Leftist rag, The Wire’s senior ‘journalist’ Arfa Khanum Sherwani has come under criticism for what can be described as a contradictory and selective interpretation of secularism and constitutional freedom, following her comments on the inauguration of India’s new Parliament building and her subsequent defence of a religious oath taken by a Muslim political leader in the United States.
During the inauguration of the new Parliament building in May 2023, attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Sherwani expressed strong disapproval of the Hindu rituals performed as part of the ceremony. In a video, she said, “For the last 75 years continuously we have been trying, we have been struggling, that we should be able to make ourselves into a liberal, secular democracy which gives everyone equal freedom and equal rights, gives everyone an equal place. But what was seen today in Parliament, in the name of the new Parliament, in the name of the inauguration of the new Parliament – believe this, not just as a journalist but also as a citizen – it has made me feel ashamed. Today my country did not appear as a democracy. Today my country did not appear as such a society, did not appear as such a country which is run by the Constitution. Today my country has come across as such a society, such a system, which can only and only be compared completely with a monarchy – that too such a monarchy which runs on the basis of religion.”
Cut to the present. Sherwani adopted a markedly different position while commenting on an event in the United States involving Zohran Mamdani, who took oath of office by placing his hand on the Quran after becoming the first Muslim mayor of New York City.
Addressing criticism of that oath, Sherwani said, “In New York, Zohran Mamdani – he became the first such mayor who took oath by placing his hand on the Quran. The first such mayor of New York, the first Muslim mayor. On this, many people are saying: what kind of secularism is this? Why did Zohran Mamdani take oath by placing his hand on the Quran?”
She then defended the act on constitutional grounds, stating, “So the biggest thing is this: the Constitution, whether it is the Constitution of India or it is the Constitution of America, gives permission for this – that all people, according to their faith, according to their religion, according to their belief, can live their lives.”
When Hindu rituals happen in the Indian Parliament, it’s labelled undemocratic
But Zohran’s Quran oath becomes a matter of personal freedom, hypocrisy much? @khanumarfa 🤡 pic.twitter.com/r5jOJcjN4f
— Political Kida (@PoliticalKida) January 3, 2026
The contrasting positions reveal an internal contradiction. The same constitutional logic invoked to justify a Quran-based oath in the United States applies equally to religious customs followed during state ceremonies in India.
While Hindu rituals performed during the inauguration of the Parliament of India were described as evidence of a “religious monarchy,” an explicitly religious oath taken by a Muslim political leader was defended as an expression of constitutional freedom. The constitutional framework was treated as rigid and violated in one case, and flexible and permissive in the other.
This selective application weakens claims of principled secularism. It reflects a clear double standard in evaluating religious expression in public life, casting Hindu practices in India as unconstitutional or regressive, while portraying Islamic religious expression in the West as legitimate, protected, and progressive under the same constitutional logic.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
