'I don't need rhetoric, just a calendar': How an Indian student exposed Pakistan’s terror narrative at Oxford Union | WATCH

Mumbai-born law student Viraansh Bhanushali speaking during a debate at the Oxford Union Society.

Indian law student Viraansh Bhanushali refuted claims that India’s Pakistan policy is mere populism, citing decades of terror attacks and arguing India’s responses are measured, not election-driven, while accusing Pakistan of using terror as state policy.

Did our AI summary help?

An Indian law student mounted a forceful dismantling of Pakistan’s terrorism narrative during a debate at the Oxford Union Society, arguing that India’s security posture cannot be reduced to electoral populism when viewed against decades of terror attacks.

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,” told the house that facts and timelines were enough to expose the flaw in Pakistan’s argument.

“To win this debate, I do not need to use rhetoric. I simply need to use a calendar,” he said.

“This House Believes That India's Policy Towards Pakistan Is a Populist Disguise for Security Policy.”

Viraansh Bhanushali, a law student from Mumbai at the University of Oxford, delivered a compelling opposition speech in the Oxford Union debate on the motion “This House… pic.twitter.com/RWbAw5MfOv — Augadh (@AugadhBhudeva) December 22, 2025

Bhanushali anchored his argument in personal memory, beginning with the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. He reminded the audience that one of the targets was Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus.

“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 said.

Recalling the impact of the attacks on his family, Bhanushali said he was still a schoolboy at the time.

“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,” he told the house.

Rejecting the suggestion that India’s stance toward Pakistan is driven by vote bank politics, he said such claims ignored the reality of repeated terror attacks.

“When someone claims that India’s tough stance towards Pakistan is merely populism masquerading as security policy, you might understand why I bristle,” he said.

He cited the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts to underline that terrorism preceded any electoral calculation.

“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,” Bhanushali said.

He directly blamed Pakistan-backed actors for the violence.

“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,” he added.

Turning to India’s response after the 2008 attacks, Bhanushali argued that a genuinely populist government would have chosen escalation over restraint.

“The public rage was nuclear. A populist leader would have launched the jets to win the next election,” he said.

Instead, he noted, restraint followed, with grim consequences.

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

Addressing claims that India’s recent military responses were election-driven, Bhanushali dismissed the argument outright.

“They didn’t ask who they voted for. They executed them,” he said.

He described India’s responses as measured and professional rather than performative.

“We punished the perpetrators. And then what? We stopped. We did not invade. We did not occupy. That is not populism. That is professionalism,” he said.

Bhanushali then turned the populism charge back on Pakistan, drawing a sharp contrast between the two countries.

“When India fights a war, we debrief the pilots. In Pakistan, they autotune the chorus,” he said.

He concluded by stressing that India does not seek conflict but will not lower its guard as long as terrorism remains a tool of Pakistani state policy.

“We want to be boring neighbours. We want to trade onions and electricity,” he said, before 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.”