It's common for couples to adopt a female child when they can't have their own biological child all over the world.
>easier to nurture and raise
>they have conception that raising someone's female child is better karma.
>more female child are abandoned
Hindu nationalists surely have an idea of an expansionist state but that's common for every nation on the face of this earth. But notice how it's never about destroying our nation, rather about expansion and development of it.
You won't get it when you reject idea of India.
Muslim population hates current ruling party to the core than even most liberal of them will never acknowledge the good works of this party, and try to insinuate you against them.
But then you want political power from them? This is what democracy is.
Nothing can be anti national for your lot when you all don't think this nation as yours.
Only under shariat can we be treated equally 🥹
"To understand Sharjeel Imam, one must engage with critical theory, political philosophy, metaphysics, and the historical conditions falana dhimaka"
>in short be a brainwashed idiot to support this idiocacy
An article has been circulating in the print media, written by an IPS officer who goes by the name of Ibn-e-Khaldun Bharti, questioning Sharjeel Imam’s politics by branding him anti-secular, Islamist, reductionist, conservative, and everything else that can be deployed to delegitimise a political subject without seriously engaging with his ideas. One cannot help but wonder why the author chooses to conceal his identity behind a pseudonym.
To understand Sharjeel Imam, one must engage with critical theory, political philosophy, metaphysics, and the historical conditions that shape political thought. One cannot reduce his politics to the familiar binaries of secularism and communalism, or expect complex questions of Muslim political identity, representation, and resistance to yield to such convenient categories.
It is particularly disappointing that many academics who understand these complexities choose to remain silent, even as public discourse increasingly turns into an exercise in labelling, vilification, and intellectual simplification.
Sharjeel Imam’s critique of the Constitution, or his questioning of the political order it sustains, does not automatically amount to a rejection of constitutionalism. The Constitution itself provides for its amendment, while democratic politics must retain the space to question existing institutions, arrangements, and constitutional assumptions. A constitutional democracy that cannot accommodate fundamental criticism of its own framework risks reducing dissent to a privilege granted at the convenience of those in power.
His invocation of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal must also be understood within the larger history of Muslim political thought in the subcontinent. They are part of our pre-Partition intellectual and political history, however uncomfortable that history may be. We cannot simply erase them from our historical consciousness because their ideas, political choices, or legacies are contested. To invoke Jinnah is not necessarily to endorse Jinnah, just as engaging with a political thinker does not amount to an uncritical acceptance of everything they believed or represented.
History cannot be understood through selective remembrance, nor can political thought be evaluated through guilt by association. The task is to interrogate, contextualise, and critically engage with these legacies, not to banish them from legitimate discourse.
The easiest thing for political polemicists to do is to call Sharjeel Imam an Islamist, reduce his arguments to a convenient ideological label, and present that label as sufficient justification for his political and social exclusion. In a climate where such labels can have consequences far beyond intellectual debate, this is a particularly dangerous exercise.
Defending Sharjeel Imam does not require agreeing with every argument he has made. It requires defending the right to engage with his ideas seriously, to examine them critically, and to resist the impulse to replace argument with accusation. The question is whether we are willing to confront the complexity of Muslim political thought in India, or whether we would rather consign it to a set of labels that make it easier to condemn than to understand.
#SharjeelImam
Not even one point in the article was surprising. Only thing which surprised me is that such a namak harami is living his ideal jamati life in prison, preaching his insufferable doctrines. In a serious nation sharjeel shouldn't be allowed to breathe.
1/5 Sharjeel Imam has given an interview detailing his Islamist manifesto. Surprisingly, no storm has been kicked up over pronouncements that are so unapologetically anti-liberal, anti-secular, anti-democracy, anti-Constitution—in a word, anti-national.
2/5 He openly calls the Constitution fascist, labels secularism a trap, and denounces democracy as a contrivance to deny Muslims their political rights.
3/5 The piece is a litany of indictments against the liberal class. Imam rejects any difference between liberals and Hindutvadis. In his essentialist worldview, all Hindus are the same, unanimous in denying Muslims political power they claim as a divine right.
4/5 Inadvertently, Sharjeel has recognised something that liberals have been fighting shy of acknowledging: that Hindutva’s idea of India is anchored in the same “overarching nationalist framework”— that Muslims are Indians above all else.
5/5 For more, read this Opinion article by Ibn Khaldun Bharati, who looks at Islam from an Indian perspective:
Sharjeel Imam’s Islamist manifesto will be forgotten. The silence of liberals will not
theprint.in/opinion/sharjeel…
I don't know T of Tamil, but I understood whole Convo.
Glory to the English language, and the fact that our education system is in English, we use all keywords in English.
