From bizarre remarks to fear mongering, key highlights of I.N.D.I alliance leaders' contentions on Waqf Amendment Bill

On the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd April, the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf Amendment Bill following an extensive 12-hour debate, with the government securing 288 votes, while the Opposition garnered 232 MPs support. All political parties within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) unanimously backed the amendment, whereas the I.N.D.I. alliance opposed it. However, instead of engaging in a constructive debate, the opposition turned the discussion into a circus of misinformation, fear-mongering, and outright bizarre arguments that defied logic and reason. Let us look at the flawed reasons the opposition MPs gave in order to hinder the push of the Waqf Amendment Bill. 

Gaurav Gogoi (Congress MP) 

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi set the tone by claiming, “This bill strives to dilute the constitution, defame the minority community of India, divide the Indian society and disenfranchise the minority community.” This statement is not only misleading but also a desperate attempt to stir unrest by falsely projecting the bill as an attack on Muslims rather than a much-needed reform to ensure proper management of Waqf properties.

Engineer Rashid (Baramulla MP) 

Adding to the melodrama, UAPA accused for terror funding case, Engineer Rashid declared, “Muslims are getting killed in between this numbers game.” Insinuating that a bill concerning property management was somehow responsible for the existential plight of an entire community is not only ridiculous but also a clear attempt to fan communal tensions for political mileage. Despite the cacophony around the victimisation of the Muslim community, the Indian democracy has given long rope to a terror accused.

Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party) 

Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav took a different route, using the debate as an opportunity to attack the government over completely unrelated issues and beat around the bush. He absurdly linked the bill to price rise, unemployment, demonetization, and even a stampede at Mahakumbh—as if the amendment had anything to do with these issues. His real concern, however, was revealed when he said, “The intention behind this bill is not good, and it has been brought by the BJP to control its vote.” Clearly, Yadav wasn’t concerned about the bill itself but rather about its potential impact on his party’s vote bank. He even claimed that the bill will prove to be a “waterloo” for the ruling BJP.

The Samajwadi leader inadverently ended up spilling the beans around his intentions to further the slogan of PDA, saying that the BJP will not gain success in dividing the Muslim community as their is no division in Islam. He went further to add that the division will be done by PDA.

A Raja (DMK) 

DMK MP A Raja, in his usual dramatic style, claimed, “They cannot find a single Muslim MP to even introduce this bill.” This attempt to turn a governance issue into a communal one which is a classic example of how opposition leaders deliberately twist facts to create a narrative of victimhood. Raja conveniently ignored the fact that the bill was introduced by a government minister, as is the norm, and not based on the religion of the person presenting it.

Kalyan Banerjee (Trinamool Congress)

Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee went even further, calling the bill “misconceived, irrational, and arbitrary.” Without offering any concrete arguments, he claimed that the bill was an attempt to “curtail the rights of the Muslim community” adding that Islam is a modern and liberal religion. He failed to acknowledge that the bill actually introduces greater transparency and inclusivity in Waqf Boards, including the mandatory inclusion of women. If anything, the opposition’s stance suggests they fear losing control over Waqf properties rather than genuinely caring about the welfare of the Muslim community.

KC Venugopal (Congress) 

Congress MP KC Venugopal ranted about how the bill supposedly “divides the country on religious grounds” while completely disregarding the fact that his own party has historically made laws that prioritize certain religious groups over others.

Mohibbulah (Samajwadi Party) 

Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbulah lamented that the bill “violates the fundamental rights of equality and religion”—a laughable assertion given that the bill seeks to remove special privileges that allowed Waqf Boards to function without accountability. If anything, the bill ensures greater equality by enforcing rules that prevent land misappropriation and favoritism.

Iqra Choudhary (Kairana MP) 

Adding to the opposition’s self-contradictory rhetoric, Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary asked, “Why is the Waqf board being given a step-motherly treatment?” conveniently ignoring the fact that Waqf properties, unlike any other religious trust in India, have been allowed to function with minimal oversight for decades. The bill simply ensures that Waqf lands are managed properly, just like any other public trust or endowment.

Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) 

Perhaps the most ridiculous claim came from Asaduddin Owaisi, who declared, “This bill is a declaration of war against the largest minority in this country.” Such alarmist language is not only irresponsible but also dangerous. Owaisi further attempted to inject religious paranoia into the debate by claiming, “Following the passing of this amendment, only ancient temples will be under protection, not the ancient mosques.” This is a deliberate misrepresentation of facts, as the bill has nothing to do with religious structures but rather with the management of properties under the Waqf Board’s jurisdiction.

Owaisi also seemed to be competing for the most bizarre statement, sarcastically questioning the provision requiring a person to have practiced Islam for five years before declaring a Waqf.

He asked, “If he has a beard, will he be considered a practicing Muslim, or should he be clean-shaven?” Such a juvenile argument only serves to make a mockery of parliamentary proceedings.

Also Read: Waqf Amendment Bill faces RS test after a marathon 12-hour debate, passage in LS; here’s the numbers game

The opposition’s reaction to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, exposes their unwillingness to engage in rational debate. Instead of discussing the merits of the bill, they resorted to religious paranoia, fear-mongering, and outright absurdities. Their statements, ranging from “this is a war against minorities” to “Muslims are being killed in a numbers game,” reveal a single-minded objective to mislead the public and stir communal discord.

The truth is, the bill simply aims to bring transparency, accountability, and better governance to Waqf properties—something that should be welcomed by all communities. But the opposition, fearing the loss of their control over vote bank politics, has chosen to paint it as an existential crisis for Muslims. Their objections are not based on facts but on a deep-seated need to preserve an outdated system that has, for decades, been riddled with corruption and mismanagement.