Deliberating Sharjeel Imam’s Arrest Under UAPA and

Sedition: Can Struggle for Justice be Fought with

Preconditions?

As a teacher at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, the political traditions built by

the students’ body of the university over the years, and their struggle to live and defend
those traditions, has given me more than enough of a reason to be a proud teacher. In
their academic and political discourse, the JNU students have always sought to reach
out beyond their immediate concerns to articulate the trials and travails of the
labouring masses who constitute the real India, as indeed of those even beyond India.
Students in universities across India apart, even the Progressive Students’ Movement
in Pakistan had little reservation in proclaiming the JNU Students’ Movement as their
role model, in as much as it inspired them to fight for securing their rights from their
own rulers. It is difficult to remember if the India’s ruling classes ever commanded
such adoration from across the border.
The cagey attitude and bland formalism that has characterised the opposition of the
larger JNU community to the arrest of Sharjeel Imam, a PhD scholar at the Centre for
Historical Studies of the university, under the draconian UAPA and Sedition laws, for
delivering a speech that has been deemed as reeking of conspiracy to undermine the
unity and integrity of India, stands out in stark contrast to the above accomplishments
of JNU students. In fact, the silence that exists on the campus around the issue is
deafening and filled with disquiet.
In a statement issued on the 29th of January, 2020, while expressing its “strong
disagreement with his statements and political opinions” JNUSU condemned the
witch hunt of Sharjeel and his family, stood “in defence for the right of Sharjeel to a
fair inquiry” and demanded “all draconian acts of UAPA and sedition such as that
have been imposed on Sharjeel be revoked.” They however, felt short of asking for his
immediate release.
Unlike the belligerent invocation of ‘goli maaro sa…… ko’ by BJP leaders during
electioneering for Delhi assembly elections, which was diligently followed by the
Hindutva zealots resulting in a couple of incidents of firing on protesters in Jamia and
Shaheen Bagh, Sharjeel’s speech neither exhorted or instigated anyone for committing
any violence, nor did it lead to any manifest violence. That even if the political views
expressed in the speech are to the disagreement of a majority of Indians, this in itself
cannot constitute a crime. Indeed, while eminently expressing his disagreement with
Sharjeel Imam’s political views, in an article published in ‘Firstpost’, Justice (retd.) of
the Supreme Court of India, Markandey Katju cites case law to assert that “……… I am
of the opinion that Sharjeel Imam committed no crime and the FIRs against him
deserve to be quashed by the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution or
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)” (Katju, 2020). It is in this
context that JNUSU’s “defence for the right of Sharjeel to a fair inquiry” without

1
demanding his immediate release and quashing of all FIRs against him, appears rather
condescending.
Whatever effort, in terms of organizing any protest on this issue on campus, that has
been mustered, owes to the efforts of JNU Students Defence Committee for Sharjeel
Imam, who approached various teachers, students and especially the JNU Students
Union (JNUSU) for taking lead in this matter. After much delay, and persistent
appeals, the JNUSU gave a call for a post-dinner protest march on the campus on 12
February, 2020; however, the march was cancelled due to “unavoidable
circumstances” at the last moment by circulating a WhatsApp message. It was stated
– “JNUSU will take up the issue of NRC, CAA, NPR and the witch hunting of political
voices of dissent by building larger solidarity across campuses and give an
immediate call shortly.” However, the same evening around 300 to 400 students took
out a protest march under the banner of the Defence Committee.
JNUSU gave two subsequent calls, including one to the Parliament, to oppose CAA-
NRC-NPA and the political witch-hunt of various political activists incarcerated for
their role in the protests against CAA-NRC-NPR. Let alone ‘building larger solidarity
across campuses’ against ‘witch hunting of political voices of dissent,’ lack of
preparation and campaigning for these protests led to participation of no more than
between 20 to 30 students. Nonetheless, the formality of a protest had been registered,
even if it utterly lacked sincerity of purpose.
This only conveys lack of conviction in the cause. What is far more disconcerting is the
subtext to what is apparent on the surface, especially for those who claim to uphold
Left liberal values and profess to aspire for a truly secular and democratic India. In a
personal conversation with the author, a PhD scholar of the School of Social Sciences,
who happens to be a Muslim, told:
“Comrade, the dividing line on the campus between being secular and not
being secular is rather thin if you happen to be a Muslim. So long as we are
willing to be part of things in general and in the manner in which social and
political discourse is conducted on this campus, we qualify to be considered
secular; but if we wish to discuss or talk of our experience as Muslims in our
own idiom, then we become suspect.”
Another student, who is active in the Defence Committee for Sharjeel Imam, told:
“The Left parties on the campus actually try to commandeer our support by
scaring us of ABVP (Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad). They do not
actually care for what we face otherwise. The JNUSU cancelled their march
at the last moment, but did not even consider it important to take us into
confidence regarding this.”
That these feelings and sentiments exist despite JNU’s prized ethos of a progressive
and democratic politics, is an issue that we as teachers and students of JNU would be
ill-advised to brush aside.

2
Even those from the Liberal Left who have opposed Sharjeel’s incarceration have not
only made it a point to express their disagreement with the content of Sharjeel’s
imputed speech, which could be perfectly understandable, but have almost made the
repudiation of Sharjeel’s political views a precondition to lending their support for his
release. Worse still, even as investigation in the matter is ongoing, there are others who
have declared Sharjeel guilty before trial, purely on the basis of his speech. Some
former students of ‘Centre for Historical Studies’, JNU issued a statement dated 25
January, 2020, (as accessed from the Facebook wall of an officer of the Indian Police
Service, Najmul Hoda, a JNU aluminous. Available from
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158247263337841&id=510087840
.), which condemned Sharjeel for his “divisive statement” and that “this person’s
attempt to misuse the anti-CAA protest – a democratic one at the core – to push a
divisive agenda.” The statement attracted comments on the group like – “Without any
delay he must be arrested and put behind the bar and strict punishment should be
given.” Indeed, the political activists of the Left parties in JNU have been articulating
in personal and group conversations that they do not want Sharjeel to become the face
of their opposition to criminalization of political dissent.
The problem with such attitude is that it conflates two distinct issues into one –
‘opposing patently unjust arrest and incarceration of Sharjeel Imam’ and ‘the
disagreement with his political ideological orientation.’ Additionally, this betrays a
very insecure sense of ‘Indian Nationalism’, of at least some, which suffers from a
morbid fear of wilting even in the remotest heat of any political dissent. Needless to
say, such attitudes forebode well neither for the development of a vibrant democratic
polity nor for developing a more grounded and confident sense of Nationalism among
Indians.
Political and ideological orientation, howsoever flawed, must only be countered in the
realm of politics through ideological contestation, for it is only such contestation that
offers the best guarantee of rectification or maturation of political ideas in the society.
Short thrifting such a process by criminalizing dissent, besides throttling the very spirit
of democracy and the right to freedom of expression, deprives the society of its
corrective influence; or for worse, it could drive dissent underground for it to blowback
with far more devastating consequences.
Peoples’ psyche is moulded by the material conditions of their society. Even in the
worst-case scenario it would make far greater sense to question the societal conditions
fomenting dissent, than to castigate the victims of such conditions. Sharjeel was no one
of prominence, and possibly would have remained so were his speech not of expedience
to BJP on the eve of Delhi assembly elections. Consider in contrast, the statements of
those occupying high constitutional office which have manifestly led to rancour, social
discord and loss of precious human lives. As per established law, unless it incites or
produces imminent lawless action, even an inflammatory speech is also protected by
the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution (Katju,
2020). As such, Sharjeel Imam’s arrest is patently unjust, and does not stand scrutiny
on legal, ethical and moral grounds, even though there could be much to disagree with
in his political views.

3
We still need to unburden ourselves of the reasons for conceited behaviour of the
mainstream Left liberal intelligentsia, at least the dominant sections of it.
The communal partition of the country into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India in 1947
has meant that ‘Constitutional Secularism’ in India has always operated within the
rubric of Hindu majoritarianism; only that it was not proclaimed as such until the
present rulers ascended the ‘Gaddi’ in New Delhi. This need not be read as my inference
alone in as much as a luminary like Maulana Azad, whose opposition to India’s
partition was absolute, remarks in his book ‘India wins freedom’ that - “Partition would
be unadulterated Hindu Raj” (Naqvi, 2018). Given the situation, the mainstream Left
ought to have persevered to push the boundaries of the system to deepen democracy,
broaden the rights of the people, and forthrightly stand both in words and in deeds to
defend people of oppressed identities. Without entering into the larger polemics of
their politics over here, it need be said that in their bid to adapt to the need for power
sharing within the preordained boundaries of the system, the mainstream Left has
increasingly succeeded in becoming more of the rest.
If one were to summarize this by way of an example, it need be stressed that the answer
to the challenge “Pakistan murdabad bologe” (will you call for death to Pakistan)
cannot be “Nathuram Godse murdabad bologe” (will you call for death to Nathuram
Godse – Gandhiji’s assassin), as was indeed said by former JNUSU president Kanhaiya
Kumar in a television debate with BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra. The
answer has to be – Why not Zindabad for both India and Pakistan? The patriotism of
Pakistani students does not get blemished just because they regard JNU students as
their role model to win their rights from their own rulers. Likewise, our bid to
command respect of the Pakistani people by bestowing respect upon them can only
make our patriotism sparkle. But, doing this requires courage of conviction. This is
exactly what was displayed by nineteen-year-old Amulya Leona Noronha at a rally in
Bangalore on February 21, when she chanted from the stage ‘Hindustan Zindabad’
soon after saying ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ to show that all nations are one (Johnson, 2020).
Unlike Sharjeel Imam, the author has abiding conviction in the emancipatory role of
Marxist-Leninist ideology, and would contest Sharjeel’s political positions, but strictly
in the realm of politics. However, demanding unconditional release of Sharjeel Imam,
as indeed other political dissenters – Akhil Gogoi, Bittu Sonowal, Dhaijya Konwar,
Fareeda Begum, Kafeel Khan, Kris Chudawala, Nazmunissa, Munni Bano and others,
arrested in the wake of anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protests in the country, is an eminently
just cause, especially as imposition of UAPA and Sedition threatens to destroy these
young and promising lives. We all need be reminded that fight for justice can hardly be
fought with preconditions, let alone be won. The author takes his que from the women
of Shaheen Bagh, who have proved to be miles ahead of the weightiest scholars and
political elite of the country and have transcended our society from a state of hopeless
desperation to a state of combative hope.

References:
• Katju M (2020): ‘Ex-JNU student Sharjeel Imam remarks do not constitute a crime
and FIRs must be quashed, writes Markandey Katju.’ Firstpost, 27 January.

4
 Available from https://www.firstpost.com/india/jnu-student-sharjeel-imam-
remarks-do-not-constitute-a-crime-and-firs-must-be-quashed-writes-markandey-
katju-7960721.html on 21 February, 2020.

• Naqvi Saeed (2018): ‘The lesser known Maulana who sought ‘United India’ to the
bitter end’, Sabrang India, 13 November. Available from
https://www.sabrangindia.in/article/lesser-known-maulana-who-sought-united-
india-bitter-end on 22 February, 2020.

• Johnson T A (2020): ‘19-year-old, who raised slogans at rally, charged with

sedition, sent to jail’, The Indian Express, 22 February. Available from
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/amulya-leona-noronha-pr-pakistan-
slogans-bengaluru-rally-sedition-case-jail-6280450/ on 22 Febrary, 2020.