The sheer audacity of this 196-year-old debating society to call a vote of no confidence on a foreign government for the first time in its history in the year 2019, will either be remembered as one of courage, or one of sheer stupidity.

Sachin Nandha, who observed the whole debate as an interloper, sitting directly behind the opposition bench, wrote that he felt that this grand old institution has now hit an absolute low. As India prepared to announce the results of the elections, it was an opportunity to really debate issues facing the world’s largest democracy, but instead, he was left wondering whether he was watching a farce, tragedy, or a political stunt This motion, when we look back in years to come, will most certainly be on the wrong side of history.

The house with all its pomposity and gullibility passed a motion which negates some 600 million voters of India who have clearly shown confidence in Modi’s government. It is the manner in which it was done that cannot be and will not be just brushed aside. Furthermore, if it is confidence, we speak of then Modi has had the largest mandate given to an Indian Prime minister in over 30 years — can this be simply ignored? According to the Oxford Union and its members, apparently, it can! Even when Janhavi Dadarkar, a solicitor by training, and opposing the motion pleaded with the audience that ‘you cannot ignore the common man from these isles’, her voice fell on deaf ears of a crowd that was clearly too drunk on hubris; the self-administered kind.

A Pakistani-born, Oxfordian Noori Abbas too pleaded with the crowd that this house cannot ignore the voice of the masses with one simple sweep. She went onto to articulate some of the economic successes of the Modi government; but there is doubt if the house heard much of her argument, as they simply lacked the capacity to hear anything apart from their own biases percolating round and round in their own echo chamber. A young 20-year-old, Chaitanya Kediyal had opened the debate for the motion, an Indian citizen, and only as an Indian can, he used the English language in its most gaudy manner.

Brilliantly entertaining, no doubt, but equally kitschy. He used the three central deities of the Hindu tradition as his basis to describe Modi in completely disparaging ways. The problem is not his disparagement of Modi per se, but that he simultaneously disparaged the Hindu ‘trinity’ of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva to the mindless applause of a shockingly inconsiderate audience. The mind judders to think what would have happened to the bag-of-hot-air that was our young Chaitanya had he spoken of Prophet Muhammed in such ilk, or of the Christian trinity? Would the crowd have applauded; or would he have been quickly marched out of the debate and disciplined?

Then the comedy sketches from the ‘aye’ aisle really came in thick and fast. None other than Salman Khurshid, a member of the Upper House of India, a Congress party member, and an Oxfordian from many decades’ past came to speak. Now here was a man who has an election to fight back in India where his party faces political oblivion, and here he was giving his time to a university debate thousands of miles away. Also, he had flown in from India just for this debate! Either, he, and his party, felt that this motion was so important that they better send in a heavyweight because it might turn around their fortunes; or they knew the ‘truth’ — the Indian people were going to speak loudly and with clarity that Modi was their chosen man. This debate was a way of passing the time! He offered nothing in his sketch except the same of old rabble-rousing stuff of Modi’s hatred of all things non-Hindu. Adding to his shame, only the way that a man ‘high’ on privilege can, he went on to say that ‘in India if he were to say anything anti-Modi he would be classed as anti-national by the press’.

Then came a man of no notoriety whatsoever. Another political operative, an opportunist, who was apparently ejected from a party he co-founded, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Prashant Bhushan spoke in crass words, to what should be the embarrassment of the house, he put words into the mouth of Modi that had never been spoken. He was straw-manning Modi throughout his allotted 10 minutes. When this occurs in any debate it's distasteful, but when it occurs at Oxford it can only be perturbing. Of course, he was encouraged by a mindless crowd who applauded him throughout. In effect, the mob carried his cheap words on a flying carpet of applause. One only need to listen to the argument Bhushan made — for a lawyer of repute, this must be an all-time good example of ‘what not to do’ in a serious debate.

But by far and away the most disappointing speaker was Gurucharan Das. It beggars belief after hearing him drivel on for 10 excruciatingly dull minutes exactly why he was there at all. Speaking against the motion, he himself showed no confidence in what he was saying or doing. Poor in articulation, and in substance, he neither defended Modi’s government nor critiqued it. He was, in the words of Churchill, the epitome of a ‘windbag’, with lots of high-minded lofty claims and nuances but ultimately falling well short of rejecting the motion for which he was there.

Another graduate Oxfordian, Elliot Bromley who opposed the motion spoke eloquently and with just the right amount of humour and wit sprinkled throughout his speech. He was nuanced and spoke from his experience of living in India for 4 years in Delhi. In short, he gave actual statements and made claims that can be verified which he felt defended the Modi government. He gave three-core arguments as to why the motion had to be rejected, and they went something like this:

1. Modi is a dynamic leader and has a bottom-top approach;
2. he has made India more secure;
3. Modi’s government has brought much-needed reform to India’s outdated systems.

And yet, to the man who spoke on substance and statements which could be checked, not a clap from the audience; the house was silent for much of his defence; why?

Janhavi Dadarkar and Elliot Bromley, both of whom spoke from personal experience were the most engaging, respect must be given where it is due. Overall, if it was not for these two speakers and Noori, the contrarian, this was a dud debate lacking earnestness, clarity, and integrity. This will be a debate that the Oxford Union in years to come will be embarrassed of and will shun it much like how a King of old would shun his illegitimate progeny.

Oxford Union Debates No Confidence in Modi Government: Janhavi Dadarkar and Elliot Bromley Deliver Brilliant Speeches in Support of Modi

The Oxford Union, renowned for its intellectually stimulating debates in 2019 hosted a fiery discussion on the motion of expressing no confidence in the Narendra Modi-led Indian government. The debate attracted attention from students, scholars, and political enthusiasts around the world. Two notable speakers, Janhavi Dadarkar and Elliot Bromley, delivered exceptional speeches in support of the Modi government, presenting insightful arguments and eloquently defending the government's policies and achievements.

I. Opening Remarks: Janhavi Dadarkar, an esteemed political analyst and social commentator, commenced the debate by highlighting the significant strides made by the Modi government. She emphasized that the government has taken numerous initiatives to drive economic growth, enhance infrastructure, and address social challenges.

Elliot Bromley, an international relations scholar with a keen interest in Indian politics, followed by acknowledging the diverse perspectives surrounding the Modi government. He argued that while not flawless, the government has implemented several commendable policies that have positively impacted India's socio-economic landscape.

II. Economic Progress and Reforms: Both speakers emphasized the Modi government's commitment to economic progress and the implementation of crucial reforms.

a. Janhavi Dadarkar highlighted the government's ambitious economic reforms such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). She elaborated on how these reforms have streamlined the taxation system and facilitated business growth while ensuring greater accountability and transparency.

b. Elliot Bromley focused on the government's initiatives to promote foreign direct investment (FDI) and encourage entrepreneurship through programs like "Make in India" and "Startup India." He argued that these initiatives have played a pivotal role in boosting India's manufacturing and technology sectors, leading to job creation and increased competitiveness on the global stage.

III. Social Welfare Measures: Both speakers underscored the Modi government's emphasis on social welfare and inclusive development.

a. Janhavi Dadarkar discussed the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, a financial inclusion program aimed at providing banking services to the unbanked population. She highlighted how this initiative has empowered millions of people, particularly those in rural areas, by enabling them to access financial services and government subsidies.

b. Elliot Bromley praised the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission), an ambitious campaign to improve sanitation and hygiene practices across the country. He highlighted the significant progress made in reducing open defecation and improving sanitation infrastructure, positively impacting public health and quality of life.

IV. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy: The speakers delved into the government's foreign policy approach and its efforts to enhance India's standing on the global stage.

a. Janhavi Dadarkar emphasized the Modi government's proactive diplomacy, citing initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance and the Act East Policy. She argued that these efforts have strengthened India's global partnerships, enhanced its influence, and positioned India as a responsible global actor.

b. Elliot Bromley discussed the government's focus on strengthening ties with major global powers like the United States, Japan, and Israel. He highlighted the increased foreign direct investment and technological collaborations resulting from these relationships, indicating their positive impact on India's economic growth.

V. Conclusion: Janhavi Dadarkar and Elliot Bromley's brilliant speeches in support of the Modi government during the Oxford Union debate showcased their deep understanding of Indian politics and governance. They skillfully presented the government's achievements, economic reforms, social welfare measures, and foreign policy initiatives, persuasively arguing that a vote of no confidence would fail to acknowledge the government's positive contributions to India's development.

The Oxford Union debate stimulated critical thinking and offered diverse viewpoints, encouraging further dialogue on