London: The Oxford Union, founded in 1823, has long been regarded as one of the world’s foremost platforms for rigorous debate and fearless exchange of ideas. For two centuries it welcomed statesmen, scientists, revolutionaries and thinkers. From Winston Churchill to Albert Einstein, it earned a reputation as a temple of open discourse guided by the principle of seeking truth above all else. Its motto, “Non sibi sed toti”, translating as not for one, but for all, encapsulated a commitment to universal truth seeking.
Yet in recent years, the Union has repeatedly allowed its prestige to be exploited for partisan propaganda, particularly in debates involving contentious subjects like Pakistan and terrorism. The events of 27 November 2025 represent a particularly stark illustration of this erosion.
Senior advocate J. Sai Deepak, a prominent legal scholar and author of the widely acclaimed book “India, Bharat and Pakistan”, was formally invited in July 2025 by the incumbent president of the Oxford Union, Moosa Harraj, to oppose the motion “This House Believes That India’s Response to Pakistan is a Populist Strategy Sold as Security Policy”.
The originally announced Pakistani speakers included former Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Zubair Mahmood Hayat, and Pakistan’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Dr Mohammad Faisal. On the Indian side, several high profile names were circulated in the media like clickbait. Most like India’s former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy had either declined months earlier or like the Congress MP from India, Sachin Pilot, had never even received formal invitations.
Just two days before the event, the Union urged Sai Deepak to assemble a UK based team citing last minute cancellations, at extremely short notice. He promptly proposed Jammu & Kashmir expert Manu Khajuria and Dharmic scholar Pt Satish K. Sharma as capable opposition speakers.
Hours before the debate was scheduled to begin, Sai Deepak, already in the United Kingdom, was informed at 3:13 PM that the Pakistani speakers had not arrived in London. The indication was almost as if that they were formally cancelling the debate, as it would have been a pointless exercise to go ahead without the heavyweight names arguing for the motion.
It later emerged that the Union president had known since 10 AM that the delegation had not landed in the UK, yet chose to withhold this information. More strikingly, the Pakistani speakers were in fact already in Oxford, staying at the Randolph Hotel.
Going by the time stamps of the social media posts put out by Pakistani influencers and the Pakistani high commission, it is very evident that the design to prevent the original Indian contingent from participating in the debate was engineered by the Pakistani high commission and the Pakistani origin president of the Union who wanted to make this debate all about himself.
As a consequence, the original Pakistani heavyweight panel was replaced by none other than president Moosa Harraj himself, along with two other Pakistani origin officers of the Union, Israr Khan Kakar and Ahmed Nawaz Khan. This was designed in order to deliberately face off a depleted and hastily assembled opposition, arguing against the motion from an Indian perspective.
The manoeuvre was no accident but a strategic ploy by the outgoing Harraj, whose term ends amid elections, to engineer a default triumph for the Pakistani narrative and a victory for himself that he could boast of to perhaps kickstart his political career in Pakistan.
In an almost rigged pivot, they secured a landslide 160-51 vote from the house, hyped as a rout of India’s civilizational narrative. Harraj’s articulation, however, was a masterclass in mediocrity, stumbling through anti-India tropes, laden with factual distortions and delivered with the charisma of a malfunctioning teleprompter. By contrast, his delivery even made Bilawal Bhutto Zardari appear statesmanlike.
Pakistani media outlets and influencers immediately declared a historic victory, portraying the result as a comprehensive defeat of the Indian position, while conveniently omitting the orchestrated withdrawal of their own star speakers and the deliberate misinformation engineered against the original Indian contingent forcing them to not attend.
In summary, this must be seen as the Oxford Union “reduced to a pawn of the Pakistan high commission and its Pakistani origin president.” Unconfirmed list of speakers were deliberately circulated to mislead, only for the rug to be pulled, allowing Pakistanis to posture as default winners, despite representing a state that remains the global epicentre of terrorism. The Union’s treasurer, Raza Nazar, another Pakistani, ensured the stage tilted toward Islamabad. Sai Deepak, in his social media thread, concluded, “You have allowed the @OxfordUnion to become a concubinal mouthpiece of @PakistaninUK.”
The Pakistan high commission crowed about an Indian “walkout,” but evidence, emails, call logs, painted them as deserters, fleeing academic scrutiny on the contrary.
The very wording of the motion itself portrayed a clear bias. By framing India’s defensive measures, including surgical strikes and diplomatic isolation of state sponsors of terrorism, as mere “populist strategy sold as security policy”, the proposition presupposed guilt on India’s part while absolving Pakistan of its well documented role in cross border terrorism. Such phrasing is not neutral as it clearly mirrors the standard narrative pushed by Islamabad and its sympathisers abroad, inverting victim and aggressor.
This was not an isolated incident. In November 2024, the Oxford Union hosted a debate on the so-called Kashmiri independence that featured speakers with direct familial or organisational links to proscribed terrorist groups, including the son of an individual accused of channelling funds to Hizbul Mujahideen. Similar events have repeatedly provided a respectable platform for narratives that downplay or deny the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus in 1990, a “story paid in blood,” as filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri noted in a prior Union clash, portraying Pakistan backed separatism as a legitimate human rights struggle.
Pakistan was founded in 1947 on the explicit premise of Islamic Othering, that Muslims and Hindus constitute two irreconcilable nations, a doctrine that institutionalised religious exclusivity from its inception. From India’s partition massacres to arming Northeast insurgents, India has been the first casualty of Pakistan-sponsored terror.
Jinnah’s vision of the Two Nation Theory, swiftly curdled into Zia-ul-Haq’s jihad factory in the 1980s, birthing the Taliban and exporting Wahhabism. It is imperative that the world of academia realises that Pakistan is the global epicentre of Islamic radicalisation. As per UN’s own reports, the madrasas churn out fighters while the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) acts as terror’s venture capitalist.
Central to Pakistan’s stated policy to use asymmetric warfare (terrorism as a state tool), is Operation Tupac, Pakistan’s 1980s military doctrine to “bleed India with a thousand cuts.” Named after the 16th-century Pashtun warrior, it weaponised proxies, funding Kashmiri militants, Punjab separatists and Maoists.
The 1993 Bombay blasts, 2001 Parliament attack, 2008 Mumbai carnage (killing 166) and 2019 Pulwama (40 CRPF dead) trace back to this policy. Internationally, Pakistan’s fingerprints stain 9/11 (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect, ISI-protected), the 7/7 London bombings (perpetrators trained in Pakistani camps) and Bali 2002.
In addition, it is vital for anybody even remotely trying to absolve the State of Pakistan, must be cognisant of not just the above, but also the fact that this global hub of terror, has repeatedly appeared on the FATF grey list for terror financing. Multiple UN reports too have identified it as a global hub of radicalisation.
Every Indian government, regardless of political colour, has been compelled to treat Pakistan as a unique and persistent security threat. Measures such as the creation of the National Investigation Agency after the 2008 attacks and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes were responses to direct acts of war, not electoral stunts. India has shown remarkable restraint by never escalating to full scale conventional conflict despite grave provocations, a maturity that stands in sharp contrast to the motion’s dismissive characterisation.
Engaging Pakistan in forums like Oxford is vital to expose, corner and intellectually strip bare its cheerleaders. However, when platforms like this are used to engineer walkovers, the Union should hold itself accountable to the highest levels of scrutiny rather than allow itself to be reduced to a platform providing cover fire to global jihadism.
The Oxford Union still possesses the potential to reclaim its historic role as an impartial arena for ideas. The conclusion of Moosa Harraj’s presidency offers an opportunity to the students of the esteemed university to institute transparent member selection processes, enforce reciprocity, and ensure that debates are conducted in good faith rather than serving as staged propaganda exercises and mercantile interests of the office bearers.
What occurred on 27 November 2025 was not a victory for free speech but rather a meticulously engineered disgusting spectacle that undermined the very principles the Union claims to uphold. Free speech thrives on equity, not ambush.
Prestigious institutions lend legitimacy to whichever voices they choose to amplify. When that authority is repeatedly extended to those who shield state sponsored terrorism behind academic veneer, the cost is not merely to one nation’s reputation, but to the credibility of open debate itself.
-
Adit Kothari is a Calcuttan residing in London as a Pravasi Bharatiya, working to dismantle the plethora of false narratives and misinformation on India and Hindutva.
