Kunwar Narayan

Even Israel has parties led by Muslims. It has won seats 17 seats in this election. In India the moment when anyone talks about Muslim parties, left-liberals and a section of Muslims starts branding them as communal. This is how they have been keeping Muslims weak politically

The Indian Army gave Modi govt a severe-dressing down!! 🔥 The "Agniveer Recruitments" weakened the Indian Army to such an extent we can't even imagine. > No one is ready to marry his daughter to Agniveers because of the elimination of pension scheme and short service span. > The Indian govt is compromising India's security. > Well trained Agniveers are being released when they are fully prepared to defend India. > And the most significant concern is that, currently almost all of India's neighboring countries are hostile towards it. Yet we are being forced to discharge well-trained Agniveer soldiers who are highly skilled in combat operations within regions like Kashmir and the North East's valley areas. Then how are we to deal with these hostile nations?

How many BJP leaders can give this assurance

The majoritarian or hindu liberal mindset is simple: Muslims are acceptable when they remain grateful, obedient, and politically harmless. The moment they demand equality on their own terms, the same people start lecturing them about nationalism, secularism, and loyalty.

We should be thankful to The Quint for publishing Sharjeel Imam's interview. It brings to light a view that a section of the Muslim community holds under the garb of rights. Sharjeel's thought robs pre-independence Muslim groups of the guilt of partition, as he squarely blames the Congress leadership for the subcontinent's partition. I do not see Sharjeel as a terrorist, but rather as a person who has no faith in India's Constitution, its liberal values, its pre-Islamic civilisational past, Hindu philosophy, and, most importantly of all, its democratic structure. His comparative analysis of rights is blind when it comes to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Maldives. He imagines Muslims in South Asia as a unified community but does not accord the same status to Hindus. He derives his method from Marxist thought and his working philosophy from Islam. In fact, he goes on to argue that only Muslims had a sense of "us" in South Asia. He excludes Islam's contact with Western modernity and its inability to respond to it from a non-religious perspective. In the name of empowerment, he puts forward the idea that two states exist within India: a Hindu upper-caste state at the top, and another occupied by Muslims, Dalits, and other religious denominations at the bottom. He builds this fallacy by drawing ideas from Sayyid Qutb, a leading literary critic who was one of the foundational ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharjeel is an Islamist opposed to the very democratic idea of India and its civilisational past. I am not bothered by his reverence for Jinnah, Ali Shariati, or Iqbal—that hardly affects me. What bothers me is that his ideas have been left unattended academically. The debate around his bail is another matter. The real debate centers on what Sharjeel proposes. He proposes another mobilisation of Muslims in India, which aligns with the same language used by the Muslim League before partition. It is full of disdain for other communities. His proposed alliance with Dalits, Tribals, and other religious minorities is envisioned as a path towards monotheism. He finds redemption in this ideological path rather than in what the Constitution, the civilisation, and the state stand for today. This is deeply disturbing. His idea of representation in elected bodies that accounts purely for numbers is an argument borrowed directly from the Muslim League. Furthermore, Hinduism in India has continuously evolved through various internal reform movements that have left the Muslim community largely untouched—questions that have been completely left unattended by him. Most importantly, he confuses backwardness with the specific historical practice of untouchability. It is for this reason that quota extensions in the Central List have not been blindly given to other communities at large. Lastly, it is no surprise that both Islamists like Sharjeel and the Indian Right blame the Congress for partition. This ideological congruence needs to be studied further. Subsequently, Sharjeel's denial of Bharat's civilisational past, alongside his view of India as merely a product of partition, closely mirrors the rhetoric of certain Congress leaders who define India strictly as a "Union of States." This, too, requires a rigorous academic response.

Sharjeel Imam is challenging India’s dominant narratives of cheap nationalism, discriminatory secularism, and Muslim political identity from behind bars. We remain silent outside, fearing our liberal friends might label us extremists, Islamists, or Jinnah supporters.

India’s Secular constitution allows, facilitates and in fact rewards Hindus to establish a Hindu Rashtra by actively subverting the Constitution itself. It however doesn’t allow even an incarcerated Muslim political prisoner to point out this glaringly obvious truth. This seems to be lost on pagan India’s elite (and wannabe liberals) intelligentsia who are hopping mad at Sharjeel’s audacity which threatens to blow the fascist mask off the carefully constructed image of “world’s largest democracy”. The meltdown is so delicious.

If India were to cut down all its forests and extract every mineral beneath its land, it still would not be able to build an economy larger than China’s economy. Look at @TataSteelLtd. Even after operating for 119 years, it is still much smaller than @Starbucks. Tata Steel generates around $27 billion in annual revenue, while Starbucks generates around $37 billion. India must look beyond natural resources. The solution to building a bigger economy lies elsewhere, not in extracting minerals.

Starlink has an Indian license, 20 ground stations on Indian soil, and a promise to keep Indian user data in India. What it doesn't have is permission to switch on. Thousands of Indian villages still have no 4G. In the Northeast alone, more than 1,800 had no mobile signal of any kind as of February, most of them in Arunachal Pradesh. These are the places satellite internet is built for: mountain villages, islands, flood zones, anywhere a tower or a fiber line takes years and a lot of money to arrive. Starlink has done what India asked. It got its telecom license in June 2025 and space regulator approval a month later. It built India-specific security controls, agreed to keep data local, and has been reporting the names, addresses and coordinates of its test terminals to the government every two weeks. It operates in more than 150 countries. In India it still can't sell a single subscription, and the company is now talking about early 2027. New Delhi says nobody is being singled out, since Eutelsat OneWeb and Jio's satellite venture are stuck at the same stage. I believe that, and I don't think it helps. When three licensed operators, two of them backed by India's biggest telecom groups, can't clear security review after more than a year of trials, that tells you the process has no deadline. It doesn't tell you it's thorough. The security concerns are real. Indian agencies have been rattled by smuggled terminals turning up in border areas, and India is entitled to lawful interception, local data storage and an emergency shutoff. Starlink has already signed up for all of it. The answer to a misused terminal is enforcement, not keeping the service dark for everyone who would use it legally. Elon Musk has been blunt, calling the delay "a crime against the people of India" and asking, "Is Ambani the real boss of India?" You don't need to buy the whole oligarch theory to see his point. Reliance spent months lobbying for spectrum auctions that would have favored deep-pocketed incumbents. The government sided with Starlink on that one, which is to its credit. Now it needs to finish the job. India can keep every security power it wants and still let a kid in Arunachal get online. Right now it's choosing not to.

How is it that in a country where unemployment is the top political issue, every employer complains they can’t find people even for the most basic roles?