Sharjeel Imam’s brother Muzamil Imam has criticised Union Minister Kiren Rijiju for allegedly describing the jailed student activist as a “dimagi Naxal”, arguing that Sharjeel’s remarks about blocking roads during the anti-CAA protests should not be portrayed as a call for Assam’s secession from India.
Muzamil was responding to an X post by Rijiju in which the Union minister shared a video of Sharjeel Imam and described him as a “dimagi Naxal”.
“It is deeply concerning that Union Minister Kiren Rijiju continues to publicly mischaracterise my brother Sharjeel’s speech as a call for the secession of Assam from India,” Muzamil said.
He argued that Sharjeel’s position has consistently been that he was referring to a “chakka jam” or road blockade as a form of protest, and not advocating the cessation or secession of Assam from India.
Muzamil further said the speeches and their legal interpretation remain sub judice, with arguments on framing of charges in FIR 59/2020 currently underway.
“At a particularly crucial stage, when arguments on framing of charges in FIR 59/2020 are underway, such categorical public pronouncements by a senior Union Minister risk prejudicing the atmosphere surrounding an ongoing criminal trial and impinge upon Sharjeel’s right to a fair trial,” he said.
He urged Rijiju to allow the courts to determine the evidence and law rather than “defame” his brother or prejudge the case.
What Is The ‘Dimagi Naxal’ Controversy?
The controversy follows Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day address from the Red Fort on August 15, during which he used the phrase “dimagi Naxal” while speaking about what he described as an ideological threat that remained even as armed Naxalism declined.
Modi warned that people with a Naxal mindset were still looking for opportunities to create violence and unrest and called for them to be identified and isolated.
The phrase, however, has no independent legal definition. Describing someone as a “dimagi Naxal” does not by itself establish that the person belongs to a banned Maoist organisation or has committed an offence.
Who Did Modi Mean?
Modi did not identify specific individuals in his Independence Day speech.
Rijiju subsequently sought to explain whom he believed the Prime Minister was referring to. In an X post, he said the term covered people who, according to his interpretation, support Maoists, reject the Constitution, support separatists and Article 370, or want to sever the “Chicken’s Neck” corridor connecting the Northeast with the rest of India.
It was in this context that Rijiju shared Sharjeel Imam’s video and labelled him a “dimagi Naxal”.
Sharjeel Imam’s Case
Sharjeel Imam, an IIT Bombay graduate and former JNU student activist, has been in custody since January 2020 in connection with cases arising from speeches and protests during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act movement.
In FIR 59/2020, he faces charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including allegations relating to promoting enmity, rioting, conspiracy and terrorism.
The prosecution has alleged that his speeches contributed to the events surrounding the 2020 Delhi violence. Imam has disputed the allegations and has argued that his remarks about a “chakka jam” were about civil protest and road blockades rather than secession.
His case remains pending before the courts.
Fresh Calls Over Prolonged Incarceration
The controversy comes days after more than 100 activists, writers, academics, journalists and filmmakers appealed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant over the prolonged incarceration of Sharjeel Imam and fellow student activist Umar Khalid.
The signatories noted that both have spent nearly six years in custody without the trial beginning and invoked the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which recognised that prolonged incarceration without a reasonable prospect of the trial concluding could justify bail even in cases involving stringent laws such as the UAPA.
The signatories argued that the prolonged pre-trial detention of Imam and Khalid raises questions about the constitutional guarantees of liberty and speedy trial.
They also pointed to the large number of prosecution witnesses listed in the case and urged the Chief Justice to consider the implications of prolonged incarceration without trial.
The latest exchange between Muzamil Imam and Rijiju has therefore brought renewed attention not only to the political use of the term “dimagi Naxal”, but also to the distinction between political characterisations and the judicial determination of allegations against an accused person.
