LONDON: The Oxford Union, known for its tradition of engaging in contentious global debates, organized a debate on the motion titled: “This House believes in an independent state of Kashmir”.
While the event was intended to encourage dialogue on one of the world's most polarizing territorial disputes, it has sparked a significant backlash from the Indian media, with accusations of bias and accusations directed at specific individuals within the Union.
The debate highlighted diverse perspectives on the Kashmir issue, but also became the epicenter of a media storm. Prominent Indian figures rejected invitations to speak, citing the motion as “offensive and anti-India”, as protests broke out both outside the Union and online.
Defense Minister Khawaja Asif was scheduled to speak at the debate, but withdrew after Indian speakers decided not to join the debate.
Supporters of the motion argued that the Kashmir conflict has its roots in decades of broken promises, military occupation and denial of fundamental rights to the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK).
Key points raised included: the right to self-determination; Kashmiris were promised the right to determine their future through a plebiscite under United Nations resolutions, a promise that remains unfulfilled; demographic engineering; the Indian government was accused of deliberately altering the region's demographics by encouraging settlement policies 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 destruction of property, arbitrary detentions and sexual violence by the Indian military.
While the debate sparked discussions about the Kashmir conflict, it also became a flashpoint of controversy involving individual members of the Oxford Union. Israr Khan, a student of Pakistani origin, was accused by the Indian media of using the debate to spread anti-India rhetoric.
These allegations, which Khan has not addressed publicly, have fueled an atmosphere of tension and suspicion within and outside the Union.
The controversy spread to Oxford Union president Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, an Arab Muslim student, who faced a no-confidence motion brought by critics who accused him of allowing the debate. The motion is perceived by some as a politically charged measure, reflecting the intersection of identity politics and international tensions.
Protests took place outside the Union and protesters from both sides of the conflict expressed their opinions. Supporters of the debate argued that the Union has a duty to provide a platform for freedom of expression and open dialogue, even on controversial issues. Opponents, however, accused the Union of legitimizing anti-India propaganda and creating a biased narrative.
