Elham Asaad Buaras
A Muslim-led report on the 2022 East Leicester unrest, authored by the UK Islamic Mission Council (UK-IMC) and the Centre for Policy on Faith (CPF), argues that Leicestershire Police failed to act against a deliberate campaign of Hindutva extremism, allowing violence to escalate and eroding Muslim residents’ trust in law enforcement. The report, Community Tensions, Hindutva, and Islamophobia Leicester City: A Case Study, asserts this failure enabled provocation and undermined community confidence.
The 96-page report also draws on nearly 500 testimonies to argue that the events were not a mutual conflict but a one-sided campaign of provocation by a small, organised Hindutva fringe. The report rejects the narrative of a “clash” between two communities.
Witnesses described masked men marching through Muslim-majority neighbourhoods chanting “Jai Shri Ram” — a slogan weaponised by anti-Muslim mobs in India — outside mosques, harassing women, and setting off fireworks to intimidate residents. They say the aggression was calculated, sustained, and designed to provoke a reaction that could be spun as Muslim-instigated violence.
“It wasn’t spontaneous,” one participant told investigators. “It was organised. They wanted us to react—and when we finally did, we were blamed for it.”
The report alleges police repeatedly failed to intervene. “The police just stood by and watched,” said another resident. “They were more concerned about avoiding bad press than stopping the violence.” Others described officers as “hostile” and “surveilling us rather than supporting us.” The inquiry warns that this perceived inaction—whether real or imagined—has left a “serious barrier” to rebuilding trust in the force.
The Leicestershire Federation of Muslim Organisations welcomed the report, describing it as “critically important and timely,” highlighting the “complex interplay of hateful anti-Muslim ideology and growing Islamophobia.” They urged authorities to handle the city’s fragile social fabric with “great sensitivity, wisdom, and balance,” calling on citizens’ concerns to be taken seriously and advocating the report as “essential academic evidence and reading” for understanding and learning.
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) also praised the findings, stressing that the report “confirms what many residents and people directly associated with the events said at the time: this was not a ‘clash’ between communities, but a campaign of intimidation driven by Hindutva extremism,” an MCB spokesperson told The Muslim News.
“Testimonies of masked men chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ in areas where Muslims reside to intimidate and the failure of police to protect residents highlight both the trauma caused and the urgent need for accountability.
“We call for Hindutva extremism to be recognised as a domestic security threat, urgent reforms in policing, and the adoption of the APPG definition of Islamophobia. Without decisive action, imported ideologies of hate risk further undermining trust, safety, and cohesion in Britain.
“We want to thank the report’s authors, especially UK-IMC and CPF, who have built an evidence-based report with original testimonies, community-based insights, and independent analysis,” added the spokesperson.
However, in an exclusive statement to The Muslim News, Chief Superintendent Shane O’Neill firmly rejected these allegations, calling the disorder “an exceptionally complex and challenging time” that placed “huge” demands on resources due to its sustained nature, large number of participants, serious offences, and the “large volumes of evidence which needed to be scrutinised and processed.”
“The police were not bias or complicit,” O’Neill insisted. “We managed a complex set of issues with professionalism and dedication to address a small minority intent on causing harm and disorder.”
O’Neill insisted that more than 50 people were charged in connection with the unrest, stressing that the force engaged extensively with communities, offered joint patrols with senior officers to religious leaders and councillors, and opened investigative processes to public scrutiny.
“Leicestershire Police is trusted by the majority of those we serve,” he said, pointing to strengthened neighbourhood policing, regular cultural sensitivity briefings for officers, and the appointment of a chief superintendent specifically for Leicester to enhance leadership and community engagement.
The UK-IMC rejected the police statement. A spokesman told The Muslim News, “Our report highlights perceived police bias and complicity that has worsened community distrust. Unless Leicestershire Police engage positively with the Muslim community to address these concerns, both real and perceived, tensions are likely to persist.
“We urge the force to consider our findings, agreed upon by all representative Muslim organisations, including the FMO and MCB. We remain willing to engage constructively, but are disappointed that previous attempts have not been met positively.”
The Muslim-led report characterises police assurances as distractions from more serious underlying failures, especially a lack of strategic recognition of Hindutva extremism as a domestic threat. It argues that the unrest was linked to coordinated online mobilisation by UK- and India-based influencers who spread Islamophobic narratives and that police did not appreciate the scale or the ideological drivers, resulting in inaction despite knowledge of outsiders’ involvement.
The report insists that “in rectifying this situation, there are a number of areas that should be explored, including reformed police practices and efforts to address anti-social behaviours.”
Among its central recommendations is the enhancement of community policing, with “dedicated officers to specific neighbourhoods to build long-term trust” and the development of partnerships with community leaders to ensure “cultural and religious sensitivities are understood.”
It also urges clear protocols for provocative marches, warning that while freedom of expression must be upheld, police must prevent “inflammatory gatherings from infringing upon the non-discrimination rights of others or escalating into violence.”
To that end, officers must be better trained, with the report calling for education on the “historical and global context” of Hindutva ideologies, recognition of nationalist slogans as “tools of intimidation”, and mandatory unconscious bias training alongside a broader understanding of Islamophobia.
Transparency and accountability are emphasised as crucial. “Involving community representatives in oversight committees and open forums to assess law enforcement responses to periods of unrest,” the report states, would provide greater confidence and allow communities to feel “invested in and engaged with their local forces.”
It also highlights structural inequalities across policing, noting how “a history of racial profiling and discrimination has eroded trust in law enforcement” and urging greater representation of women, Muslims, and minority groups within the police.
Practical measures are also outlined to prevent tensions at flashpoints such as festivals or cricket matches. The report calls for “clear guidelines… concerning noise levels, public alcohol consumption, the use of fireworks/crackers and littering in public spaces”, with designated areas for large gatherings to minimise disruption.
Finally, it demands “an inquiry… to fully understand how the riots were organised, including the identity of instigators, the role of social media, and the adequacy of police responses,” particularly in light of Leicester Police’s admission that the marches took place without prior notice or permission.
Earlier this year, a leaked Home Office “Rapid Analytical Sprint” document privately admitted that “Hindu nationalist extremism” had contributed to the Leicester unrest—the first time a UK government department has formally acknowledged Hindutva ideology as a domestic security concern.
The report, commissioned in August 2024 by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, identified Hindu nationalism, distinct from Hinduism, as one of nine emerging extremist threats alongside misogyny and the Khalistan movement. It warned that police and officials lacked sufficient awareness of the ideology, even as it played a role in “the serious disorder in Leicester in September 2022”.
According to The Guardian, this represented a “first-of-its-kind recognition” that Hindutva was fuelling tensions on British streets, while India-based outlets such as the Times of India and Firstpost noted the significance of Leicester being explicitly cited in the leaked analysis.
Yet the official government review, led by former Labour MP Ian Austin, was boycotted by over 200 Muslim organisations, who cited his record on Islamophobia and his support for the controversial Prevent strategy.
They denounced the inquiry as “a cynical exercise in deflection” and launched an alternative investigation of their own. Their report issues a direct call to action: overhaul policing practices, abolish Prevent, formally recognise Islamophobia with an official definition, and designate Hindutva extremism as a domestic security threat.
Photo: Police officers form a line during the 2022 unrest, which took place between August and September in Leicester, England. (Credit: Jaseem/UKIMC)
