Testing constitutional fidelity of Indian Muslims on Waqf, Home Minister fails at Mischaracterisation of ‘Samvidhanvadi Musalman’ – The Milli Gazette

The recent commentary questioning the integrity of those who raise the slogan "Constitution Bachao" while opposing the Waqf Amendment Bill is a deliberate attempt to muddle constitutional discourse. It is built on a flawed premise—that unwavering allegiance to every law passed by Parliament is the ultimate test of constitutional fidelity. This argument, while rhetorically sharp, collapses under scrutiny and exposes a shallow understanding of what constitutionalism truly entails.
Let us address the fundamental issue: not every law enacted by Parliament is sacrosanct or inherently just. The same Parliament that has passed the Waqf Amendment Bill has also enacted the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)—laws that have been widely criticised for undermining fundamental rights, due process, and the principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution. Opposition to such laws does not equate to rejecting the Constitution; rather, it is an act of upholding its spirit against legislative overreach. To suggest otherwise is to peddle a half-truth, as Home Minister Amit Shah has done in his attempt to portray dissent as hypocrisy.
The Home Minister’s assertion—that opposing a law passed by Parliament is tantamount to opposing the Constitution itself—conveniently sidesteps the fact that the Constitution is not a mere tool for legislative majoritarianism. It is a living document, interpreted and safeguarded by the judiciary, and its essence lies in the principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Parliament’s authority is not absolute; it is circumscribed by these very values. To conflate parliamentary decisions with constitutional sanctity is to reduce constitutionalism to a rubber stamp for legislative power—a dangerous oversimplification that must be challenged.
The term "Samvidhanvadi Musalman," wielded as an insult by critics, is in fact a badge of honour. Far from being a mark of shame, it signifies a commitment to the Constitution as a framework for justice and equality—a commitment that every Muslim, and indeed every Indian, should proudly embrace. To be "Samvidhanvadi" is not to blindly endorse every parliamentary act but to hold the state accountable to the higher ideals of the Constitution. It is a stance rooted in principle, not expediency. Those who mock it reveal their own discomfort with citizens who refuse to be passive spectators in a democracy.
The Waqf Amendment Bill itself deserves scrutiny, not reflexive rejection or blind acceptance. Any law must be measured against the touchstones of justice, fairness, and equity—principles that form the bedrock of our legal system. Does the bill protect the rights of the marginalised? Does it ensure equitable administration of waqf properties? Does it align with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom under Article 25? These are not mere slogans but substantive questions that demand rigorous analysis. To dismiss such inquiry as "double standards" is to stifle the very democratic debate that the Constitution encourages.
In this regard, it is essential to consider Lon L. Fuller's framework of legal morality, as outlined in his seminal work The Morality of Law. Fuller articulated eight principles that define the inner morality of law, ensuring that it is just, coherent, and capable of guiding human conduct effectively. These principles are directly relevant when evaluating legislation such as the Waqf Amendment Bill and other laws that may undermine constitutional values:
Applying Fuller's principles to the Waqf Amendment Bill and similar legislative measures, it is evident that many of these laws fail to meet the moral standards of legality. A truly constitutional approach requires that laws be just, fair, and consistent with the principles of democracy, rather than serving as instruments of majoritarian or state power.
Finally, the dismissive tone of the original critique—its mockery of activists and its smug assertion of exposing "dohray meyaar" (double standards)—reflects a broader trend: the casual undermining of dissent as unprincipled noise. Such superficial constitutionalism, which belittles those who stand for justice, must be confronted at every turn. If we allow this rhetoric to take root, we risk eroding the space for reasoned critique, which is the lifeblood of a vibrant democracy.
In conclusion, the "Samvidhanvadi Musalman" is neither a hypocrite nor a convenient scapegoat for political point-scoring. He is a citizen who dares to demand that the Constitution be more than a slogan—that it be a shield for the oppressed and a sword against injustice. Amit Shah’s words may seek to stigmatise, but they do not define us. Our allegiance is to the Constitution’s soul, not its shadows.
Advocate Sheikh Khurshid Alam is a dedicated legal and education professional committed to social justice and community development based in Kolkata. https://advancingedu.co.in/ Earlier he was with Azim Premji Foundation.

source