Researcher on war crimes in Balochistan threatened, not protected
London, UK – 8 July 2026
Pakistani documentary filmmaker and activist ROSHAAN KHATTAK, living in exile in the UK, was until recently a postgraduate student at Wolfson College Cambridge. Khattak’s research, into human rights abuses in Balochistan, led to him receiving death threats. He reported this to the authorities at Cambridge; their response was to turn a blind eye.
Preface
Peter Tatchell has campaigned in support of human rights in Balochistan for almost three decades. PTF has also monitored, from the outset, the case of researcher Roshaan Khattak, whose work many experts believe was censored by the University of Cambridge. We were a signatory to the open letter sent to the Office for Students and the Department for Education.
For students, one possible route is a complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. However, that process can take well over six months. This is especially inadequate where a student researcher is facing death threats and a university abruptly removes institutional support, leaving them more exposed. At present, there appears to be no effective mechanism capable of pausing such a university decision while the case is properly investigated.
We are therefore reproducing, with permission, the article on Roshaan’s Cambridge case, recently published in the Summer 2026 issue of the Index on Censorship quarterly magazine. The magazine has a distinguished history of publishing leading dissident writers, artists and advocates of free expression, among them Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Salman Rushdie, Václav Havel, Ai Weiwei and Wole Soyinka.
CAMBRIDGE DESCRIBES ITSELF as a lighthouse of civilization. A cathedral of learning, a monument to thought historically positioned above the petty politics of the world. But what happens when the 21st century knocks? What happens when the modern age intrudes in the form of surveillance and threats? Cambridge’s response, as I have found out, is first to hesitate, then to turn away. Relying on the polished language of bureaucracy and neutrality, it turns a blind eye to reality and dresses up its response – its failure to respond – as policy.
When repression crosses oceans
I arrived at Cambridge as a researcher, with documented evidence of enforced disappearances, crimes against humanity and military executions. My family history is etched into this record of repression. My cousin Idris Khattak, a human rights researcher, was disappeared in 2019. He now sits in torture cells, a declared prisoner of conscience. The UN, Amnesty International and Freedom House have all cited his case in reports on human rights violations. But the violence I hoped to research at Cambridge did not remain theoretical for very long before becoming “transnational”.
I was aware of the risks. In September 2022, I went to Stockholm to investigate the mysterious murder of Baloch journalist Sajid Hussain. While Hussain’s death remains shrouded in mystery, like that of Karima Baloch in Canada, the available evidence points to the involvement of Pakistan’s intelligence services in his death. While in Sweden, I was targeted by a break-in so precise that it could only have been committed by someone who knew my movements in advance. The theft focused on my filming equipment, passport and hard drives – the very tools needed to sabotage my investigation. Only the police knew the exact date of this theft, but the information was referenced in threatening messages sent to me subsequently. Being in exile, I learnt, is not the same as protection. Sometimes it is merely distance.
I took up a place in Cambridge in the autumn of 2024. Late that year and into the next, I started to receive threatening messages containing specific information about my work, documents, and movements. Information that only state-linked actors could possibly acquire. The threats were direct and personal; designed to frighten, and also to demonstrate their reach.
Emboldened by Cambridge’s failure to act decisively, by the end of 2025 the threats had changed in register. They were no longer veiled: I was told explicitly that I was “waiting for the bullet” that “else you will be killed”. I reported the death threats to both the university and the police. But nothing was done. And then, only a few weeks later, another violent round arrived this time against several other exiles. Fresh, specific, unmistakably in their hostile intent.
This is what experts call transnational repression: when a state exports fear to silence its critics abroad. The phenomenon is not abstract as the name might suggest. It could be your exact address inserted into a message sent to you by a stranger.
And Cambridge?
When I alerted Cambridge to the issue, I did not expect the university to fight a war on my behalf. I was asking for what all institutions of learning claim to stand for: protection of the vulnerable, space for free expression and dissent.
But Cambridge did not tell me I was safe. Rather, it responded with managerial detachment. Citing spurious pretexts, Cambridge sought to evict me from my student accommodation. In January 2025, right after threats, the locks were changed by Wolfson College. Rather than ensuring that my room was secure, they secured it from me. Instead of defending my right to research, Cambridge ejected me from what I had believed to be a place of academic freedom. They did this administratively. Neatly. Like a liability item quietly struck from a balance sheet.
Both the MP John McDonnell and the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith made representations on my behalf to the university, long before the danger became as visible as it is now. By continuing to censor my work, they warned, Cambridge would not be “managing risk” but manufacturing it. Silencing a dissident does not neutralise a threat, but rather advertises vulnerability and might embolden those who wish me harm.
My lawyer, Ben Keith, submitted that the university’s actions were unlawful: a violation of academic freedom, and a violation of my rights under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, Cambridge chose to proceed.
Concerns about my predicament have been raised by Amnesty International, Freedom House, special rapporteurs of the UN and Index on Censorship; by the National Union of Journalists; by members of parliament through an Early Day Motion; and by leading international human rights lawyers. Cambridge’s response to all was wrapped in bureaucratic obfuscation: words like “capacity”, “protocol”, “risk assessment”. Despite its standing in academia, Cambridge determined at precisely this moment that it could do nothing. This is not neutrality. It is impotence dressed up as alignment.
Priyamvada Gopal, professor of postcolonial studies at Cambridge, was to have supervised my doctoral research had Cambridge not terminated it. In an email, she said: “Cambridge University is deeply imbricated with the financial and political forces that sadly shape our society right now, and you are not wrong to sense that outside pressures have contributed to this situation.”
In a letter to the university authorities, sociology professor Thomas Jeff Miley wrote: “The circumstances surrounding Roshaan’s case smell of the university bowing to pressure and being complicit in international repression of dissident voices. The [sociology] department pursued a policy with Roshaan that is virtually unprecedented in my experience of over a decade and a half of teaching here at Cambridge.” He also warned of the growing perception that the handling of my case may have been influenced by external pressure. Cambridge’s response, he noted, risked reproducing the very objectives of repression – harassment, intimidation, censorship, and the diversion of a scholar’s time and energy.
He added that I had “produced distinction-level work… the thesis has every prospect of becoming one of the strongest doctoral projects produced in the Department in recent years.” Another Cambridge sociology professor echoed this concern, describing the department’s treatment of me as “unprecedented” and adding: “I believe that the University stands to benefit from his continued presence.”
A pattern beyond one body
My case is part of a geography of fear that now reaches across continents. Over the last few months, Pakistani dissidents in the UK and elsewhere have been attacked with alarming co-ordination. I have received death threats. Other exiles have been beaten in their homes and had their houses ransacked, their safety systematically undermined. The message is clear: distance will not protect you. The danger we face is no longer theoretical. It has an address, it has victims. And it has around it a silence that is beginning to look like complicity.
In a letter to Cambridge University, my proposed external doctoral supervisor Clive Stafford Smith wrote: “Where a researcher is documenting allegations of atrocity crimes and is targeted as a result, institutional choices that assist attempts to silence that research are not merely unfortunate, they raise questions of facilitative complicity.”
Cambridge speaks the language of compassion fluently: “wellbeing frameworks”, “safeguarding reviews”, “risk protocols” and so on. But in practice, these phrases become weapons wrapped in velvet. They convert a political act – refusal to protect and support a threatened dissident, despite an ethical and legal duty to do so – into a technical one. In this new order, a dissident researcher becomes a “security complication”, a human life becomes a “risk factor.”
Then there is the matter of China. My work cuts across both Islamabad and Beijing’s interests, given that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor runs through Balochistan. China is another geo-political power whose red lines are shaping what can be safely researched. Cambridge is not untouched by this. In recent years, it has received tens of millions in China-linked funding, and has inaugurated partnerships such as the £200 million TusPark venture at its Science Park. Several senior academics have told me that topics that are now deemed “politically sensitive” – Uyghur persecution, for example, or China’s overseas footprint, are off-limits.
The university as empire, rewritten
Cambridge has long known how to classify people as protected, tolerated or disposable. Once, that logic served empire; today, it survives in emails, PDFs and decisions “taken after careful review.” Once, institutions silenced dissidents with overt authority. Today, they do it by way of procedure. The effect is the same. Only the aesthetics have changed. The question is not what Cambridge could have done. The answer is simple. Stand with the threatened, shelter the vulnerable, protect dissent even when this is inconvenient. Especially when it is inconvenient.
But we refuse to leave quietly
There is still a path back for Cambridge. But taking this requires something that seems to be unfamiliar to the institution at the moment: to choose people over power, to choose life over alignment. Cambridge needs to recall how to choose truth over the seductive quiet of compliance. Until then, the spires will remain beautiful. And hollow.
Not monuments to enlightenment but to timidity: where ethics are buried with ceremony and cowardice is polished into policy. The lamps of learning are being dimmed. And the ash settling on them is not a metaphor. It is real, the charred remnants of the hope once held by the students it has betrayed.
Cambridge University would not respond, on the record, to the claims in this article.
A timeline of transnational repression
Pakistan has a history of intimidating dissidents living beyond its borders. At least two, Karima Baloch and Sajid Hussain have been killed. Several have been injured in targeted attacks in the UK.
SEPTEMBER 2024: Roshaan Khattak registers as a postgraduate student in sociology at Wolfson College Cambridge, hoping to complete a PhD, exploring human rights violations in Balochistan. Khattak has confirmed to Index that he discussed transnational repression and the politically sensitive nature of his research with the university before taking up his place.
30 NOVEMBER 2024: Khattak organises an online solidarity event in support of his cousin, Idris Khattak. A one-time Amnesty and Human Rights Watch researcher, Khattak is currently serving a 14-year sentence in Pakistan, after being tried by a military court on bogus charges of espionage.
3 DECEMBER 2024: Residents of Khattak’s postgraduate accommodation hall at Cambridge report two “strange blasts” in the building, causing a near complete electricity outage. Khattak states that efforts were made to hide the evidence and no concrete follow-up steps were carried out by the university, despite his concerns about his safety. Soon after this, Wolfson College terminates Khattak’s accommodation contract. Even though Khattak is out of the country at the time, the college changes the locks to his room and powers down his computer, which contains sensitive information relating to his research. This obstructs his critical research during the winter break.
21 DECEMBER 2024: Khattak receives a specific and detailed threat via X that mentions Cambridge. On reporting it to the college, he is told to refer the matter to the police. Initially, the police tell him that because he is outside the country, it is outside their jurisdiction. Later, he is told that no action could be taken because the threshold warranting a criminal investigation has not been met.
Khattak states that a total of 15 requests to meet with college officials were rebuffed, with meetings cancelled “at the last minute” on four occasions. Under pressure from civil rights organisations and students, Wolfson College reverses the decision to terminate Khattak’s accommodation.
FEBRUARY TO MAY 2025: Khattak is informed that he would not be allowed to progress with the PhD. No proper reason is given.
JUNE 2025: Khattak is asked to leave his accommodation for a second time, even though Khattak remains a registered student at Wolfson College until the end of December 2025. This led to the loss of all his belongings. Institutional support is withdrawn at this stage, which leaves him further exposed.
14 JULY 2025: Early Day Motion 1661 on Roshaan Khattak is tabled in Parliament, calling on Cambridge to address transnational repression, academic freedom and security concerns, and Khattak’s PhD progression.
1 AUGUST 2025: The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA) comes into effect. Amongst other things, the act establishes a duty for relevant bodies (including universities) to maintain a clear code of practice on matters relating to free speech and academic research.
7 OCTOBER 2025: An open letter from civil society groups, including Index, Amnesty International and Article 19, asks the Office of Students to review Khattak’s case as well as TNR in academia.
15 NOVEMBER 2025: Khattak receives new death threats and reports them to the university. In line with HEFSA, the university has a statutory duty to respond accordingly.
15 – 18 DECEMBER 2025: Not having received a response to his report, Khattak writes to the university and college tutor setting out the facts and the university’s failure to respond.
18 DECEMBER 2025: Later that day despite having been awarded a distinction for his work so far, Khattak is informed that his enrolment has come to an abrupt end and the university has no duty to protect him.
13 FEBRUARY 2026: The Committee for Academic Freedom writes to Cambridge enquiring about the university’s duties under the new August 2025 free speech rules. The letter remains unanswered. Cambridge has failed to produce any relevant record.
17 MARCH 2026: Dr Thomas Jeffrey Miley, associate professor of sociology at Cambridge and Khattak’s proposed PhD supervisor, writes: “Roshaan is an exceptionally strong scholar. He is one of the strongest students I have taught and supervised. His work is original, intellectually ambitious, politically and sociologically important and pursued with unusual seriousness… In my view, the university had, and continues to have, responsibilities toward Roshaan in light of the risks attached to his lawful academic work…where a student has reported threats related to lawful research. In the post-August 2025 regulatory context, the University cannot properly treat the matter as irrelevant to decisions that affect whether that research can continue.”
Of the wider implications of Cambridge’s treatment of Khattak, Miley adds: “I must also record my distress at the manner in which [Khattak] has been treated over the past year…”
