a person has said. But it should make that distinction clear. If CJP and other groups are campaigning on legal grounds, they should say so openly. They should also be willing to answer questions about Imam’s views on the Constitution, secularism and India’s political future.
For an Indian who believes in the Constitution and the unity of the country, these are not trivial questions. They deserve clear answers, not slogans.
Imam’s interview raises serious questions about the political future he wants to pursue. His criticism of the Constitution, his emphasis on Muslim political autonomy and his plans to build an organisation combining religious and political activity deserve close examination.
The claim that Imam has a plan to “tear India apart” must be supported by specific evidence. Criticising the Constitution or demanding changes in political representation does not, by itself, establish a plan to break up the country.
