Rebels without a Cause

The protest staged by the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) UK chapter during West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s speech at Kellogg College, Oxford University, on March 27, 2025, as detailed in Nikhil Mathew and Nupur Paliwal’s article in a prominent digital news service, reflects a troubling disregard for both India’s storied diplomatic traditions and the norms of international decorum.

While the authors frame their actions as a courageous stand against perceived injustices, their disruptive behaviour undermines the principles of constructive dialogue and mutual respect that have long guided India’s engagement with the world.

India’s diplomatic ethos, rooted in the Panchsheel principles articulated in 1954, emphasizes "mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty" and "non-interference in each other’s internal affairs." These tenets, which have shaped India’s interactions on the global stage, extend beyond state-to-state relations to the conduct expected of its citizens abroad. By staging a protest that interrupted a formal event at a prestigious international institution, the SFI-UK not only embarrassed an elected representative of India but also flouted the spirit of these principles.

The authors claim their intent was to "demand answers from an elected representative," yet their method—silently holding posters and later engaging in confrontational questioning—escalated into a spectacle that necessitated police intervention. This hardly aligns with the dignity and restraint India has historically projected in international forums.

Moreover, the SFI’s actions contravene the norms enshrined in international conventions governing civil conduct. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), while primarily applicable to state actors, reflects a broader expectation of respectful behavior toward representatives of foreign governments in host countries.

Mamata Banerjee, as a sitting chief minister, was invited as a guest of Kellogg College to speak on social development and women’s empowerment. Disrupting her address with accusations of being an "anti-women, anti-democratic leader" and a "rape apologist" without substantive dialogue risks crossing into defamation and undermines the convention’s implicit call for courtesy toward official representatives. The authors’ assertion that Banerjee "dodged and deflected" questions ignores the possibility that a university lecture hall is not a courtroom or a political rally designed for adversarial interrogation.

A further point of contention is the SFI’s legitimacy in claiming to represent Indian students at Oxford. Notably, the SFI has no established student presence or union affiliation at Oxford University itself. The article states that SFI-UK was formed in June 2022 as "the first international unit" of the organization, responding to the "changing character of higher education" for Indian students abroad. Yet, without a verifiable base among Oxford’s student body, their decision to protest at an Oxford event appears opportunistic rather than representative. This raises questions about whether their actions were truly in the interest of students or merely a platform to amplify their political agenda, leveraging the prestige of the venue for visibility.

The authors’ grievances—ranging from the RG Kar Medical College case to alleged suppression of student movements in West Bengal—deserve scrutiny and debate. However, their chosen method of protest was neither constructive nor respectful. India’s tradition of democratic dissent, exemplified by figures like Mahatma Gandhi, emphasizes peaceful and dignified resistance, not disruption that silences discourse. By their own admission, the hall was "packed with audience members," many of whom were denied a chance to engage with Banerjee’s perspective due to the SFI’s tactics.

The subsequent online backlash and accusations of "doxxing" from TMC supporters, while deplorable, were a predictable consequence of such a confrontational approach.

In sum, the SFI-UK’s protest was a misstep that tarnished India’s image as a nation committed to dialogue over disruption. Rather than holding truth to power, as they claim, their actions reflect a failure to uphold the diplomatic grace and international civility that India has long championed. If the SFI seeks genuine accountability, it should pursue it through channels that respect both the speaker and the setting—perhaps starting with building a credible presence among the students they claim to represent.

The writer is MD Psychiatry. Views expressed are personal