Some people have asked me my opinion about the Waqf Amendment Bill which is presently being considered in the Indian Parliament.
My opinion is that it is wholly irrelevant, like abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. Let me explain.
The test of every political activity or political system is one and only one : does it raise the standard of living of the people ? Does it give them better lives ? In other words, does it reduce poverty, unemployment, hunger, price rise, lack of healthcare and good education, etc ?
Once we keep this idea firmly in mind, it becomes clear that the Waqf Amendment Bill is wholly irrelevant for the Muslims, as it will have no effect on their lives, just as abrogation of Article 370 had no effect on the lives of Kashmiris.
The Bill will have no effect on the socio-economic condition of Muslims. It will neither reduce nor increase poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, price rise, lack of healthcare or good education, etc.
The real effect which the Bill will have will be to divert attention from the real issues like poverty, unemployment, price rise, etc, and further polarize society by further dividing Hindus and Muslims, which will benefit the ruling party.
Many Muslims and Muslim organizations have started protests against the Bill, which will only further harden Hindu opinion against Muslims and in favour of the BJP.
.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/waqf-amendment-bill-2024-parliament-debate-nda-vs-india-impact-muslims/article6940115 h4.ece&ved=2ahUKEwjB0ebNsbmMAxWMRWwGHbobIC8QFnoECDgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0jEbiSZTY-GwAOa0TRRw
These people making a hue and cry against the Bill are to my mind either fools, or else secret agents of the ruling party, as many people suspect Owaisi and other Muslim leaders of being
“Your post is absolutely relevant. As a Muslim from Jammu & Kashmir, I fully agree with what you’ve stated. The BJP’s politics seem to create division and animosity between Muslims and Hindus, deepening the void between communities.”
I agree with you .
It’s just the talisman given by Gandhiji.
“Whenever you are in a doubt, recall the face of the poorest and weakest man you have seen and ask yourself whether the step you contemplate is going to be of any use for him?
Will he gain anything by it?
Will it restore him a control over his own life and destiny??”
This is a fair opinion of a dignitary, this and the bills related to this type of kios is just sparing the valuable time by not utilizing in accumulating any concrete decision in the progress and prosperity of the nation. This is a tool of false propaganda in exploitation the sentiments of common people to divert the attention and grab the wealth in an adverse direction which helps to the capitalist.
Respectfully, Justice Katju is wrong on both the abrogation of Article 370 and the Waqf Amendment bill 2025. Just as the former was opposed by the rich families of J&K and the Muslim clergy, with backing from Pakistan, so is the the latter. Even if one were to accept his criteria for assessing the success of political reforms such as these, his conclusion about the benefit to the cpmmon person of J&K is widely off the mark! As for the Waqf bill, if passed by the RS, it corrects an anomaly. It is expected to benefit the common Muslim. The rich guys like Owaisi fear the possible scrutiny of their properties.
his article contains several logical fallacies, including:
Red Herring – The argument diverts attention from the specific issues of the Waqf Amendment Bill by stating that only policies that directly improve living conditions matter. While socio-economic improvement is important, it does not mean that legal or political matters affecting a community are irrelevant.
False Dichotomy (Either-Or Fallacy) – The author suggests that people opposing the bill are either “fools” or “secret agents” of the ruling party. This ignores the possibility of genuine concerns and reasoned opposition.
Straw Man Fallacy – The argument simplifies and misrepresents the concerns of those opposing the bill, suggesting they are only protesting to cause division rather than having legitimate reasons.
Hasty Generalization – The claim that the bill will have “no effect” on Muslims assumes that all policies must directly reduce poverty or unemployment to be relevant, without considering possible indirect effects.
Ad Hominem – Instead of addressing arguments against the bill, the author attacks the character of those opposing it, calling them “fools” or “secret agents.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause) – The article suggests that protesting against the bill will automatically “harden Hindu opinion against Muslims” and benefit the ruling party, assuming a direct causal link without sufficient evidence.
Slippery Slope – It argues that protests against the bill will inevitably lead to further division and benefit the ruling party, without considering other possible outcomes.
Appeal to Emotion – The article appeals to fear by implying that the opposition is either naive or working secretly for the ruling party, without presenting strong logical reasoning.
Nobody asked for your opinion , without reading you opinion peice i can tell what you would have suggested. Sorry but if you were once chief justice of supreme court that doesn’t mean we should consider you at epitome of knowledge and rationalism. Stop thinking that you are entitled to publish views on every national issue just because some media outlet allows you to do so, sometimes restraint is also a good option
Katju is right. Unless the prejudices and attitude of Muslims change , waqf or article 370 alone could make no change.