At Oxford Union Debate, Indian Law Student Slams Pakistan: 'Can't Shame A State With No Shame'

Last Updated:December 24, 2025, 16:34 IST

Referring to India’s response after the 2008 attacks, Viraansh Bhanushali said a truly populist government would have escalated militarily.

Viraansh Bhanushali said India’s security posture could not be dismissed as electoral theatrics. (Image Credit: X)

An Indian law student delivered a sharp rebuttal of Pakistan’s terrorism narrative during a student debate at the Oxford Union Society, telling the house that he did not need rhetoric to counter the Pakistani side but only dates. Mumbai-born Viraansh Bhanushali, who led the Indian side in a November debate on the motion “This House believes that India’s policy towards Pakistan is a populist strategy sold as security policy", said, “To win this debate, I do not need to use rhetoric. I simply need to use a calendar."

During his speech, Viraansh Bhanushali rooted his argument in personal experience, beginning with the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. He said, “One of those targets was Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT), the very station that my aunt passed through almost every evening. By chance or by providence she took a different train home that night, narrowly escaping the fate of the 166 souls that did not."

He told the house he was a schoolboy at the time, adding, “I remember the fear in my mother’s voice on the phone, the tension in my father’s clenched jaw. For three nights, Mumbai did not sleep and neither did I."

Viraansh Bhanushali said India’s security posture could not be dismissed as electoral theatrics, asserting, “When someone claims that India’s tough stance towards Pakistan is merely populism masquerading as security policy, you might understand why I bristle."

He cited the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts to challenge the populism charge, saying, “In March 1993, RDX explosives ripped through Plaza cinema. Two hundred and fifty-seven people died. Was there an election in March 1993? No. That election was three years away."

He added, “Terror did not come because we needed a vote. It came because Dawood and the ISI wanted to fracture India’s financial spine. That was not populism. That was an act of war."

Referring to India’s response after the 2008 attacks, Viraansh Bhanushali said a truly populist government would have escalated militarily. He said, “The public rage was nuclear. A populist leader would have launched the jets to win the next election."

Instead, he said, restraint followed.

“Did the non-populist approach buy us peace? No. It bought us Pathankot. It bought us Uri. It bought us Pulwama," he continued.

Addressing recent terror attacks, he rejected claims that Indian responses were election-driven, saying, “They didn’t ask who they voted for. They executed them."

On India’s military response, he said, “We punished the perpetrators. And then what? We stopped. We did not invade. We did not occupy. That is not populism. That is professionalism."

Viraansh Bhanushali then turned the populism charge back on Pakistan, saying, “When India fights a war, we debrief the pilots. In Pakistan, they autotune the chorus."

He concluded by saying that India does not seek conflict.

“We want to be boring neighbours. We want to trade onions and electricity," he said, adding a warning, “Until the state that defends itself stops using terror as an instrument of foreign policy, we will keep our powder dry. If that is populism, then I am a populist."

News world At Oxford Union Debate, Indian Law Student Slams Pakistan: 'Can't Shame A State With No Shame'

Read More