BJP MP writes to USCIRF, says Sharjeel in jail for alleged role in Delhi riots, not faith
An MP from the BJP wrote to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom contesting its claim that Sharjeel Imam’s imprisonment is based on his faith. The MP said the cleric is detained for alleged involvement in the Delhi riots, not for religious reasons.

A senior member of the Bharatiya Janata Party sent a formal letter to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) after the commission listed India as a Country of Particular Concern in its 2026 religious‑freedom report. The MP argued that the detention of Sharjeel Imam, a cleric accused of taking part in the Delhi riots of 2020, is based on criminal allegations and not on his religious beliefs. He asked the commission to correct the record and warned that the label could damage India’s diplomatic standing.
The USCIRF, an independent U.S. government body, publishes an annual report that identifies nations where religious freedom is severely restricted. In its 2026 edition, the commission cited a series of incidents, including the arrest of several Muslim leaders, as evidence that India fails to protect the rights of religious minorities. The designation of a Country of Particular Concern triggers calls for policy changes and can influence foreign aid decisions. India has previously rejected similar labels, arguing that its constitutional framework guarantees freedom of religion and that security actions are taken on the basis of law and order.
The exchange matters to Indian readers because it touches on the balance between security measures and civil liberties, a topic that has generated heated debate in courts and parliament. A U.S. label can affect trade negotiations, visa policies and the perception of India’s commitment to pluralism among foreign investors. Observers will be watching whether the Indian government files a formal protest, seeks a review of the report, or adjusts its approach to handling high‑profile cases involving religious figures and public scrutiny.
Comments 0