'They didn't ask who they voted for': Viraansh Bhanushali takes on Pakistan narrative at Oxford Union, cites Pahalgam attack

Viraansh Bhanushali, an Indian law student at Oxford University, recently gained attention for his compelling address at a high-profile debate at the Oxford Union. The motion of the debate was -- This House Believes That India's Policy Towards Pakistan Is A Populist Disguise For Security Policy. Arguing against the motion, Bhanushali said that India's policy is primarily focused on genuine security concerns rather than populist motives.

During this debate, he talked about the Pahalgam attack, which claimed the lives of 26 people. "They didn't ask who they voted for. They executed them," he said, referencing the attack on tourists by terrorists from The Resistance Front (TRF).

The incident saw 26 individuals targeted and killed for their faith, prompting strong reactions in the Oxford Union debate. He went on to explain the significance of Operation Sindoor, launched by the Indian Armed Forces in response to the Pahalgam attack.

"The vermilion mark of a Hindu wife, was chosen for the widows left behind by that massacre. And the operation was a precise dismantling of nine launchpads. 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.

He addressed the broader implications of defending citizens, stating, "Defending your citizens from being murdered is popular? That does not make it a trick," he said.

Bhanushali contrasted India's actions with those of its neighbour: "But if you want to see real populism dressed up as security, look across the Radcliffe Line. When India fights a war, we debrief the pilots. In Pakistan, they autotune the chorus. You cannot give your people bread, so you give them the circus. That is the alchemy of turning public poverty into private power with the spectre of war."

He said India does not want war. "We want to be boring neighbours. We want to trade onions and electricity," he said.

"But 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."

Reflecting on historical responses to major attacks, Bhanushali remarked, "What would a populist government do after 26/11? The public rage was nuclear. A populist leader would have just launched the jets to win the next election," he said. He contrasted this with the government's decision to use "strategic restraint," utilising diplomacy and international appeals rather than immediate military action.

"Did the non-populist approach buy us peace? No. It bought us Pathankot. It bought us Uri. It bought us Pulwama," the law student said.