LONDON: The Oxford Union, known for its tradition of engaging in contentious global debates, hosted a debate on the motion titled: “This House believes in an independent Kashmir.”
While the event was intended to foster dialogue on one of the world’s most polarizing regional disputes, it sparked significant backlash from the Indian media, with allegations of bias and accusations directed at specific individuals within the union.
The discussion highlighted diverse viewpoints on the Kashmir issue, but also became the center of a media storm. Prominent Indian figures have rejected invitations to speak, citing the suggestion as “offensive and anti-India”, while protests have broken out outside the union and online.
Defense Minister Khawaja Asif was scheduled to address the discussion but withdrew after the Indian speakers decided not to join the discussion.
Those supporting the motion argued that the Kashmir conflict is rooted in decades of broken promises, military occupation, and denial of fundamental rights to the people of illegally occupied Indian Jammu and Kashmir.
Among the main points raised were: the right to self-determination; Kashmiris were promised the right to decide their future through a plebiscite under UN resolutions, a promise that has yet to be fulfilled; demographic engineering; The Indian government has been accused of deliberately changing the demographics of the region by encouraging settlement policies to undermine the Muslim-majority population; militarization and human rights violations; Describing Kashmir as the most militarized region in the world, speakers cited reports of widespread human rights violations, including destruction of property, arbitrary arrests, and sexual violence at the hands of the Indian armed forces.
While the debate sparked discussions on the Kashmir conflict, it also became a flashpoint for controversy involving individual members of the Oxford Union. Indian media accused Israr Khan, a student of Pakistani origin, of exploiting the debate to spread anti-India rhetoric.
These accusations, which Khan did not address publicly, sparked an atmosphere of tension and suspicion inside and outside the union.
The controversy extended to the president of the Oxford Union, Ibrahim Othman Mowafi, an Arab Muslim student, who faced a motion of no confidence presented by critics accusing him of enabling the debate. Some view this proposal as a politically charged move, reflecting the intersection of identity politics and international tensions.
Protests were held outside the union, with demonstrators on both sides of the issue expressing their opinions. Supporters of the debate argued that the union had a duty to provide a platform for free expression and open dialogue, even on controversial topics. However, opponents accused the federation of legitimizing anti-India propaganda and creating biased discourse.