in conversations surrounding islamophobia in india, those that refute its presence (the hindu right specifically) love to project their acceptance of a.p.j abdul kalam as a sign of their, and by extension, india's secular credentials. it's a proposition that needs to be debunked.

kalam, like every other president of india, was only the nominal head of the state; it's a defining feature of the parliamentary system of governance. true power in such a system is vested in the prime minister and his/her union cabinet.

to add to that, the president of india is not elected by the masses. therefore, kalam's elevation to the post cannot be taken as a sign of the electorate being secular. it's a conclusion you can draw if we were to have a muslim prime minister; we haven't had one in seven decades.

for islamophobes in india, kalam is the archetype of the “ideal and acceptable” muslim. he fits perfectly into their desired pigeonholed framework: a success story from humble origins, a quiet, self-effacing personality and most importantly, not being a devout adherent of islam.

in terms of success, personality and religiosity, every muslim is not kalam. the question is, will you be as accepting of them as well? a few examples: (a) muslim activists and intellectuals who criticize majoritarian bigotry and unapologetically assert their religious identity.

(b) the ordinary pheriwala who derides the bjp and hindutva and took part in an anti-CAA/NRC protest (c) the rebellious and brave kashmiri who protests against the indian state's gross violations. why is it that these folks don't get even a minuscule fraction of that acceptance?

it's because they push the envelope and don't fit in the aforementioned framework. they aren't seen as “ideal” muslims. the bottomline is: (a) islamophobes appropriate kalam for their bigoted agendas and (b) he isn't the litmus test of people's secular credentials.

another point that i must add, since it complements the core idea of this thread. the current president of india, ram nath kovind, is a dalit. again, it's only a case of tokenism. the exception, not the rule. it isn't a sign of dalit emancipation or equitable representation.