The nomination of Imran Khan, the incarcerated founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), for the ceremonial position of Chancellor at the University of Oxford has ignited a fierce debate, with The Guardian newspaper voicing strong opposition to his candidacy. The respected UK publication has labeled Khan as “Taliban-friendly” and criticized him for his past statements supporting former Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Khan, who is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence in Pakistan, announced his candidacy for the Oxford chancellorship from jail. He stated that his aim was to “give back” to the university that supported him during his early years and to share the resilience and integrity he has gained through his life experiences.
However, The Guardian’s Sunday article, penned by columnist Catherine Bennett, has raised significant concerns. Bennett highlighted Khan’s past comments calling Osama bin Laden a “martyr” and his refusal to label him a terrorist. The column also criticized Khan’s positive remarks about the Taliban, including his controversial view that they were “breaking the shackles of slavery” during their takeover of Kabul and his controversial stance on women’s rights.
Bennett questioned the appropriateness of Khan’s potential role at Oxford, likening him to social media figure Andrew Tate in terms of controversial opinions. She also criticized conservative peer Lord Hannan’s support for Khan, questioning the wisdom of endorsing a candidate with such divisive views for a prestigious academic role.
Read More: Pakistan FO rejects Indian FM’s misleading remarks on Kashmir dispute
In addition to The Guardian’s critique, Oxford University has received multiple emails and a petition expressing concerns about Khan’s nomination. The objections highlight his past advocacy for the Taliban and his controversial positions on various issues, suggesting that his appointment could reflect poorly on the university’s reputation.
Khan’s supporters argue that his candidacy should be evaluated based on his contributions to academia and his previous roles, including his tenure as Chancellor of the University of Bradford. They point out that Khan, an Oxford graduate of Keble College, has a history of involvement in educational institutions.
Despite these arguments, the backlash against Khan’s nomination has been substantial. Critics argue that his past statements and actions are inconsistent with the values expected of the Chancellor of a leading global university. The position, which involves overseeing key ceremonies and representing the university, is seen as requiring a figure who embodies Oxford’s ideals and maintains a broad appeal.
In contrast, Bennett and others have suggested alternative candidates, such as Lady Elish Angiolini, who is described as apolitical and highly respected for her contributions to the field of law and education.
As the debate continues, the University of Oxford faces pressure to carefully consider the implications of Khan’s potential appointment. The university has yet to make an official statement on the matter, but the controversy highlights the complex intersection of politics, academia, and public perception in high-profile appointments.
