On October 21, OpIndia labeled three journalists who weighed in on jailed Sharjeel Imam “Islamo-leftists”. Imam, held without trial under India’s anti-terror law since January 2020, was refused bail on January 5. Read the headline as a sentence. Its subject is a coined word, “Islamo-leftists”, and the sentence never says who that is. OpIndia’s article names three: Mujib Mashal of The New York Times, Asad Ashraf and Rohini Singh of The Wire. By the article’s own account, Mashal objected to ThePrint running a column under a pseudonym, not to anything about Imam. Three people making three points become one body with one intent and a faith’s name on it. The habit it rides is us and them: one member of the other camp stands for all of them, while our side’s own are exceptions. The device is the verdict noun, “anti-India”, a judgment delivered before any trial. The record is plainer. Imam has been jailed since January 2020, more than six years without trial, Article 14 reported. On January 5 the Supreme Court refused him bail under the UAPA, India’s anti-terror law. OpIndia’s own first paragraph calls him “an accused”. This is Essentialization reaching for Threat Assessment: the label makes a category, and “anti-India” makes the category a danger. The target has moved. Imam’s quoted words criticize the Constitution; the headline aims at those who said a prisoner keeps its protections anyway. Article 14 counts 18 people facing terrorism charges in the case, 16 of them Muslim. When the word works, the detention reads as earned and a bail argument reads as a faith’s side. The tell: a faith’s name fused to a politics where a legal right was argued.
