Oxford Union Kashmir debate sparks controversy in India

OXFORD/LONDON: The Oxford Union, known for its tradition of engaging in contentious global discussions, hosted a debate on the motion “This House Believes in an Independent State of Kashmir.”

While the event was intended to foster dialogue on one of the world’s most polarizing territorial disputes, it has drawn significant backlash from Indian media, with allegations of bias and accusations directed at specific individuals within the Union. The debate highlighted diverse perspectives on the Kashmir issue but also became the epicentre of a media storm. Prominent Indian personalities declined invitations to speak, citing the motion as “offensive and anti-India,” while protests erupted both outside the Union and online. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif was scheduled to speak at the debate but pulled out after Indian speakers decided not to join the debate.

Those supporting the motion argued that the Kashmir conflict is rooted in decades of broken promises, military occupation, and the denial of fundamental rights to the Kashmiri people. Key points raised included: the right to self-determination; Kashmiris being promised the right to determine their future through a plebiscite under United Nations resolutions, a promise that remains unfulfilled; demographic engineering to undermine the Muslim-majority population; militarization and human rights abuses; and Kashmir was described as the most militarized region in the world, with speakers citing reports of widespread human rights abuses, including property destruction, arbitrary detentions, and sexual violence by Indian armed forces.

The speakers talked about the failure of governance and both India and Pakistan were criticised for failing to provide a resolution. India was accused of constitutional violations, particularly the revocation of Kashmir’s special status in 2019, while Pakistan was criticized for not adhering to Jinnah’s vision of an independent Kashmir. The opposition rejected the motion, arguing that independence is impractical and could exacerbate conflict in the region. Their key points included: unrealistic independence; independence was described as unfeasible due to entrenched military presences and geopolitical complexities involving India, Pakistan, and China; demographic complexity; non-Muslim minorities in Kashmir, including Hindus and Buddhists, were highlighted as groups whose voices are often overlooked in calls for independence.

While the debate sparked discussions on the Kashmir conflict, it also became a flashpoint for controversy involving individual members of the Oxford Union. Israr Khan, a Pakistani-origin student, was singled out by Indian media as an alleged “agent of the ISI” and accused of using the debate to propagate anti-India rhetoric. Prominent social media users and commentators launched vitriolic attacks on Khan: “Hope the message is loud and clear, @IkIsrar? Your ISI-backing stands exposed! @UniofOxford, about time you take stringent action not only against @IkIsrar but also his entire network - IF you wish to safeguard your reputation, that is!” “The narrative to strive for an independent state of ‘Kashmir’ is to create a false narrative… @IkIsrar is replicating the playbook of the American institutions legitimizing Hamas.” These accusations, which Khan has not publicly addressed, have fuelled an atmosphere of tension and suspicion within the Union and beyond.

The controversy extended to Oxford Union President Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, an Arab Muslim student, who faced a no-confidence motion filed by critics accusing him of enabling the debate. The motion is perceived by some as a politically charged move, reflecting the intersection of identity politics and international tensions. Protests were held outside the Union, with demonstrators from both sides of the issue voicing their views. Supporters of the debate argued that the Union has to provide a platform for free speech and open dialogue, even on controversial topics. Opponents, however, accused the Union of legitimizing anti-India propaganda and creating a biased narrative.