1

The Raj lives on

Name: Arsalan Ahmed khan

Department of Law, NUST

LLB 212: Introduction to logic and reasoning LLB 2K21

Ms. Rehma.R.Hyder

November 28, 2022

 2

The Oxford Union hosted a debate on the resolution "this house believes the raj lives on." The

motion is defended by the team proposition's speakers, including Hamid Mir, a Pakistani

journalist, Prof. Mukerjee, an Indian historian, and students Anmol Kejriwal, a history and

politics student, Asrar Khan, a PHD law student, and Prof. Mukerjee. Team opposition, which

includes speakers like Dr. Thiagarajan, the Finance Minister of the Indian State of Tamil Nadu,

and postgraduate law students Ayushi Agrrawal, Sami Adnan, Mr. Akhilesh Pilamari, and Mr.

Akhilesh Pilamari, are opposed to the resolution.

The first speaker from proposition is Anmol Kejriwal, a Wadham College undergraduate

majoring in history and politics and serving as the publicity and sponsorship officer of the

Oxford Union Society. The first speaker from the opposition supports the motion that "The Raj

Does Not Live On," and she is a postgraduate and fellow committee member named Ayushi

Agarwal. Following her comments, Ms. Agarwal's fellow PhD candidate Israr Khan defends the

idea. The second speaker from the opposition is Sami Adnan, a medical practitioner and primary

health care DPhil candidate at Reuben College. The third speaker from the suggestion is

Professor Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Chancellor of Ashoka University and a professor of history.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri, an IR analyst, journalist, and editor, is the third speaker from the

opposition. The last speaker from the programme is Hamid Mir, a well-known journalist and

public speaker from Pakistan who currently writes for The Washington Post. The evening's final

speaker is Dr. Palanivel Thiagarajan, Tamil Nadu's finance minister, who opposes the proposal.

Anmol khejrival opens the speech for proposition. She reads off a paper while discussing her

own experience, which makes her tone unsteady and devoid of emotional appeal. After laying

out the main points of her argument, she introduces the opposition to lessen their impact and

generate credibility for the proposition bloc. She uses ethos by referencing the historical idea of
 3

"divide and rule," which was prevalent not just until 1947 but is still present now and serves as a

live reminder of the Raj's existence. Furthermore, the speaker's following point gains credibility

by citing Thomas Macaulay's "infamous" remark under the guise of the clear disparities between

India's elite and the country's population, where authoritarian authority is condemned by

defending the Raj's rule. However, she skillfully connects how society despises "black skinned"

and people who are not fluent in the language of their colonizers—which is consistent with

Macaulay's idea—by using logos and generalization. Her third argument is based on the pathos

that it is outrageous for modernization and better infrastructure to come at the expense of

widespread torture, dehumanization, etc. The first speaker ends by asking a rhetorical question

based on pathos, stating that today we are all voting for those who lose out due to the Raj, hoping

to sway them with the rhetorical devices of guilt and pity.

Ayushi Agarwal is the first source of the opposition's justifications. Her tone and body language

convey a strong sense of confidence, portraying her as an intelligent and trustworthy speaker. As

an effort to demonstrate her expertise on the matter and speaking credibility, she begins her

speech by mentioning that she is speaking on this topic while wearing Indian clothing, speaking

with an Indian accent, and doing so on a British stage. She used facts and occurrences from the

Raj era to support her first argument—that the Raj rule was founded on an exploitation agenda—

while using the poetic rhetorical device known as logos to appeal to the audience's sense of

reason. Both cognitive and emotive terms are used in her discourse. Her second defence was that

former Raj colonies had significant changes after their independence.

Israr khan is the next speaker for proposition. He was one of the most confident speakers in the

discussion thanks to his persuasive demeanor and reasoned arguments. He started off by citing

Sashi Tarur, who claimed that colonialism's effects lasted long after the troops had left, festering
 4

in the bodies, ideologies, and minds of people who had been subjected to it. His position, which

is an extension of Anmol's, is succinctly encapsulated in this quotation. The Raj left behind an

economic system that is solely built on exploitation, Israr said, building on what she had said

about how exploitative the Raj was. He talks about how pupils who attend schools that follow

the British educational system think they are better than students who attend local schools. He

also discusses his personality.

The opposition's second speaker Sami Adnan's speech is not very persuasive because it lacks

both pathos and logos. Bangladesh is described as a "basket case" by him. He discusses the

histories of Europe and Asia. Using examples like the fact that Bangladesh has one of the

greatest textile industries in the world, that it has supplied other countries with semi-skilled

labour, and that it is well recognised for producing rice, fish, and mangoes, he gives a brief

outline of Bangladesh's accomplishments. In light of the opposition's claim, none of these

accomplishments make sense. He uses the phrase "black tie" in a metaphor to denote

connectivity and equity.

Prof. Mukarjee, the third speaker supporting the team proposal, speaks in an arrogant manner. He

begins his discussion with an anecdote that emphasises the Raj's dominance with a specific

allusion to a gathering at which Lord Mountbatten lauds Nehru, the country's first prime

minister, by referring to him as "one of us." The assertion that the First Prime Minister of India

was a colonial agent is unambiguous, uses pathos (emotions), and is supported by a reliable

incident (ethos). Further on, it is mentioned that the "great cruelty" is a result of the sedition laws

that are still in effect in Pakistan and India. Here, enormous harshness serves as both a pathos

appeal and a powerful argumentative device. The speaker adds support to his claim that

Macaulay's Penal Code was "cut and pasted" into the Indian Penal Code. His argument is built
 5

on pathos and an emotive agenda, and this choice of word provides rhetorical persuasiveness that

is clear throughout the entire debate. Using the rhetorical device of appeal to ridicule, he

responds to the objection by claiming that the "great achievement" of the Indian Constituent

Assembly was nothing more than a substantial "cut and paste" of the Indian Act, 1935.

Additionally aggravating the speaker's emotional appeal is the quantifier "to a significant extent."

Then, by posing a rhetorical question, he directly criticises Ayushi by thoroughly refuting her

notion of "agency."

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is the sixth speaker and speaks for the opposition. He believes that the Raj

is dead. He compares the use of English in the subcontinent to the use of French expressions in

English, arguing that neither practise is indicative of the continued presence of the British Raj.

He clarifies the self-identity previously stated with other examples before elaborating on the

notion that the influence of outside forces need not result in disaster.

Hamid Mir is the last speaker for proposition. He speaks in a very loud, animated manner. His

allusions to the "sweet British legacy" of cricket, the English language, and Darjeeling tea—as

well as the connection between these things and his status as a "slave" to the British—have a

generalised effect on the emotions but are poorly expressed and devoid of logos. According to

Mr. Mir, colonial law established "government by law" rather than the "rule of law." The irony in

these sentences implies clearly that the use of the law as a "weapon" to quiet the local

community has persisted to the present day. Because of the speaker's inconsistent linking of the

laws he or she mentions and lack of fluency in speech, the topic at hand is diluted. in relation to

Through the use of language like "open fire on nonviolent protestors," the speaker has created

the "ghost of General Dyer" through Section 144, which is common in Pakistan and India. These

words have strong rhetorical impact. In an effort to establish a clear connection with the
 6

audience, he ties this same portion by mentioning "previous Prime Minister Imran Khan," who

was a "former student of Oxford." Mr. Mir provides a first-hand account of how the use of a

quantifier like "merely booked" undermines the authority of Section 124(a). The word "elected

parliamentarian," which conjures up grief and has an emotive significance, was also used

frequently by the speaker to illustrate how this law did not even spare the people's representative

Ali Wazir, who is "behind bars." When speaking holistically, the speaker primarily uses pathos

and ethos because his ideas lack consistency and logical connections.

Palanivel Thiagarajan was the opposition's last speaker. The main argument put up by the

finance minister was that all of India's achievements were self-made, that the majority of our

progress took place after the British left, and that this accomplishment entirely obliterated the

British, erasing the possibility of even the ghost of them remaining (- et al., 2022). Once more,

this argument contained little to no emotional substance and was purely factual and statistical.

Referring to the capability of educational institutions, Tamil Nadu produced "five hundred

engineers" before the Raj, but today it produces "one hundred and fifty thousand engineers"

annually. The speaker's argument that India alone is responsible for its educational possibilities

and expansion is more convincing in light of such statistical data.

The most compelling speech, in my opinion, was given by Professor Mukherjee. I learned from

the entire discussion that the speaker should consider whether the facts and his arguments are

sufficient to answer the question. Because more logic, evidence, logos, pathos, and ethos are

used on the proposition side, I am more persuaded by it. The fundamental point of the argument

and the main lesson to be learned from it is that while comparing facts, figures, or logos,

appropriate tone and emotional appeal must be taken into account. These elements work together

to create an engaging, compelling argument.

7