News Desk
BHOPAL — At a national meeting of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind in Bhopal, its president, Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani, delivered a pointed critique of India’s judiciary and argued that a failure to protect constitutional rights invites resistance. “If there is oppression, there will be jihad,” he said, framing the line not as a warning of violence but as a moral statement about justice.
Madani, who served in the Rajya Sabha from 2006 to 2012 and remains one of India’s most prominent Muslim leaders, pushed back against what he described as deliberate distortions of a core religious concept. Jihad, he said, “was and will always remain holy,” and is rooted in the struggle “for the good and betterment of others.” He insisted that India’s democratic system obliges Muslims to show loyalty to the Constitution but also places a clear obligation on the state. “Here Muslims show loyalty to the Constitution,” he said. “It is the government’s responsibility to safeguard citizens’ rights, and if the government doesn’t do this, then the government is responsible.”
He accused both the government and the media of twisting a sacred term into a political catchphrase. He pointed to the spread of labels such as “love jihad,” “spit jihad,” and “land jihad,” calling them deliberate misrepresentations. “Jihad was and will always remain holy,” he repeated, saying that religious texts describe it only as a struggle “for the good and betterment of others.” And again he added: “If there is oppression then there will be jihad.”
Madani also offered his assessment of broader public attitudes. “Ten percent of people are supportive, 30 percent are against us, while 60 percent remain silent,” he said. “Explain your issues to them. If these 60 percent people turn against Muslims, then there will be a big danger in the country.”
His criticism of the judiciary was equally direct. “The Supreme Court is entitled to be called ‘Supreme’ only as long as the Constitution is protected there,” he said. “If this does not happen, then it does not deserve to be called supreme even in a non remnant.”
A Reformist Strain in Madani’s Politics
While his Bhopal speech focused on constitutional protections and the meaning of jihad, Madani has repeatedly pushed for reform in Muslim educational institutions. At Jamiat gatherings and in other public settings, he has argued for modernizing madrasa curricula by adding contemporary subjects alongside religious instruction. He has urged Muslim institutions to prepare students for fuller participation in India’s civic and economic life and has maintained that such reforms should strengthen, rather than dilute, Muslim identity within a secular framework.
Those views place him within a family tradition. His grandfather, Husain Ahmad Madani, was a central figure in the independence movement and a leading scholar at Darul Uloom Deoband. He promoted the idea of composite nationalism — the belief that Indians of different faiths share one political community — and was imprisoned by the British in Malta during World War I for anti-colonial activities. His father, Maulana As’ad Madani, served 17 years in the Rajya Sabha and led the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind from 1969 until his death in 2006.
BJP’s Sharp Response
Rameshwar Sharma, a BJP legislator from Madhya Pradesh, replied with fierce criticism, accusing Madani of provoking Muslims and undermining national institutions. “New Jinnahs are emerging in India who are trying to provoke the country’s Muslims,” he said.
His remarks grew harsher. “Will you spread terrorism, kill innocents in India, and expect the Supreme Court to reward you? The Supreme Court will hang you.” He added: “If your children become doctors, the country will salute you. But if they become doctors who throw bombs, they will also be blown up by bombs.”
Sharma accused Madani of encouraging extremism. “People like Madani produce terrorists, jihadists, rapists, and support movements like ‘love jihad, land jihad, thook jihad,’ and then expect the Supreme Court to serve them biryani.” And he concluded with a warning: “Stay within limits. India will not tolerate anti national activities at any cost.”
Two Divergent Voices
The exchange laid bare a stark contrast. Madani’s language leaned on constitutional rights, historical memory, and calls for reform. He warned against the distortion of religious ideas and urged engagement with India’s silent majority.
Sharma’s response cast Madani as a threat, linking dissent with extremism and using imagery of violence rather than dialogue. The two men spoke not only from different political positions but from different traditions of nationalism.
Madani’s lineage reaches back to the freedom struggle. Sharma, born in 1970 to a farming family in Madhya Pradesh, entered politics through the RSS and BJP in the 1990s; his family is not recorded as having participated in the independence movement. His political roots lie in post-independence nationalist politics, not the anti-colonial era.
A Larger Tension
Madani’s remarks, contentious as they were, pointed to an attempt to assert Muslim identity within India’s democratic framework. Sharma’s reply reflected the ruling party’s deep suspicion of minority leadership. Their clash shows two different readings of India: one grounded in constitutional guarantees and a pluralist past, the other shaped by a majoritarian nationalism that views dissent as disloyalty.
The tension between the two; over rights, identity, and the meaning of nationalism, continues to shape India’s political conversation.
