Sri Lankan legislator Namal Rajapaksa has spoken out following the sudden cancellation of his scheduled speeches at the Oxford Union and the Cambridge Union, expressing regret that the appearances did not proceed and emphasising the importance of open debate in academic spaces.
While public discussion around the cancellations has included allegations from various commentators about activism and lobbying by segments of the Tamil diaspora, Rajapaksa himself did not attribute the outcome to any specific group in his official remarks. The episode has nevertheless reignited debate in Sri Lanka and abroad about free expression, protest, and the long shadow of the island’s civil war involving the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which remains a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom.
Rajapaksa said the invitations reflected the long-standing traditions of intellectual exchange associated with the two unions, which for generations have hosted world leaders and controversial figures for rigorous discussion. He voiced disappointment that the engagements were unable to proceed, arguing that universities should remain arenas where opposing ideas are tested through dialogue rather than prevented from being heard.
Observers note that both unions have historically built reputations on inviting speakers with sharply differing perspectives, making the incident a flashpoint in broader global conversations about academic freedom, the limits of protest, and whether universities can continue to function as neutral platforms for contested political questions.
Issuing his response, Rajapaksa released the following statement:
“The traditions of the Oxford Union and the Cambridge Union have, for generations, represented the highest ideals of free inquiry, rigorous debate, and intellectual courage. Speakers invited to these historic forums are expected to face difficult questions, defend their views, and engage with opposing perspectives before an informed and critical audience. It was precisely this spirit of open dialogue that I looked forward to participating in and welcomed without reservation.
It is therefore deeply unfortunate that circumstances arising from organised pressure prevented these engagements from taking place. Universities and debating societies have long been spaces where disagreement is addressed through discussion rather than disruption, and where ideas are challenged through argument rather than silenced by intimidation.
I would have welcomed the opportunity to engage directly with critics, including those who strongly oppose my views, because meaningful reconciliation and progress can only emerge when differing perspectives meet in open conversation. Denying such engagement does not strengthen democracy. It weakens it by replacing debate with division.
I remain grateful to both Unions for their invitation and understand the difficult position in which they found themselves. I hope that in the future we will have the opportunity to meet in a forum where dialogue prevails and discussion is encouraged.”
