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.

On April 27, 2025, Hijab posted on X: “If any Indian Muslim sides with India on Kashmir, he betrays the ummah. If he desires Hindutva’s triumph over Muslims, he has fallen into disbelief. Whoever allies with them is of them. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:51).”

Indian Muslims Strike Back

The response from Indian Muslims to Hijab’s latest statement has been swift, sharp, and unapologetic, showcasing their deep-rooted commitment to India and their rejection of divisive, external narratives.

Zahack Tanvir, a counterextremism writer and founder of Milli Chronicle UK, cleverly turned Hijab’s logic on its head, pointing out the hypocrisy of his argument. Tanvir wrote, “How about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that gave bases to the US against Taliban during ‘war on terror’? Have they become disbelievers too? Is ‘whoever allies with them is of them’ applicable on Pak ISI? Then according to you, they are Kafir! So technically Indian Muslims aren’t allying with Pakistan on Kashmir! ”

Kashmiri writer and educationist Arshia Malik delivered a scathing rebuke, telling Hijab to mind his own business. “Hasn’t your ex-wife filled criminal charges against you for domestic abuse? Indian Muslims have enough problems with the dog whistler Zubair and the DJ activists like Sayema, Arfa, Rana and the Safvis and Naqvis. We don’t need your advocacy, oaf. India is a liberal democracy, it doesn’t give space to takfirism, something even the Kashmiris are learning post-2019,” she wrote.

Malik emphasized the diversity of Indian Muslims—atheist, agnostic, cultural, liberal, progressive, and more—all of whom coexist under India’s Constitution alongside the Hindu majority.

Famous debater Mohammed Shoaib didn’t hold back, responding with raw emotion: “M** ***** **** apni pakistani umma ke saath. As an Indian Muslim, I stand with my India and its elected Hindutva govt. F*** your ***.” His unfiltered anger reflects the sentiment of many Indian Muslims who feel insulted by Hijab’s attempt to dictate their loyalties.

Zaira Nizam echoed this sentiment with a succinct yet powerful statement: “Fck your Pakistani Ummah. I am Indian and I stand with my country that is Bharat.” Her words encapsulate the fierce national pride that runs through the Indian Muslim community.

Advocate Shoeb Siddiqi, General Secretary of All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz (AIPMM), challenged Hijab’s interpretation of the Quranic verse, arguing, “He’s doing takfir of 200 million Indian Muslims for allegiance to their nation. Also (5:51) speaks of alliances during war with hostile enemies. Kashmir was, is, and will be an integral part of India—cry harder. You have no business poking your dirty nose here.”

Muslim activist Zafar Nama took a more confrontational tone, writing, “Hey *****, Kashmir belongs to India. If I have to choose between Hindu Rashtra and ‘Muslim Brotherhood Ummah Chutiyapa’, I will choose Hindu Rashtra any day. And yes, Allah has guided me to be in support of India and Humanity.”

Kashmiri journalist and geopolitical expert Raja Muneeb didn’t mince words, calling Hijab a “despicable vermin” and accusing him of hypocrisy. “You used the same Ummah argument to bed displaced Palestinian women. Didn’t you, you shameless son of a *****!” Muneeb’s response highlights the personal disdain many feel toward Hijab’s moral posturing.

Afghanistan’s human rights activist Wazhma Sayel brought a broader perspective, invoking Islamic teachings to counter Hijab’s divisive rhetoric. Quoting Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:32—“Killing one innocent person is as if killing all of humanity”—she criticized Hijab for supporting forces that have shed innocent blood in Afghanistan. Sayel also referenced the Prophet Muhammad’s last sermon, emphasizing equality across races and condemning Hijab’s hypocrisy.

Policy analyst Amana Ansari underscored the agency of Indian Muslims, stating, “The people of Kashmir have their own chosen leaders. Indian Muslims know our faith teaches justice (Qur’an 4:135). We stand, we speak, we sacrifice—for our country, for our people, for truth. We have our voice. We don’t need foreign agents. Never did. Never will.”

Saif Siddiqi added, “Indian Muslims need no certificate from anyone. Kashmir is India’s pride, and we proudly stand with it. Supporting India doesn’t betray the Ummah—betraying India would betray our own identity. Stop dividing us with lies.”

Lawyer Aman Wadud delivered a particularly pointed critique, accusing Hijab of fueling hatred against Indian Muslims. Quoting Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:8 and 5:32, Wadud wrote, “People like you have done the greatest disservice to Islam. You are doing the greatest disservice to 200 million Indian Muslim citizens. Give up your Oxford degree! Delete your account! SIT DOWN!”

Mohammed Hijab’s Controversial Past

Hijab, a British-Egyptian YouTuber and self-proclaimed scholar with a significant online following, is no stranger to controversy. His history of incendiary remarks and actions has often placed him at the center of polarizing debates.

In September 2022, Hijab was widely criticized for his role in inciting violence against Hindus in Leicester, UK, following tensions sparked by an India-Pakistan cricket match. According to a report by The Tribune, he was seen leading a mob of masked Muslim men, mocking Hinduism, and encouraging violence against Hindus.

In a video that surfaced on social media, Hijab was heard saying, “If they (Hindus) believe in reincarnation, what a humiliation of them to be reincarnated into some pathetic, weak, cowardly people like that.” He further taunted, “Deep down, they know we got the truth. If you want respect, then, learn to respect,” while warning Hindus against protesting the violence.

Hijab’s radical views extend beyond anti-Hindu rhetoric. He has a documented history of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments. In 2021, the Community Security Trust (CST) identified him as an “influential Islamist Youtuber” involved in anti-Israeli demonstrations in London.

During one such protest, he was recorded threatening violence, stating, “If those dogs come close to us again, we will see it as an act of aggression and we will kill those dogs! We’ll put them down,” as reported by Firstpost. He also reportedly led marches where crowds chanted, “We will find some Jews, we want their blood,” further cementing his reputation as a serial provocateur.

What’s From Pahalgam

The backdrop to this controversy is the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives, mostly tourists, in one of the deadliest strikes in the region since 2019. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has taken over the probe, deploying multiple teams to investigate the massacre in Baisaran Valley.

Security forces have launched a massive crackdown, demolishing the homes of four identified terrorists and detaining hundreds of overground workers. The attack has heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, with India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and closing border crossings. Amidst this, Indian Muslims continue to stand united with their nation, rejecting external voices like Hijab’s that seek to sow discord.

In this moment of crisis, the voices of Indian Muslims ring loud and clear: their loyalty lies with India, and they will not be swayed by divisive rhetoric from abroad.