top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 8:56:24 pm

‘Save Sharia’ campaign feeds Hindutva politics

Mumbai: Prominent Muslims and others have slammed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s ‘Save India, Save Sharia’ nationwide campaign, alleging that it could deepen polarization while willy-nilly supporting the very forces the AIMPLB claims to oppose. Launched on Sep. 17 – coinciding with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 76th birthday – the AIMPLB’s 3-month-long campaign is aimed at mobilizing public opinion around protecting the Constitutional rights, preserving the Muslim Personal Law...

‘Save Sharia’ campaign feeds Hindutva politics

Mumbai: Prominent Muslims and others have slammed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s ‘Save India, Save Sharia’ nationwide campaign, alleging that it could deepen polarization while willy-nilly supporting the very forces the AIMPLB claims to oppose. Launched on Sep. 17 – coinciding with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 76th birthday – the AIMPLB’s 3-month-long campaign is aimed at mobilizing public opinion around protecting the Constitutional rights, preserving the Muslim Personal Law within the framework of safeguarding India’s pluralistic and democratic character. The AIMPLB leaders said they are soliciting support of people, intellectuals, activists, social and religious organisations who value justice, democracy, peace and the Constitution, to strengthen constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, justice and equality, religious freedom, social harmony and national unity. Around 100 progressive Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals, activists, organisations and supporters have warned that what the AIMPLB presents as a defence of constitutional rights, religious freedom and Muslim identity "could deepen divisions, and may provide political ammunition to right-wing forces". The progressive have accused AIMPLB of selectively invoking Art. 25-30 of the Constitution related to Religious Freedom, while ignoring that these rights are explicitly subject to public order, morality, and health. Moreover, they conveniently bypass Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit sex or religion-based discrimination. “Following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections where civil society and opposition parties rallied under 'Save the Constitution', the AIMPLB's campaign inadvertently gave the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Sangh Parivar a platform to posture as defenders of constitutional norms. Ahead of crucial state assembly elections, this campaign reinforces false narratives and fuels propaganda that Indian Muslims reject the law of the land,” said the intellectuals. They pointed out how the so-called ‘God-given Shariat Law’ in India is nothing but man-made personal laws and ‘male interpreted patriarchal interpretations’, defended by the AIMPLB. In its September 2016 Supreme Court affidavit in the Triple Talaq case (Sayara Bano v/s. Union of India), the AIMPLB’s affidavit claimed divorce rights belong primarily to husbands because men allegedly possess ‘greater power of decision-making’ and ‘control emotions’. It even argued that without a quick separation option, a husband ‘may resort to illegal, criminal ways of murdering or burning her alive’ - a disturbing rationalization of domestic violence. Claiming these laws are divine, the AIMPLB admitted that “India is a patriarchal society, and therefore personal laws of all communities are aligned with the patriarchal notion...” The progressives countered that Muslim-majority nations globally including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tunisia and Morocco have codified and reformed personal laws to protect women's rights. “Millions of Muslims live in secular democratic nations with uniform family codes without putting ‘Islam in danger’. The Muslim community’s current legal predicament in India is the direct result of the AIMPLB and conservative leaders failing to proactively reform and codify Muslim Personal Law,” said the progressives sharply. They said that genuine family law reform must guarantee Muslim women equal rights regarding minimum marriage age, abolition of polygamy, mutual divorce, equal inheritance, child custody, adoption, and a ban on female genital mutilation and halala. While secular political parties rarely support the rights of Muslim women, the BJP and the Hindu Right wing do so with an obvious motive: ‘communal polarization’, said the progressives. “The sangh parivar sheds crocodile tears for Muslim women while ignoring relentless hate speech (Love Jihad, Land Jihad…) and hate crimes like mob lynching, bulldozing homes, demolishing mosques or economic boycotts, with chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ to intimidate and strike fear. This accompanies state actions targeting Muslims: Waqf Amendment Act, draconian anti-conversion laws, and a weaponised SIR (Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls) to disenfranchise vast sections of the electorate,” they averred. The progressives have sought the active involvement of all enlightened forces, civil society organisations and secular political parties to ensure that the demand for a gender-just, religion-neutral Uniform Civil Code is rooted in equality and human rights, rather than weaponized for communal division. Among the signatories to the appeal are: Naseeruddin Shah, Amol Palekar, Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Anand Patwardhan, Sultan Shaheen, Teesta Setalvad, Ram Puniyani, Tushar Gandhi, Mallika Sarabhai, Ratna Pathak, Feroze Mithiborwala, Anita Cheria, Zakia Soman, Jyothi Yedulla, Noorjehan S. Niaz, Madhu Bhaduri, et al.

The Wrong Target

Jul 16, 2025
3 min read

By threatening India with secondary sanctions over its ties with Russia, the West exposes its double standards and risks alienating one of its few true democratic partners in Asia.

Mark Rutte
Mark Rutte

It is a curious spectacle when the world’s strongest democracy lectures the world’s largest on strategic morality. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent warning that India (along with Brazil and China) could be hit “very hard” by secondary sanctions if it continues doing business with Russia reeks of a familiar condescension. Coming hot on the heels of President Donald Trump’s announcement of a new 50-day deadline for a Ukraine peace deal, with tariffs of up to 100 percent hanging over Russian trade partners, the message was toe the Western line.

 

For India, the implied threat is galling. For decades, it has walked a careful tightrope between East and West, rooted not in opportunism but in a principled pursuit of strategic autonomy. That Delhi imports Russian oil is no secret; it does so not to bankroll Vladimir Putin’s war machine, but to protect its own economic interests in an inflation-prone, energy-starved developing economy. Moreover, unlike China, India is no revisionist power. It has neither enabled Russia militarily nor undermined the Western sanctions regime. If anything, India has emerged as a rare voice that can speak with both Moscow and Washington and be heard across the world.

 

The irony, of course, is that America and NATO now choose to single out India while continuing to mollycoddle Pakistan - China’s closest ally in the region, a nuclear-armed state with a military-dominated polity, and a long-standing haven for terror groups. For years, successive U.S. administrations have poured billions into Pakistan’s military establishment in the name of counterterrorism only to watch its generals shelter the Taliban, enable cross-border terrorism in India (as in the recent Pahalgam massacre) and deepen defence cooperation with Beijing.

 

In contrast, India has stood by the West on every fundamental value – be it democracy, rule of law, open markets and yet faces threats of punitive tariffs. If the West wants to preserve the global order it claims to defend, it would do well to treat India as a partner, not a subordinate.

 

The notion that New Delhi can simply be strong-armed into severing ties with Moscow reveals a deeper, post-Cold War Western anxiety.

 

India has legitimate defence needs that cannot yet be met by Western suppliers alone. Around 60–70 percent of India’s military hardware is still of Russian origin - an inheritance from Cold War alignments born out of necessity, when the West chose Pakistan over India. And despite all the talk of de-risking from authoritarian supply chains, India has yet to see the kind of strategic technology transfers or manufacturing partnerships from the West that would enable a full pivot.

 

This is not to suggest that India is indifferent to the Ukraine war. It has called repeatedly for diplomacy, refrained from recognising Russia’s annexations, and provided humanitarian assistance to Kyiv. But Delhi’s neutrality is not an endorsement of Russian aggression.


Trump’s new 50-day ultimatum, accompanied by Rutte’s cheerleading, will likely fall flat in South Block. Not because India supports Russia, but because it sees through the US’ hypocrisy.


NATO nations continue to import Russian gas by proxy; European firms quietly circumvent sanctions through third countries. The same West that demands India sacrifice its economic security did not flinch when arming autocracies in West Asia or coddling China until it was too late.

 

If the Western alliance believes that coercive diplomacy will bring India into line, it is badly mistaken. Far from isolating Russia, it risks pushing India away into a more assertive non-alignment, one that resists bullying from either pole. And that would be a strategic loss for the West.

 

For the world’s liberal democracies to prevail against authoritarianism, unity must be forged through trust, not tariffs. The sooner NATO realises this, the better. Because if it alienates India today, it will find itself dangerously alone tomorrow.

Comments


bottom of page