During a debate at the Oxford Union on 28 May 2015, the Indian Member of Parliament, diplomat and writer Shashi Tharoor delivered a speech supporting the motion "Britain owes reparations to her former colonies".

Tharoor argued that supposed benefits of British colonialism, such as railways and democracy, were either constructed for the purposes of furthering economic exploitation or devised by Indians themselves.

Taking place in 1831, it established the Union's reputation for engaging with topical political issues and nurturing the oratorical skills of future politicians; a young William Ewart Gladstone was offered a seat in parliament because of his performance in that debate.

David Cameron made controversial remarks on the issue in Amritsar; William Hague said outright that there should be no post-colonial guilt; and Ken Livingstone gave a heartfelt apology for London's role in the slave trade.

[c][15] The debate was scheduled to be held on 28 May 2015 at 8:30 p.m.[14] Arguments in favour of the proposition began with the first speaker, Dattani, who argued that reparations "go far beyond cash payments" and were "centred on recognising past injustices and redressing the moral imbalance brought on by colonisation".

[17] The next speaker from the proposition, Ndombet-Assamba, gave examples of non-monetary forms of reparation, based on the 10 point plan for reparatory justice proposed by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

[20][24] Turning his attention to the infrastructure implemented by the British in India, such as railways, Tharoor argued that it was constructed for the purpose of aiding the economic exploitation of the country, rather than out of a genuine desire to help the interests of the Indian public.

[13] The speech was called "witty" and "passionate",[22] and was credited as gaining the attention of a wider audience through Tharoor's usage of several "rapier barbs".

[9] Scholar Alyssa Ayres, who served on the Council on Foreign Relations, reasoned that Tharoor's quantification of the colonial exploitation of India formed the most important part of his argument.

[25] British Labour MP Keith Vaz praised the speech, calling for the return of the Kohinoor diamond to India.

[28] The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, at an event in the Parliament House, New Delhi on 23 July 2015,[29][30] commented on the debate and the response it generated: "Shashiji's remarks have gone viral on YouTube [... this] shows what impression one can leave with effective arguments by saying the right things at the right place.

[36] In the interview with Elle, Tharoor noted that, following his speech at the Union, instances of trolling against him from the Indian right-wing became significantly reduced.

[11] The speech was criticised for several reasons, including accusations that Tharoor oversimplified the economic effect of British rule in India.

[37][38] John MacKenzie, the last speaker in the debate, later wrote that though many of Tharoor's arguments were correct, others were based in falsehoods; noting that India has had a history of imperial formations preceding the British, where the people were exploited for the benefit of the rulers in every case, MacKenzie also argued that economic power in the world shifted over the course of British rule in India and Britain was only partially responsible for the Indian economic decline.

[40] The writer Jonathan Foreman, apart from finding the speech "funny", opined that for "a nation as powerful as modern India to revel in victimhood" was demeaning, particularly when it was to only ask for reparation from "'one' of its conquerors".

[41] Politico's contributing editor Tunku Varadarajan commented on Tharoor's Received Pronunciation accent; Foreman noted this too, writing that Tharoor "epitomizes in many ways, good and bad, the English-speaking, political, cultural and social elite that hastened the end of the Raj, assumed power in New Delhi in 1947, and then through the Congress Party misruled India for more than six decades, all the time becoming increasingly arrogant and corrupt, and seeming almost as insulated from ordinary Indians as their British predecessors had been".

[41] William Dalrymple, a historian, commented that the debate was "the first time I've ever heard the word reparations used" in discussions about the two countries, but pointed out that it was not an official government speech.

Dalrymple said that reparations are not the answer, instead urging a revised British educational system that critically engages with Britain's colonial history.