Bihar Deputy Chief Minister and senior BJP leader Vijay Kumar Sinha has declared that those who oppose the Waqf (Amendment) Bill will be treated as traitors and face jail time. His remarks have sparked political tension, especially within the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), as some members of its ally, the Janata Dal (United), have voiced disapproval of the Bill.
Sinha’s firm warning amid political debate
Speaking on Friday, Sinha said, “Those who are threatening not to comply with the Waqf amendment will have to go to jail. This is not Pakistan, this is Hindustan. This is the Narendra Modi government.” He emphasized that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill has already been passed by both Houses of Parliament and asserted that non-compliance will not be tolerated. “Those who still say they will not accept it are traitors. Such people should be immediately arrested,” he said, making it clear that dissent against the Bill would invite legal consequences.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill has faced criticism from several leaders within JD(U), the third-largest constituent of the BJP-led NDA, even though the party officially supported the Bill during the voting. One of the most vocal critics was JD(U) MLC Ghulam Gous, who on Thursday criticized the Bill and followed up on Friday by quoting, “Jo qatil hai wahi munsheef hai, kisse nyay maange (The one who is the killer is also the judge, whom should we go to for justice).”
Internal dissent in JD(U) surfaces
Gous’s remarks weren’t isolated. Former JD(U) MP Ghulam Rasool Baliyawi also expressed his protest against the legislation. Meanwhile, Mohammad Qasim Ansari, a district-level JD(U) leader from East Champaran, quit the party in opposition to the Bill. These developments point toward growing unrest among a section of JD(U)’s Muslim leadership.
A senior Muslim leader within JD(U), speaking anonymously to The Indian Express, questioned whether party leader Nitish Kumar had been fully consulted. According to the leader, Kumar had wanted controversial provisions of the Bill to be addressed before the party offered its support. However, this reconciliation apparently did not occur before the Bill’s passage, leading to dissatisfaction and confusion within party ranks.
