The Delhi Police, in its chargesheet filed in the sedition case against JNU Sharjeel Imam, has cited his M.Phil thesis on communal violence during the Partition, books in his possession, and accused him of discriminating between Hindus and Muslims and trying to "draw a wedge between Hindu community by constantly referring to Brahminical conscience".
According to a report in The Indian Express, the chargsheet cites Congress Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor's book, Why I am a Hindu and accuses Imam of using it to put up a "secular" front.
The report states that the over 600-page chargesheet, filed before Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana at Patiala House court, also affixes Imam's speeches during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and chats from a WhatsApp group called Muslim students of JNU.
According to the Delhi Police, "(Imam) is a highly religious bigoted person who completely lacks faith in the Constitution of India and exhibits complete mistrust in it".
About the books in his possession, and particularly Paul R Brass' Forms of Collective violence, Riots, Pogroms, and Genocide in Modern India, the chargesheet states that by "reading only such literature and not researching alternative sources, the accused (Imam) became highly radicalised and religiously bigoted".
According to the police, Imam had come across several such books during his research, which "made (up) his mind that Muslims are oppressed since very long and affirmed his religious bigotry (that) lacks faith in democratic and constitutional values".
As for the WhatsApp chat, the chargsheet, referring to the Shaheen Bagh protests, states that it "goes to establish the mentality that goes at length to cover the communal contours of the agitation". The chat cited, according to the newspaper, reads, "Cool. Shashi Tharoor should come and go as he wishes. Uski kitab ‘why I am a Hindu’ ka bookstall bhi laga date hain phir pakka koi anti-Hindu nahi bolega. Sahi hai na (Let’s display his book as well. Then no one will call the protest anti-Hindu)".
"He through his speeches repeatedly incited the public to commit acts which would jeopardise public tranquillity, attempts to cause disaffection towards the lawfully elected government of the country in the garb of democratically opposing the CAA. His oration and acts are seditious in nature," the chargsheet also goes on to claim, according to the newspaper.