Senior advocate Sai Deepak has publicly challenged the narrative put forth by the Pakistan High Commission in the United Kingdom regarding the Oxford Union debate scheduled between Indian and Pakistani representatives. The debate, titled “This House believes that India’s Policy Towards Pakistan Is a Populist Strategy Sold as Security Policy,” was slated to take place on November 27, 2025.

The Pakistan High Commission had alleged that the Indian delegation “backed out at the last minute,” effectively giving a “walkover” to the Pakistani side. They further claimed that Indian participants offered “no substantive explanation for their inability to attend a debate they had previously confirmed.”

Sai Deepak Exposes the Contradiction

In a series of posts on X, Sai Deepak refuted these claims, calling the Pakistani assertion “false” and asserting that the Pakistani team is “genetically incapable of being truthful.” According to the lawyer, the Pakistani team has a history of evading direct engagement, and the current incident is consistent with that pattern.

Deepak outlined the timeline and sequence of events that led to the confusion. He received an invitation from the Oxford Union on July 7, 2025, and after seeking clarification regarding debate formations and participants, he confirmed his participation on July 30. The Oxford Union acknowledged his confirmation on October 4. Initially, he was informed that former Army Chief General MM Naravane and former lawmaker Subramanian Swamy would also be participating in the debate.

However, just two days before the debate, Deepak was informed by Oxford Union members that both Swamy and Naravane could no longer attend due to unavoidable commitments. The Union then requested him to suggest alternatives. Deepak coordinated a substitute team comprising Manu Khajuria and Pt Satish K Sharma, who were already in the United Kingdom and could attend the debate.

The Pakistani Team Did Not Show Up

On the day of the debate, Deepak said he received a call from Oxford Union three hours before the scheduled dinner, informing him that the Pakistani team had not arrived in England. Deepak and his team remained in London but were unable to proceed with the debate due to the Pakistani delegation’s absence.

In his posts, Deepak highlighted the mishandling of the situation by Oxford Union leadership, particularly its president, Moosa Harraj, who is the son of Pakistan’s Minister of Defence Production, Muhammad Raza Hayat Harraj. According to Deepak, the Oxford Union president had been aware of the Pakistani team’s arrival in advance but misrepresented the facts, creating unnecessary confusion.

Deepak also challenged the Pakistani delegation to engage in the debate if they were truly present in Oxford rather than avoiding participation. He accused the Union’s leadership of turning into a “mouthpiece for Pakistani interests in the UK,” undermining the integrity of the forum.

Support from Indian Participants

Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, who was approached by Oxford Union to participate in the debate, also confirmed that she had been contacted and criticized the organizers for the chaotic management of the event. She reinforced Deepak’s view, stating that the Pakistani side was falsely claiming victory, and described the incident as a continuation of Pakistan’s pattern of misinformation.

Conclusion

The controversy underscores the tensions surrounding diplomatic and cultural engagements between India and Pakistan, even in academic forums. Sai Deepak’s detailed account exposes the inconsistencies in the narrative presented by the Pakistan High Commission and highlights the challenges faced by Indian representatives in such international debates. By providing a clear timeline and evidence of the communication with Oxford Union, Deepak has set the record straight, asserting that India did not “walk out” but rather was unable to conduct the debate due to the Pakistani team’s absence and the organizational mismanagement by the Union.

This incident not only challenges the Pakistan High Commission’s claims but also raises questions about the impartiality and procedural integrity of the Oxford Union in handling international debate forums. The Indian side has firmly refuted the allegations, calling for accountability and transparency in managing such events.