Oxford Union - India v Pakistan Debate

Oxford Union debate attendance low due to unpopularity of the outgoing President

Tonight’s debate was set against the backdrop of an all time low in the Oxford Union’s history. For the Michaelmas term 2025, the union has received large amounts of national news coverage for all the wrong reasons. With a vote of no confidence being passed against the outgoing left wing Asian president for having given verbal support to the assassination of a right wing leader in the USA. The controversy incidentally, according to the Daily Mail has resulted in a 25% decline in Oxford Union membership.

Despite cracks begining to appear in the Union’s membership and harmony, the debates on paper continue to be of stimulating and of a high standard. Tonight’s Pakistan v India debate looked like being a good example of this.

‘ This house believes India’s security policy towards Pakistan is a popularist policy. ‘

The Pakistan outgoing president opened the debate with strong anti India rhetoric, as he introduced the speakers in favour of the motion. India’s president is trying to keep himself in power by keeping Pakistan as a permenant enemy’ . India’s security policy is fascist, he said and quoted India’s president as having said that India could learn lessons from Hitler’s Germany’.

‘ India ‘s security policy is not about defending its borders but is about getting more votes through the ballot box’. India air strikes against Pakistan step up when there is a dip in his popularity. Events in Kashmir always demonstrate this. India is israelising the region, there is strong similarity between israel’s president and india’s, he added as he came towards the end if his speech. India’s security policy is fraud. It is a popularist government one.

The opposition proposing speech was given by an Indian oxford undergraduate. India’s security policy is all about life and death not popularism. He had grown up in an constant age of Islamic terrorism for which there was a strong need to be defended and kept secure. He gave the example of Indian railway stations being blown up.

The banter between the Pakistani and indian proposers was friendly despite the potential deep hatred of the debate content.

‘ Terrorist attacks on Indian targets were acts of war and the response to them were not popularism but a succussful attempt to re- install deterrance’ . He added. ‘ We do not want war, we just want to keep our defences up’. I dream of a day when india and pakistan csn get on but I am a realist’. Once the opening proposer speeches were given from each side of the house, a large number of union members left, refusing to stay for the rest of the debate. One can only assume that what we were witnessing was a walk- out in support of the outging no confidence Pakistani president who had opened the debate.

Walk out of less than 100 members in support of the no confidence Pakistan president who had proposed tonight’s debate

The second speaker in favour of the motion linked Pakistan retaliation to Indian retaliation. India has a nuclear weapon and is continually paranoid about muslim proxy support overseas. There security policy is popularist from this point of view, he concluded. The second speaker against the motion talked about India’s democracy and how it is always upheld. Whereas in Pakistan, you can’t see many examples of democracy only Al Quida and Islamic terrorism. India’s security policy is about defending democracy not popularism. The argument about india being fascist or in sone way supportive of Hitler’s Germany is ridiculous. India is not perfect, but we have a demicracy intention which you do not see in Pakistan.’