New Delhi: Aditya Raj Kaul, Executive Editor of TV9 Network, in a post on X, announced his withdrawal from a prestigious debate organised by Oxford Union. Kaul was invited to speak on the motion, “This House Believes in an Independent State of Kashmir” in the first year after the Oxford Union’s Bicentenary.
However, Aditya Raj Kaul cited concerns over the institution’s choice of speakers, particularly people with records of financing terror in Jammu & Kashmir, as the reason for pulling out of the debate.
Invitation from Oxford Union president
The invitation from Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, president of the Oxford Union, extended a formal request to Kaul, acknowledging his distinguished career in journalism and in-depth reporting on the Kashmir issue. In the invitation, Mowafy highlighted the Oxford Union’s rich history of hosting debates and speakers of global significance, ranging from the Dalai Lama to Malala Yousafzai.
The debate was scheduled for one of the Thursday evenings during the Michaelmas Term, with proposed dates between October 24 and December 5.
Oxford Union invited me to their prestigious annual debate to argue on #Kashmir. I’ve withdrawn my acceptance in light of the institution inviting India baiters and people responsible for terror financing in Jammu & Kashmir, India. This is my letter to the @OxfordUnion President. pic.twitter.com/tHZ6li1xjf
— Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) October 24, 2024
What Aditya Raj Kaul said in his letter
Kaul, in his response dated October 24, thanked Oxford Union for the invitation and initially accepted it, expressing his intention to argue against the motion for an independent Kashmir. However, he later expressed serious reservations about the motion, which he perceived as biassed and partisan.
His chief concern stemmed from the inclusion of speakers whom he described as “India baiters” and individuals with “dubious track records of financing terror in Kashmir.”
Kaul further said that the participation of such people would undermine the integrity and fairness of the debate, casting doubt on the impartiality of the Oxford Union in organising a democratic discourse. He emphasised that a debate with the involvement of people affiliated with the “Pakistani Deep State” would be a “travesty of freedom and fairness.”
Kaul’s letter expressed disappointment that an institution of such repute, often seen as a flagbearer of democratic values, would invite people whose past actions contributed to the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandit community and terror attacks in the region. He said that while the debate on Kashmir’s future remains a pressing issue, involving people with extremist ideologies was not conducive to a constructive or fair conversation.
Kaul, himself an exiled Kashmiri, also pointed out that the involvement of such people was an affront to the region’s complex socio-political realities and its long history. He said that the debate could have provided a great opportunity to discuss the Kashmir issue but underlined that the inclusion of such figures shifted the parameters of the debate to a biassed and unfair playing field.
Kaul expressed his deep hurt and frustration at being expected to engage with people responsible for violence and destruction in Jammu and Kashmir. He concluded by withdrawing his acceptance, refusing to participate in a forum where he would be expected to argue against people who, in his view, represent the very forces behind the pain and suffering of his community, the Kashmiri Pandits.
Kaul signed off his letter stating that he withdrew from the debate with “utmost hurt,” emphasising that the Oxford Union had been hijacked by elements inimical to the values of freedom, fairness, and debate.
