Sharjeel Imam's major malfunction

What does Sharjeel Imam want? Why is he angry? Why did he call for Muslims to block the Siliguri pass- thus cutting off the North East? Was he a paid agent of the BJP whose job it was to show that the anti-CAA agitation was cooked up by anti-nationals? Or is there something deeply wrong with his brain? 

On June 1, Karvaan India published an article by him and Aasif Mujataba

There has been a debate developing around this idea that the Muslims are out on the roads to save the Constitution. The vocal representatives of civil society, as well as some well-meaning Muslims, also adhere to this line of thinking. However, if you talk to the Muslim masses, it becomes clear that not many of them understand what the Constitution is, or what it means for them. That in itself makes a case for the consideration that Muslims are not out on roads to save the Constitution. It is a section of vocal representatives who are insisting on the fact that Muslims want to save the Constitution. However, there exists a healthy body of literature and opinions which makes it clear that the Constitution, how so much progressive it might sound, is not essential as inclusive and radical as we have been made to believe. And it is also well-argued that parts of this document have been instrumental in denying Muslims their share in power over the last 70 years. The significant issues are centre-state relations, the definition of Hindu (Dalit Muslims), Cow protection and First past the post-election system.

It follows that to make Imam happy
1) Arzal or Dalit Muslims be granted the same benefits as non Muslim dalits. This is a reasonable demand. However, it would dilute the existing entitlements of non Muslim dalits. Secondly, it would reduce the power of Ashraf Muslims and threaten their claim to speak for the Community. In the same way that Dalit Christians (who are the majority) are a thorn in the side of the Church Establishment, so too would existing Islamic bodies rue this outcome. Moreover, this would spell the end of 'Forward Caste' or 'clerisy' control of both Left and 'Secular' Parties quite simply because Dalit politicians would gain the vanguard role. In other words, to make Imam happy you have to permit that action which would lead to his class's utter eclipse. Worse still, the Dalit Muslim may not care greatly for Islamic fundamentalism. They may see their religion merely as a charter for moral, spiritual and economic and educational progress. Since they had never gained power through jihad, they never had any reason to think it a good thing.

Imam himself believes, or pretends to believe, that Hindu Dalits would convert to Islam if they did not fear losing Reservations. Why? Because Islam is so nice it has no Arzal caste. But, in that case, there would be no Dalit Muslims. Indeed, this is why Dalits gain no Reservations in Muslim countries.

I personally think Arzal Muslims should receive help. They are smart. They work hard. They will be happy to see their daughters working in big factory dormitories with good facilities. Yes the girls will marry in their twenties. But they will have only one or two kids and those kids will be well educated. No doubt, those kids will do better in life than Iyers. But that's a good thing. Iyers are supposed to be Brahmans begging their bread and performing simple rituals of a spiritual type for a low fee. The true 'Pirzada' too would prefer to be poorer, not richer, than the people it is his hereditary vocation to serve in a moral and spiritual manner.

2) Cow protection is wholly a matter for the States. It is not on the concurrent list. U.P and Bihar will always have it unless the Hindu majority changes its mind. The only way to get rid of it is by taking power away from the States and giving it to the Center. This conflicts directly with

3) shifting the balance of power from the Center to States, in which case the North East can do what Myanmar does to Muslims

4) Proportional Representation would mean
a) no reserved seats
b) the 80 percent Hindu majority would always have a Hindu representative. The 14 per cent Muslims would have Muslim representatives. But they would have no power whatsoever.
c) it would be easy to change the Constitution. That's not a good thing if you belong to a minority.

5) Imam also expresses hatred of the Supreme Court because of the Ayodhya verdict. He understands Muslims can't twist its arm so he sees its power to interpret the Constitution as a barrier to Muslim aspirations. However, the fact is the Supreme Court is often ignored. For example, in Southern States, Muslims do get affirmative action in a manner which violates the Supreme Court's injunction.

Just as Imam's call for the Muslims to 'cut off' the North East would have meant that the Center would have had an excuse for the non Muslim majority of that area- some of whom are descended from warlike tribes- to slaughter every last Muslim with the eager assistance of Bengali Hindus who can easily switch to speaking Assamese and worshipping local Deities- so too are the things he considers discriminatory, actually salutary in the opinion of his own class.

Imam, whose Dad was part of Nitish Kumar's new broom in Bihar, lives in a fantasy world. The type of 'literalism' useful in I.T where codes actually bottom out as 'machine language', is totally misplaced when applied to Indian politics and Constitutional History. Why? Codes are unrelated to 'machine language'. They may appear juristic and protocol bound, but may also be wholly strategic and unconnected with reality.

Imam has hurt everybody he has been associated with- family, University, political party,  Shaheen Bagh, but, most importantly, his type of Indian Muslims whom he has saddled with an 'anti national' tag.

Is JNU's absurd brand of Historiography to blame? Or is there something more fundamental wrong with him?

He and Mujataba write-

Our fight against the state-sponsored hate and violence is not merely based on the Constitution but entirely on its soul.

The problem here is that the soul is the opposite of the body. One is mortal, the other is immortal. Religion may speak of sacrificing the body for the sake of the soul. Islam has one peculiarity. It believes in bodily resurrection. The Jihadi martyr may blow himself up, but his body is reconstituted and gets plenty of virgins in paradise. Perhaps, to Imam, the Indian Constitution suffers from the defect that it does not support Islamic supremacy. No matter. Its soul supports it. Of course, Islam does not attribute a soul to anything save what Allah has created. So this is just a metaphor. But what a strange one it is!

This might appear a little confusing. How can the Constitution differ from the Constitutional spirit. Well, look at the human body, as organic as the Constitution, someone might be differently-abled. Physically one might not be able to walk, but the soul can travel, a soul exists irrespective of the form of the body.

This is bizarre. The Constitution is not 'organic'. It is something man-made. A Constitution which is crippled is one which exists in name alone. A paralytic may have a soul which can travel. But a paralysed polity can't travel anywhere. It is doomed to extinction.

The soul of the Constitution as enshrined in the Preamble is the guiding light.

But the Preamble emphasises the will of the People- only 14 per cent of whom are Muslim. Thanks in part to the antics of Imam & Co, the other 86 % are fraternally resolved not to tolerate Islamic chauvinism. They may be dealt with in accordance with the law. But, that failing, they may simply be killed out of hand. The post-Independence history of South Asia shows that even very tame minorities get short shrift.

The body is mortal and perishable but the soul is time immemorial, same is with the Constitution, the texts might change ( through amendments) but the soul remains the same.

There is a doctrine of 'Basic Structure'. But that is a matter for the Bench alone.

We base our arguments on the spirit of the Constitution and not entirely on the texts. For the same reason, we don’t find articles like 44, 48, 19(2), First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system, putting delimitation outside the purview of judicial review etc coherent with the soul. There is a need for a healthy debate and a paradigm shift in such state policies.

This is illiterate and represents the view of stupid people belonging to a very backward minority. There may well be a 'paradigm shift' in state policy, but it won't be in their favor. Imam wrote the following when he still believed that the Law would treat him as a bona fide politician rather than a dangerous nuisance.

The way forward
In the prevailing times when majoritarianism is trying to overshadow the constitutional spirit, It has become imperative to instil and reinforce the faith of the people on organs of the state. Be it Legislature, Executive or Judiciary, they need to act bonafide. They should try to win the heart of the minority. It’s also a high time for the obdurate Executive to take restorative measures. If they ignore the warning signs, it will be, quote an American slave song- no more water but the fire next time.

Imam said 500,000 Muslims blocking roads could cut off the North East. This wasn't true. The non-Muslim majority will slaughter more Muslims than were killed at Partition in order to preserve the country for themselves. Imam ignored the warning signs. He is now in hot water. But his family and his community face the fire if they let nutters like Imam run amok. Non Muslim institutions educated and nurtured Imam. It may be that JNU thought they were helping Muslims by making a place for this illiterate lunatic. But, the reverse was the case.

The court has given a four week to the government to provide its response. Well, be it four weeks or four months, our fight for the spirit of Constitution will go on.

No it won't. You will be crushed by it.

There would be innumerable Shaheen Baghs.

No. There will be a slaughter of the obdurate minority by a majority which has lost all patience with it.

Each of us would come on the streets with peaceful protests.

But the protests won't stay peaceful because nutters like Imam will start saying 500,000 Muslims can overthrow the tyranny of over a billion non-Muslims who have every reason to loathe Islamist politics.

We will follow all the non-violent ways to make this obdurate government listen to our legitimate concerns.

No you won't. You are too stupid. Seeing a crowd, you will go crazy and start gibbering about Jihad. Then the police will come for you and the Court will sentence you and you will make the discovery that you can indeed be a great political thinker but only in comparison with the rapists and homicidal maniacs with whom you share a jail cell.