India's Constitution was not written assuming that the country had all its social, religious and political differences resolved. It was written and designed to give a diverse society a common democratic framework within which those differences could be negotiated and resolved.
Some might argue that the Constitution's strength lies in the fact that every citizen has been accorded the right to equality. But that's just half the truth.
It also provides ways and avenues to pursue that equality. That's why Sharjeel Imam's criticism of the constitutional order and its alleged misgiving deserve a response from the Constitution, rather than from party loyalists and practitioners of politics.And where the Constitution doesn't provide an explicit answer, the response to Imam's ideas must draw on constitutional ideals shaped and developed by months of Constituent Assembly debates and decades of interpretation by the constitutional courts of India.Sharjeel Imam, a former JNU research scholar, was involved in the anti-CAA protests of 2019-20 and gave a provocative speech, in which he suggested Muslims "cut off" the northeast from the mainland.
He was later accused of involvement in a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots, and has been in jail for over six years now.The trigger for this piece is Imam's September 29 interview with The Quint, which was attacked in an October 17 opinion in The Print by the pseudonymous Ibn Khaldun Bharati. The latter challenged Sharjeel Imam's ideas, but the ensuing controversy also became a debate about the writer's anonymity and the response of India's "liberal intellectuals".
Our in-house columnist and satirist Kamlesh Singh also weighed in on the controversy. He argued that Sharjeel Imam's ideas should be challenged rather than demanding that his critic, Ibn Khaldun Bharati, reveal his identity.The more consequential debate concerns the ideas Sharjeel Imam presents in his written interview, which reads more like a carefully structured academic argument.
More often than not, he draws on history and political theory to build his arguments. Sharjeel Iman questions secular nationalism, attributes Partition to the Congress's inclination and preference for centralisation, draws extensively on Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and proposes decentralisation, proportional representation and statutory safeguards for Muslims.
His arguments about the nature of the Indian state, who should govern it, and how, must therefore be examined through constitutional history, the rights of individual citizens and the possibilities of institutional reform made possible by constitutional processes.Had India retained separate electorates based on religion after Independence, as Jinnah had advocated in British India, and Sharjeel Imam proposes as a fix, it might struggle with an institutionalised religious identity as a permanent basis of political representation. Would that not have undermined the idea of a common political citizenship?Imam has the right to hold and express his views.
The Constitution guarantees him freedom of conscience and expression, and those rights must be respected even when we disagree with him. At the same time, we can acknowledge that Muslims face problems with political representation and otherwise, without having to rubbish the Constitution and saying that it was designed to keep Muslims under-represented.
Actually, the Constitution and the democratic framework it provides remain our best bet for addressing these inequalities and securing equal rights, voice, and representation for all.INDIA HAS A CONSTITUTION THAT LOOKS FORWARDSharjeel Imam makes his disagreement with the Constitution and what it provides for explicit in the interview. He describes the Constitution as a "roadblock to [the] dignified existence of [the] Muslim community and other religious minorities in India".
That is a serious charge. Such a serious criticism calls for a reasoned constitutional response, not just an emotional defence of the Constitution.The Constitution, which came into force on January 26, 1950, was adopted by representatives of a society emerging from colonial rule and Partition.
Religious violence, caste discrimination, poverty and profound inequalities were not distant memories for the framers. They were immediate realities.
And, the framers did not pretend otherwise.Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. Article 15 prohibits specified forms of discrimination.
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Articles 25 to 30 protect religious freedom and important cultural and educational rights, including those of minorities.Yes, these guarantees have not eliminated discrimination.
And it can be argued that neither have the law enforcement agencies nor the judiciary enforced them consistently. But there is a difference between the Constitution failing to deliver on its promises and the Constitution being responsible for discrimination.
Importantly, the constitutional framework allows change. Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, subject to the sanctity of the basic-structure doctrine.
Courts can review state action. Citizens can organise, litigate, campaign and seek electoral reform.The constitutional project is therefore not a finished settlement.
It doesn't demand unquestioning obedience. It is a framework for correcting inherited and emerging challenges and injustices.Imam's argument repeatedly returns to the negotiations of the 1930s and 1940s.
Those debates matter. But ideas developed in the Colonial rule and before Partition are anachronistic solutions for India today, more than seven decades after Independence.
So, history should inform reform. It should not determine its limits.WHY RETURN TO IQBAL AND JINNAH?In the interview, much of Sharjeel Imam's intellectual argument rests on Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Iqbal, the poet-philosopher who died in 1938, and Jinnah, the lawyer who became Pakistan's founder, were addressing the position of Muslims in British India. Their concerns about majority rule, political safeguards and provincial autonomy were real constitutional questions.Reading the long academic interview, it seems Imam regards their ideas as a foundation for contemporary Muslim politics.
But the circumstances have also undergone fundamental changes. British India did not have a universal adult franchise.
Political representation was limited. Electorates were divided along communal lines, and constitutional negotiations took place under colonial authority.Independent India established adult suffrage and a common citizenship from the beginning.
Its constitutional arrangements were not a continuation of colonial bargaining. That does not mean Iqbal and Jinnah's ideas are unimportant to history and its understanding.
But their political proposals were made for a different time and a different India.India today has a far more extensive democratic public sphere. It has a wider educational participation.
Established regional parties, democratic institutions and even pressure groups give citizens more ways to raise their concerns, demand representation and push for reforms. So, why should a contemporary problem of representation and grievance redressal rely on the ideas of the 1940s?It's not that we must not remember the past or learn from it.
But, political solutions of 2026 should remain anchored to a settlement that was never implemented and junked for good.PARTITION WAS NOT THE WORK OF ONE PARTYImam argues that Congress leaders and capitalist interests rejected Muslim demands for decentralisation and thereby brought about Partition. There is an important historical issue beneath this sweeping conclusion.The British Cabinet Mission Plan of May 16, 1946, proposed a united India with a limited Union government and provincial groupings.
The Congress accepted participation in the proposed Constituent Assembly. The Muslim League also accepted the plan initially.On July 10, Jawaharlal Nehru asserted that the Constituent Assembly would be free to determine its decisions.
His remarks deepened the League's distrust.On July 29, the League withdrew its acceptance of the plan. It subsequently pursued Direct Action in support of Pakistan.
The constitutional deadlock was followed by devastating communal violence.These events are documented in Nehru's contemporary statements, the League's resolutions, and historical studies of the Cabinet Mission negotiations.Congress's demand for a strong Union government played an important role in the failure of negotiations to keep India united, as it clashed with the Muslim League's insistence on greater autonomy for provinces. But the League's decision to withdraw its acceptance of the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, the British government's handling of the transfer of power, disagreements among leaders of the provinces and the communal violence also contributed to Partition.Thus, the Partition cannot be explained convincingly by assigning responsibility exclusively to the Congress.
There is another difficulty. Imam's interpretation risks treating Muslim political preferences in British India as a single, settled position.
That wasn't the case.The Muslim League might have achieved major electoral successes in 1946, particularly in Muslim-reserved constituencies. But, the electorate was restricted by property, education and other qualifications.
Thus, those results cannot establish the preferences of every Muslim, much less the political preferences of the community living in India today.SECULARISM IS NOT THE DENIAL OF IDENTITY, IN INDIA AT LEASTIn the interview, Sharjeel Imam argues that both secularism and Hindutva favour a strong central government. He also questions why Muslims are expected to identify themselves as Indians before identifying as Muslims.
But the Constitution does not ask anyone to give up their religious identity to be an Indian citizen.Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and religion. Article 29 protects cultural and linguistic interests.
Article 30 guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.A Muslim can be deeply religious, politically assertive and fully Indian. The Constitution does not make these identities mutually exclusive.
Nor does constitutional secularism demand that every citizen hold identical beliefs about religion. An Indian's freedom of conscience comes from the very article of the Constitution that protects their religious freedom.Imam raises concerns and threats about the political under-representation of Muslims, discrimination, the influence of majoritarian politics and the failure of secular parties to protect minority interests.
These concerns deserve serious discussion. But they should and must be addressed through a constitutional framework, building stronger institutions, making them sustainable, electoral reforms and democratic participation, without rejecting the Constitution itself.Just because political parties have failed to uphold secularism does not mean secularism and religious majoritarianism are the same.
Secularism stands for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of religion, while religious majoritarianism gives greater political importance to the majority's religious identity. This difference matters most when it comes to protecting minorities.REPRESENTATION NEEDS REFORM, NOT ROMANTICISMSharjeel Imam's criticism of the first-past-the-post electoral system deserves serious consideration.
Under this system, a party can secure substantial votes without winning proportionate seats. Smaller parties and geographically dispersed communities can be disadvantaged.Imam's proposal for proportional representation is therefore neither inherently unconstitutional nor undemocratic.
Germany uses a mixed electoral model. India itself employs proportional representation through the single transferable vote for certain indirect elections, including elections to the Rajya Sabha and Vidhan Parishads in several states.But proportional representation, which Imam advocates, is not the same as separate religious electorates, which Jinnah championed before Partition.
Proportional representation gives parties seats according to their share of votes, while separate electorates divide voters by religion and allow them to elect representatives from their own religious community.Separate electorates were introduced for Muslims under the Indian Councils Act of 1909 or the Morley-Minto Reforms. Following Partition, the Constituent Assembly moved away from religious electoral reservations.In its May 11, 1949 report, the Advisory Committee chaired by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel concluded that continuing religious reservations would be inconsistent with the principles of a secular democratic state.
The committee included Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, KM Munshi and BR Ambedkar.Article 325 consequently provides for one general electoral roll for each territorial constituency, without separate rolls based on religion, race, caste or sex.The decision to end separate electorates can be debated, and so can the shortcomings of the first-past-the-post system. But the fact that Muslims are under-represented does not mean they must be divided into separate religious voting groups.
We should instead look at electoral reforms that give everyone fair representation while allowing individuals to make their own political choices.MUSLIMS ARE CITIZENS, NOT A SINGLE POLITICAL UNITImam's argument raises a bigger question about whether Muslims should be treated as one political community or as individual citizens with different views and choices. He repeatedly discusses Muslims as a political community that must develop a common discourse, leadership and bargaining strategy.
But, Indian Muslims are not politically uniform.They differ by region, language, caste, class, religious practice, ideology and economic interest. Their political choices are shaped by circumstances that cannot always be reduced to their religious identity.A Muslim voter in Bihar might prioritise social justice or employment.
Another in Kerala might be concerned about education or local governance. A Muslim woman in Delhi might support a protest that her neighbour chooses not to join.
Neither decision makes either person less Muslim.The Shaheen Bagh protests of Delhi in 2019-2020 are a good example of why Muslims should not be expected to act as one political community on every issue. The anti-CAA protests brought many Muslims onto the streets because they were told, or they believed, that their citizenship rights were threatened.
But their participation did not establish an obligation for Muslims to mobilise collectively on every subsequent political issue. The right to protest also includes the freedom not to protest.A constitutional democracy must protect both.
It would be contradictory to demand equal citizenship while continually measuring Muslim political participation as though an entire religious community were expected to act in unison, an expectation that seems to run through Imam's interview.Imam himself questions the influence of traditional religious leaders and wants Muslims to have a greater say in politics. But that political freedom must also include the right of every Muslim to think, vote and act independently, even when their choices differ from those of the bigger community.THE WAY FORWARD IS THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICThere are several issues raised in Sharjeel Imam's interview that need to be discussed seriously.
They include electoral reforms, the political representation of Muslims, the concentration of power in the central government and the failure of institutions to protect minority rights. These are important questions in any democracy.
They should be discussed openly, even when people disagree strongly about the solutions.In fact, India's constitutional system provides ways to address many of these concerns. The Constitution is not a document that prevents change.
It's not static. It allows Parliament to make changes, governments to introduce reforms, courts to review them and citizens to organise themselves politically.India's federal system is one example.
The Constitution divides powers between the Union and the states. Regional political parties have also emerged as important players in national politics.
They represent different linguistic, regional and social interests, and have often influenced decisions taken by the central government.There is also the example of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1992. These amendments strengthened the constitutional framework for Panchayati Raj institutions and urban local bodies.
Their purpose was to bring decision-making closer to ordinary citizens by giving local governments a recognised place in the constitutional framework.But, we must all agree that the implementation has not been perfect. Many local bodies still struggle with limited funds, powers and administrative independence.
They have to function under the authority of state governments. But that is precisely the point.
Decentralisation can be pursued. Its shortcomings are to be addressed without rejecting the Constitution.
The same approach can be applied to better political representation in India.For instance, should India consider a mixed electoral system that combines constituency-based elections with proportional representation? Such a system could be examined for its ability to give smaller parties and under-represented groups a greater voice.Should political parties give more tickets to candidates from communities that have traditionally remained under-represented in Parliament and state assemblies?
This would require parties to examine their own candidate-selection processes rather than place the entire responsibility on the Constitution.There are other questions too. How can the educational rights guaranteed to religious and linguistic minorities under Article 30 be better protected?
How can citizens facing discrimination get quicker access to justice? How can institutions be made more accountable that fail to protect fundamental rights?These are practical questions.
They also have the advantage of allowing us to examine specific problems and propose specific and sustainable solutions.Sharjeel Imam, however, repeatedly returns to the political debates involving Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League before Partition. It appears that he sees considerable value in revisiting the demands for political safeguards and decentralisation that shaped those debates.
There is arguably nothing wrong with studying those ideas. They are an important part of India's constitutional and political history.
The concerns about minority representation that shaped them shouldn't be dismissed.But the question is whether those arrangements proposed during the colonial period provide suitable answers to the problems of present-day India.India has changed considerably since 1947. Universal adult franchise, constitutional rights, elected state governments, regional political parties, judicial review and decades of democratic participation have created tools and possibilities that did not exist in the same form under colonial rule.
Those institutions have their weaknesses. Many of them have failed citizens repeatedly.
And others would fail again. But their failures should lead us to ask how they can be improved and made more accountable.A country cannot correct the mistakes of its past by ignoring history.
At the same time, it cannot solve every present-day problem by returning to communally divisive proposals made before Independence. After all, the Pakistan project was divisive.The Constitution does not promise that discrimination will disappear just because equality has been written into its provisions.
It cannot ensure that every political party will represent minorities fairly, or that every government will protect citizens equally. Much depends on how governments exercise power, how courts interpret laws, how institutions perform their duties and how citizens hold those in authority accountable.
The Constitution gives citizens the rights and democratic means to challenge failures. It allows them to question governments, demand reforms, approach courts and participate in elections.
It also allows them to seek changes to the constitutional framework itself, within the limits established by constitutional law.That's why the failure to implement the provisions of the Constitution cannot be deemed as a failure of the statute itself.Also, the Constitution should not be defended merely because it is the Constitution. Its provisions, history and performance must remain crucial to any scrutiny.
But its capacity to accommodate disagreement, protect rights and allow democratic reform must also be part of that conversation. Ultimately, the question is not whether India's constitutional system has failed some of its citizens.
There is enough evidence to justify serious discussion about those failures. The more significant question must be how those failures can be corrected.For that, the Constitution and the democratic framework it provides remain our best bet.
India needs better representation, stronger institutions and greater accountability. The challenging task is to fulfil the promises made in 1950, not to return to the divisive arrangements debated before 1947.- Ends