London-based SOAS University publishes report on 2022 Leicester violence riddled with anti-Hindu bias; paints Hindus and Hindutva as aggressors of the violence unleashed by Muslims
London, England, United Kingdom 
22 February, 2026
Case Summary
On 23 February 2026, the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, published a 218 page inquiry report titled Better Together: Understanding the 2022 Violence in Leicester. The report examined the communal unrest that took place in Leicester, United Kingdom, between May and September 2022. Although the report stated that no single community or group was to blame for the violence and tensions, it identified Hindus, Hindutva ideology, and the BJP government in India as key factors contributing to the violence and communal polarisation. The report mentioned several incidents where Hindus were attacked, including Muslim mobs targeting local Hindus, a Muslim man removing the saffron flag from the Shivalaya Mandir, and the stabbing of a Hindu man. However, despite recording these incidents, the report presented Hindutva as a major factor behind the violence in Leicester in 2022. The report also referred to an alleged attack on a Muslim youth by Hindu men in May 2022 and described it as an important incident that was seen by many Muslim groups as a trigger for the later violence in August and September 2022. It stated that this incident was viewed as the starting point for the tensions that followed. The report further stated that the behaviour of some Hindu youths contributed to rising tensions. This included gatherings outside mosques and car convoys in the Green Road area, which has a large Muslim population, especially during India’s Independence Day on 15 August. The report noted that many of the Hindu youths involved were from the Daman and Diu community. Although the report included general statements saying that both Hindu nationalist and political Islamist actors contributed to tensions, it focused more extensively on Hindutva and Hindu nationalist ideology as central factors in the unrest. It also suggested that Hindutva related narratives were not limited to Leicester but were linked to wider international networks and influences. The report stated that members of the Daman and Diu Hindu community were central participants in the events between May and September 2022. It also noted claims made by interviewees that members of this community were associated with public gatherings, religious celebrations, and activities outside mosques that contributed to tensions. The report discussed the role of social media in spreading misinformation and increasing tensions. It acknowledged that false claims were circulated online, including reports of attacks and violence that contributed to unrest. However, while mentioning misinformation, the report did not identify specific individuals in detail, even though later legal action was taken against some individuals for spreading false information. In September 2024, Majid Freeman, a Leicester based activist who had spread misinformation related to the unrest, was sentenced to 22 weeks in prison for offences related to attempts to incite violence and for supporting a banned terrorist organisation, Hamas. He had shared false claims and misleading information on social media during the unrest. The report also examined slogans and expressions used during public gatherings and celebrations. It stated that slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Bharat Mata ki Jai,” which were raised during celebrations following India’s cricket victory over Pakistan, were associated with Hindu nationalist sentiment and contributed to tensions. The report further suggested that the unrest was linked to tensions between two communities of Gujarati origin, including East African Asian Muslims and Hindus from India’s Daman and Diu region. It also stated that perceptions and narratives about religious identity and nationalism contributed to the escalation of tensions. Overall, while stating that no single community was solely responsible, the report blamed Hindus and Hindutva for the escalation of the 2022 Leicester violence while downplaying Islamist aggression. The report went on to portray Muslim violence as reactive while depicting Hindu actions as the main instigators.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the category- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the subcategory selected is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. Within this, the tertiary category selected is- Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. This incident reflects a pattern in which documented acts of violence and hostility against Hindus were accompanied by narrative framing that shifted responsibility onto the victims’ identity, beliefs, and ideological associations. The report itself acknowledged multiple instances where Hindus were directly targeted, including physical assaults on Hindu individuals, disruption of Hindu religious celebrations, desecration of temple property, and removal of sacred religious symbols such as the saffron flag from the Shivalaya Mandir. These actions constitute clear religious markers, demonstrating that Hindus were singled out on the basis of their religious identity. However, instead of treating these incidents as evidence of anti Hindu hostility, the report placed disproportionate analytical emphasis on Hindutva ideology and Hindu religious expression as contributing factors to the violence. A central feature of this narrative framing is the treatment of Hindutva as a primary explanatory cause of the unrest. Hindutva, in its core meaning, refers to a unifying civilisational and cultural framework that emerged to preserve Hindu identity, traditions, and continuity in the face of historical disruptions, including Islamic invasions, colonial rule, and sustained attempts at religious conversion. It developed as a means of cultural self preservation and consolidation among Hindus, particularly in response to centuries of religious and political subjugation. However, in contemporary discourse, the term “Hindutva” is frequently used not merely to describe an ideological framework, but as a broad label that is often applied to Hindus collectively, thereby shifting attention from acts of violence against Hindus to the ideological identity of the victims themselves. This pattern was reflected in the report’s analytical approach, which examined Hindu religious slogans, diaspora identity, and ideological affiliations as contributing to communal tensions, while documented incidents of physical violence, intimidation, and religious desecration targeting Hindus were contextualised within broader ideological explanations. By framing Hindu identity and ideological expression as causal or contributing factors, the focus shifts away from the perpetrators and toward the beliefs and identity of those who were attacked. This creates a narrative structure in which violence against Hindus is presented within a framework that implicitly associates the victims’ religious or ideological identity with the escalation of tensions. The use of “Hindutva” in such contexts also functions as a linguistic and conceptual proxy through which hostility directed toward Hindus can be reframed as opposition to an ideology rather than to a religious community. This distinction, while presented as analytical, often becomes blurred in practice, particularly when references to Hindutva are applied broadly to Hindu individuals, religious expression, and cultural practices. This dynamic contributes to a situation in which attacks on Hindu religious symbols, institutions, and individuals are interpreted through ideological lenses rather than being recognised as direct acts of religious targeting. The report also acknowledged the role of misinformation in escalating tensions, including false claims circulated on social media that contributed to mobilisation and violence. However, the emphasis placed on Hindu ideological narratives, in contrast to the comparatively limited attribution of responsibility to Islamist mobilisation or actors involved in spreading disinformation, reinforces a pattern in which the ideological identity of the victims receives greater analytical scrutiny than the actions of those who carried out or incited violence. Such framing has significant implications in documenting hate-motivated targeting. The existence of physical assaults, temple desecration, religious symbol removal, and intimidation establishes clear evidence that Hindus were targeted because of their religious identity. When these acts are subsequently interpreted primarily through reference to the ideological or religious identity of the victims, rather than being treated as direct manifestations of religious hostility, it contributes to the minimisation and reframing of anti-Hindu violence. Taken together, the documented attacks on Hindu individuals and religious institutions, combined with narrative attribution that emphasises Hindu ideological identity as a causal factor, reflect a broader pattern in which violence against Hindus is accompanied by interpretive frameworks that shift focus onto the identity of the victims. This combination of physical targeting and narrative reframing constitutes a form of religiously motivated targeting and post incident victim attribution, warranting its documentation in the tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
