Far from empowering Muslims, Akbaruddin’s rhetoric is downright foolish.

In the complex and often combustible landscape of Indian politics, few figures have stirred as much controversy as Akbaruddin Owaisi—the younger brother of Asaduddin Owaisi, head of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a Muslim-centric political party with influence in southern and parts of northern India.

Akbaruddin became a national—and international—talking point in 2012 when a provocative excerpt from one of his public speeches in Nirmal, Telangana, went viral. In the clip, he is seen declaring: “If the police are removed for 15 minutes, we are 250 million and you are 1 billion. We will show you who is more powerful, who has balls.”

The statement was a blatant threat wrapped in communal arithmetic, referencing the Muslim and Hindu populations of India. The crowd erupted in applause. Shortly afterward, Owaisi was arrested on charges of hate speech, released on bail, and ultimately acquitted in 2022.

But revisiting this case solely as a legal episode misses the point. It is a revealing lens into the enduring toxicity of communal rhetoric in Indian politics—particularly within some segments of the Muslim leadership—where hate is no longer an outlier but a weaponized tool, used across the spectrum to polarize and provoke.

Hate Speech Is Not a One-Way Street

Akbaruddin’s speech stands as one of the clearest examples of hate speech by a Muslim politician in India. It was not vague or symbolic rhetoric aimed at resisting “Muslim oppression,” but a direct provocation against an entire (albeit imaginary) community—articulated through communal arithmetic: 25 crore versus 100 crore.

Ironically, the speech played right into the hands of those it ostensibly opposed. It gave the Hindu Right a moral and political tool: “If Muslim leaders can openly threaten us, why shouldn’t we respond in kind?” In that sense, Owaisi’s speech, like many instances where the idea of Muslim empowerment morphs into rabid communalism, deepened the communal fissures that the ruling dispensation now capitalizes on with its own stream of hate speeches.

Yet, here lies a deeper hypocrisy within sections of the Indian Muslim community. Many Muslims, in private conversations, while disagreeing with AIMIM’s political opportunism, tend to justify Akbaruddin’s words as a symbolic show of resistance—an assertion that “we will not take oppression lying down.” But symbolic resistance through hate speech is a double-edged sword. It only reinforces existing suspicions and increases hostility.

The Dangerous Myth of Communal Arithmetic

The core of Akbaruddin’s speech rests on a fundamentally flawed idea: that Muslims are a monolithic, homogeneous bloc of 25–30 crore standing against 100 crore Hindus.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Muslim community in India is deeply diverse and internally fractured—across sects, castes, regions, and languages.

Sunni–Shia, Deobandi–Barelvi, and Ashraf–Ajlaf–Arzal divisions are an open secret. The imagined “25 crore Muslims” myth collapses the moment these internal differences are acknowledged—which, in the age of Hindutva, seems conveniently forgotten.

Likewise, the notion of “100 crore Hindus” is equally imaginary. Caste, regional, and linguistic divides among Hindus remain sharp and visible, only temporarily papered over by the Hindutva project. Communalism gives life to these mythical numbers because communal politics thrives on binaries—usually imaginary, always forced.

When Akbaruddin says “15 minutes without police,” he frames the state—particularly the police—as the central oppressor during pogroms. There is some truth to this. The history of riots, from Nellie (1983) to Delhi (2020), shows police complicity or selective inaction. But his imagined scenario is suicidal. If the police disappear and the battle is framed as 30 crore versus 100 crore, it effectively calls for Muslims to engage in self-annihilation.

Three Hindus for every one Muslim—Owaisi’s way of calling for suicide reminds one of the now-famous meme: “Marwana ka tareeqa thoda casual hai.”

Far from empowering Muslims, Akbaruddin’s rhetoric is downright foolish.

The Responsibility to Condemn Across the Board

Akbaruddin Owaisi has made many such remarks, including derogatory statements about Hindu gods—calling them “manhoos” (inauspicious). Imagine if any Hindu politician had used even mildly similar language for Allah or the Prophet—the reaction from Muslims and the media would have been explosive. This asymmetry in moral outrage is dangerous.

It is also telling that his elder brother, Asaduddin Owaisi—otherwise vocal in dissecting Hindu right-wing hate speech—has never meaningfully condemned his brother’s 2012 remarks. This selective silence undermines the moral standing of anyone claiming to fight hate.

If Muslims wish to oppose Hindutva hate speech with credibility, they must also hold their own leaders accountable. Tacit approval or silence emboldens hate-mongers from within, leaving ordinary Muslims to face the consequences of fires lit by their ‘leaders.’

Communalism Is a Two-Edged Sword

The truth is stark: speeches like Akbaruddin Owaisi’s do not protect Muslims. They further communalize Hindus, provide ammunition to the ruling party, and push India’s already fragile social fabric closer to collapse.

Muslims must therefore develop a politics rooted not in reaction, but in principled opposition to all forms of hate. That essentially means condemning both Hindu and Muslim hate speech—without excuses, without bias.

The flames of hate consume the weakest first. Those who light them rarely burn. Let us never forget: hate can never be fought with hate.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Minister of Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju introduced the bill rooted with history, practicality, and the realities faced by Pasmanda community.

On April 2, 2025, the Lok Sabha bore witness to a remarkable display of democratic resilience and legislative fortitude as the Government of India successfully passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, after a marathon 12-hour debate. This historic achievement is not merely a legislative victory but a testament to the strength of India’s democratic institutions, the meticulous process undertaken by the government, and the unwavering unity of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

The journey of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has been one of deliberation and inclusivity. Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the issue, the government wisely referred the bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for thorough scrutiny. The JPC, chaired by Shri Jagdambika Pal and comprising members from across the political spectrum, conducted extensive consultations, gathering inputs from stakeholders, experts, and civil society. Even the All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaaz had the opportunity to present its suggestions and objections.

This process ensured that the legislation was not rushed but refined through a rigorous examination, addressing concerns while strengthening its framework. The successful passage of the bill in the Lok Sabha—by a decisive margin of 288 votes in favor to 232 against—reflects the confidence that the NDA coalition reposed in the government’s vision and the robustness of the JPC’s efforts. The debate was marked by intense exchanges, with the government defending the bill as a measure to improve Waqf property management, while the opposition criticized it as unconstitutional and anti-minority.

Minister of Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju introduced the bill rooted with history, practicality, and the realities faced by Pasmanda community. Waqf properties were originally meant for the welfare of the underprivileged, yet they have rarely served their intended purpose. Instead, over the years, they have become a playground for politicians, Waqf Board officials, and Mutawallis (caretakers), who have manipulated these assets for personal gains. The rampant corruption and mismanagement of Waqf properties have led the government to intervene and introduce amendments.

While many Muslim leaders and organizations are vehemently opposing the bill, All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaaz considered it essential to acknowledge the dire need for reforms. Waqf properties hold vast potential to uplift marginalized Muslim communities, particularly the Pasmanda Muslims, who form the majority but have historicaly been neglected. Unfortunately, these properties have been plagued by corruption, illegal encroachments, and poor administration. AIPMM actively participated in the JPC meetings on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, offering a series of constructive suggestions to enhance the legislation. The Ministry of Minority Affairs, recognizing the merit of AIPMM’s inputs, accepted several key recommendations, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity and efficiency in Waqf management.

These include the introduction of a “Waqf by User” provision to safeguard existing Waqf properties, the establishment of an appellate system within Waqf Tribunals to ensure fair dispute resolution, and measures for the efficient management and maintenance of Waqf records to promote transparency. Additionally, the ministry embraced AIPMM’s call for regular audits of revenue from rent, lease, and sub-lease to curb financial mismanagement, alongside the inclusion of Pasmanda Muslims and women in the management of Waqf Boards, ensuring diverse representation and addressing long-standing demands for equity within the community. This collaboration between AIPMM and the government underscores a progressive step toward reforming Waqf administration in India.

The Opposition’s Rhetoric and Fear-Mongering

One of the biggest issues with the current discourse surrounding the bill is the irresponsible approach of the opposition and certain Muslim organizations. Instead of constructively engaging with the government to suggest practical improvements, they are using the bill as a tool to incite fear and insecurity among common Muslims.

The rhetoric surrounding the bill is focused more on accusing the government of anti-Muslim motives rather than addressing the real issues plaguing Waqf institutions. If these organizations had properly managed the Waqf system over the years, there would have been no need for government intervention in the first place.

By spreading propaganda and half-truths, these groups are attempting to politically mobilize Muslims rather than ensuring genuine reforms. Pasmanda Muslims, who have historically been denied the benefits of Waqf, must not fall prey to these misleading narratives. Instead, we must demand concrete improvements that will truly help our community.

The blind opposition by certain Muslim leaders will only serve political interests rather than benefiting the community. It is time for Pasmanda Muslims to take charge of the narrative and demand reforms that genuinely serve the underprivileged.

Pasmanda Muslims, who have been historically sidelined, must not allow themselves to be used as pawns in political battles. Instead, we should advocate for meaningful reforms, ensuring that Waqf properties are managed efficiently, transparently, and justly. This is a crucial opportunity to hold the system accountable and demand a fair share of Waqf benefits for the most disadvantaged members of our community.

The opposition and certain Muslim organizations must also reflect on their own failures in managing Waqf properties before blaming the government. Instead of spreading fear and misinformation, they should work towards ensuring better governance and accountability within the Waqf system.

During the marathon debate on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2025, Indian Union Home Minister Amit Shah delivered a masterful performance that left the opposition reeling. Armed with a barrage of facts, statistics, and a clear articulation of the bill’s intent, Shah dismantled the opposition’s arguments, rendering them speechless. He meticulously schooled them on the purpose and proper utilization of Waqf properties, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability—principles the bill seeks to enshrine. Shah’s commanding presence turned the tide of the debate, exposing the opposition’s rhetoric as hollow in the face of evidence.

BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad reinforced the government’s stance, asserting that including women and Pasmanda Muslims in the management of Waqf Boards is not just a reform but a constitutional right, amplifying the bill’s progressive ethos. The opposition, despite its fervor, found itself silenced, unable to counter the government’s robust case. AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi attempted to score theoretical points, raising some valid concerns, but his credibility was undermined by allegations that he and his party have encroached upon 80% of Waqf properties in Hyderabad and Telangana.

As the Urdu proverb goes, “Chor ki daadhi mein tinka”—the thief’s beard betrays a straw—Owaisi’s critique rang hollow, overshadowed by his own questionable record. The debate, thus, emerged as a triumph for the government’s clarity and resolve.

However, the true success of these amendments hinges on their effective implementation, which we anticipate will yield positive outcomes for all stakeholders. For Pasmanda Muslims, in particular, embracing a balanced approach—supporting these reforms while actively participating in their execution—will be crucial to ensuring their upliftment. This historic moment offers hope for a more equitable future, provided the spirit of the law translates into tangible progress on the ground.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

According to Press Trust of India, Commandos of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) will now take care of Owaisi’s security.

Earlier on Thursday, Owaisi claimed that 3-4 assailants fired bullets at his vehicle near the Chhajarsi toll plaza while he was traveling to Delhi after doing his election campaign in Kithaur area of Meerat district.

According to him, the attackers ran away and left their weapons at the spot. After hours of incident, CCTV footage was released, which showed an attacker in a red hoodie running after Owaisi’s convoy, with his accomplice in a white hoodie firing a gun at the Chhajarsi toll plaze.

Police have arrested two accused Sachin and Shubham, while the investigation is in progress.

16th Speaker of Lok Sabha was Smt. Sumitra Mahajan.

Following is the transcript of his Urdu speech translated in English.

Madam, I would like to thank you that you have granted me permission to speak.

I speak as a father, as a brother, as an uncle and as a son, on behalf of cent percent Muslim women of this dearly nation, I would like to convey through this parliament to the Government that cent percent Muslim women of India absolutely oppose and reject this bill.

And the second matter is, Respected Madam/Speaker, the way this bill was presented, and I oppose this bill because according to the Indian constitution and the Article 14, Article 15, Article 26, and Article 29, and the preamble of our constitution which has clearly written in it—“guarantees liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”, so based on this—I oppose it.

Respected Madam/Speaker, I would like to question the government through you, that what is your explanation that homosexuality has been decriminalized in our dearly nation – according to the judgment 377 – homosexuality has been decriminalized but you criminalize Triple Talaq?

A man and a man, and a woman and a woman can stay together and do whatever they wish, and you have no objection to it, and you have objection to Triple Talaq?

Why it’s imposed? Because it will be misused against us.

Further, respected Madam/Speaker, this government has appealed Supreme court to impose Adultery law for women, and Supreme court has decriminalized it. Adultery was decriminalized and you remained silent, but you criminalize the matter of Triple Talaq?

Madam, let’s consider the prevention of corruption act. You have decriminalized it that anyone can take money which is not meant for public benefit. But you criminalize Triple Talaq?

Respected Madam/Speaker, why is this law against the constitution? You said it correctly from the chair (where you are seated), that this custom is not among Hindus but among Muslims.

But Madam/Speaker, I would like to mention it with utter humbleness before you that, in our dearly country, according to the law of divorce, if a Hindu gets divorced, why does he get only one year of punishment, while Muslim gets three years of punishment? Is this not the violation of Article 14?

This act is against the “harm theory”.

And Madam, I would like to convey through you, our minister has aggressively said that, supreme court has termed it unconstitutional. I would like to learn from him, please show me the part of the judgment  where the majority of judgment has called Triple Talaq as unconstitutional?

Please, for the sake of God, please don’t make a mention of Supreme Court and misguide the parliament.

Madam/Speaker, I would like to ask Government through you, what did Bentham say? What did Montesquieu say?

Montesquieu said that, if law is not required, and if you introduce and enforce a law then it’s tyranny. You are initiating tyranny.

Madam, please listen to me.

Madam, you have kept tribals deprived of Hindu Marriage Act. Why did you do?

Hence, we speak about Article 26 and 29.

And Madam, I have listened to the great talented people here about Quran, and we call those who speak about Quran as “Fazeelatus-Shaykh” and “Shaykha”. What is left now? You have to proclaim Tawheed (monotheism) and finality of the Prophethood (of Prophet Mohammed ﷺ), and I invite you to it, please embrace it.

Madam, Sabrimala’s judgment was out, and you speak about equality, but where’s my equality? Your faith is your faith and my faith not mine? Is this not the violation of culture? Is this not violation of Article 29?

The intentions of the Government are not sincere.

Madam, now look at the surprising point, you are a woman, and please allow me to express this with humility, a man can run extra-marital affair with multiple-woman, and that’s not a crime, but if anyone calls Talaq thrice, then three years of imprisonment?

While Supreme court has clearly said, marriage is not terminated. If marriage is not terminated, where’s the question of punishment?

“Harm theory” – 377 is in front of you, and Madam, three years of punishment?

Communal riot acts like 148, 153A, 295 has three years of punishment. And if someone’s car hits a person and he dies, then two years of punishment.

Please read Bentham and Montesquieu, or get a fourth year student of any National law school, he will mentor you.

And yes, this is a fact, that marriage is contract in Islam.

I present a proposal, write a condition in the Nikah Nama (marriage contract) that if a Muslim man calls Talaq thrice, then he has to pay double or triple the amount of Maher (dowry given by groom to the bride). If any violation takes place, he goes to jail. It’s a contract and the act will be violation of contract.

You could also write, if anyone calls Talaq thrice, it will be considered only one. But you don’t do that either. We have a provision for it.

But, the intention is to imprison. They never favor women.

Who will give allowance?

What does a woman need? She needs a house, food on her table, and arrangement of her kids’ school fees.

Will you do?

Will you do?

Madam, I would like to ask you, Shayara Banu (Triple Talaq Petitioner) joined BJP, what have you done so far for her? Tell me. Have you done anything for her?

Madam, I am concluding. I am concluding.

There are hidden plans behind introducing these laws.

Madam, sexual minorities have choice as per section 377, why don’t religious minorities get choice?

There’s choice-jurisprudence in the Indian constitution. Won’t I get it?

Your law is against religion. You intend to dismantle the plurality. It’s quite clear.

You are not in favor of justice for Muslim women, in fact your hidden target was evident, when Attorney General in the Supreme Court said—terminate every law.

Mukhtar Sahab (while pointing towards him), Shia’s Segha law will also be terminated, so be careful.

Finally, Madam, #MeToo movement was started in the entire nation by the women. Where is the Minister (referring to MJ Akbar) who was standing here? Where is he now? Tell me?

[MLAs in the background shout: SHAME SHAME SHAME]

And you sheltered them in your party? You would have kicked him out, the one who raped women, the one who oppressed them. He was a mean fraudster. We call him in Urdu – “Totaye-Chasma”, and you sheltered them? And you show us the mirror?

Madam, please look, why I tell this – in our country 84% under-aged Hindu girls around 10 years of age are married, we made law against it. What happened? What happened, please tell me?

How about desertion? Over 20 Lac Hindu women are deserted after marriage. What about them? Please implement law against it.

Social evils have to be ended with everyone’s collective efforts.

I am ending it, Madam, and in conclusion I say – I tell the Government through you that, under your pressure, under your force, under your aggression, we shall not forsake our religion.

We shall live as Muslims till the end of times. We reject this bill, Madam!