In a turn of events that has shocked absolutely no one but us, Oxford University has audaciously released the final list of candidates for their Chancellor position—and lo and behold, the Ummah’s beloved Red Line is conspicuously missing. Yes, you read that right. The prestigious institution, renowned for producing world-class scholars, thinkers, and politicians (some of whom even managed to keep their careers intact), has seemingly forgotten the sacred importance of certain non-negotiable boundaries.
One cannot help but wonder: how dare they? Where is the voice of justice, the champion of truth, and the stalwart protector of the Ummah’s finest feelings? Surely, there has been an error. But fear not, for salvation lies within our own hallowed institutions. Could this blatant exclusion of our metaphysical boundary be challenged in none other than Pakistan’s Supreme Court? And perhaps—if we’re really lucky—in front of the legendary eight-member bench? After all, they have proven time and again that they are capable of solving matters both legal and, well, existential.
Let us consider the possibilities. For a case of this magnitude, it’s essential to first establish whether Oxford University even has jurisdiction over its own decisions. Why should an institution based in a foreign land, with its history of intellectual rigor and independence, be allowed to make such decisions without first consulting the Pakistan Bar Council, our media experts, and naturally, the eight-member bench? Surely, a hearing is in order.
With petitions flooding in for less significant matters (like elections), it only makes sense for this most grievous oversight to be addressed with the same level of urgency. After all, we cannot let an institution like Oxford simply ignore the existence of our spiritual line of defence—one that, quite frankly, we were sure had global recognition by now.
The real question is, which Article of the Constitution will we invoke to challenge Oxford? Article 184(3) would seem appropriate, given that it involves questions of public interest and fundamental rights. And what could be more fundamental than protecting our emotional wellbeing against international academic conspiracies?
Imagine the scenes in the courtroom. Learned counsels waxing lyrical about the sanctity of the Red Line, quoting historical documents, theological texts, and perhaps even the odd WhatsApp forward. The eight honourable justices nodding sagely, pondering the weight of this unprecedented constitutional crisis, all while journalists outside the courtroom debate the geopolitical consequences of Oxford’s grave error.
In the end, of course, the outcome is clear. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, will surely rule that Oxford’s decision is not only invalid but also illegal. The world’s oldest English-speaking university will be forced to acknowledge Pakistan’s Red Line as a legitimate criterion for their selection process.
And so, once again, Pakistan will have stood up to the injustices of the West, showing the world that no institution—no matter how historic or autonomous—can escape the moral authority of our judiciary.
Until then, we shall wait for the official petition to be filed and the eight-member bench to take its place on the frontline of this battle for academic justice. After all, where else can we go when our sacred Red Line is crossed, if not the Supreme Court?
Note: This piece is a satirical work and does not purport to represent the truth.
