When the School of Oriental and African Studies (“SOAS”) released its report into the 2022 Leicester unrest, it claimed to bring clarity. But for many British Hindus, it was an expected betrayal. Instead of acknowledging that Hindus faced intimidation and targeted violence, the compromised inquiry and its resulting report shifted blame onto the victims.

Community leaders also expressed that the authors of the inquiry had pre-existing bias against Hindus and India, raising concerns about fairness.

Bigotry undermines neutrality

Observers point to instances where individuals associated with the inquiry had, prior to its commencement, publicly commented on the causes of the unrest or framed the role of certain communities in ways that some consider to be premature or one-sided. Critics argue that when conclusions appear to precede a formal investigation, it risks undermining confidence in the objectivity of the process.

There are also concerns about past activism and public commentary linked to members of the panel. Some of this activity has been described by sections of the Hindu community as dismissive, bigotry or critical of their beliefs and identity, contributing to a perception that the inquiry may not have approached the subject from a fully neutral standpoint. In particular, references to controversial imagery, comparisons, or rhetoric in prior public discourse have been cited as reasons for unease.

Pre-existing narratives and their impact

Further criticism centres on the idea that certain narratives around Hindu organisations and identity may have been firmly established by some contributors before the inquiry began. Public commentary, opinion pieces, and academic discussions predating the report are seen by critics as indicative of strongly held positions. This has raised questions about whether alternative perspectives were given equal consideration during the investigation.

Additionally, some have expressed concern that broader geopolitical or ideological viewpoints may have influenced the framing of what was, at its core, a local issue. Critics argue that introducing external political narratives risks complicating an already sensitive situation and may detract from a balanced assessment of events on the ground.

Erosion of trust

Taken together, these concerns have led many within the Hindu community to question the credibility of the report and the independence of the inquiry. The perception that some contributors may have held established viewpoints prior to their involvement has made it difficult for critics to view the findings as fully impartial.

As a result, calls have grown for greater transparency in how such inquiries are conducted, including clearer standards around neutrality and the selection of panel members. For those who feel their experiences were not adequately represented, the debate is not just about one report, but about ensuring that future investigations command the confidence of all communities involved.

Need for a parallel inquiry?

A central question remains unanswered: why was an academic inquiry privately funded by George Soros necessary when the UK Government had already commissioned an official independent review into the Leicester violence?

To many community observers, the decision to proceed with a separate inquiry appeared to bypass established democratic mechanisms. Rather than complementing the government-led process, the SOAS inquiry was seen as pre-empting its conclusions by advancing a particular interpretive framework.

Participation and legitimacy

There was no statutory basis, public mandate, or democratic obligation requiring any individual or organisation to engage with the SOAS inquiry, particularly when a UK Government-commissioned independent review into the Leicester unrest was already underway. For many stakeholders, the very premise of a parallel, privately funded academic process lacked justification from the outset.

As a result, a number of central actors did not participate. These included the police, the local council, representatives of the Hindu community, and other directly affected stakeholders. Their absence was not incidental but structural: without their evidence, testimony, and scrutiny, the inquiry necessarily proceeded within a constrained evidentiary framework.

By contrast, the government inquiry is expected to involve precisely these institutions and communities, ensuring access to official records, operational decision-making processes, and first-hand accounts from all sides. That breadth of participation is essential to establishing an authoritative record.

An investigation conducted without meaningful engagement from core stakeholders cannot credibly claim to present a comprehensive account of events. In the absence of those most directly responsible for public order, governance, and community representation, the SOAS report can only amount to a partial and limited interpretation of a far more complex reality, particularly given the existing and unresolved concerns regarding perceived bias.

Funding and perceptions of bias

The inquiry’s £620,000 funding from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations has further fuelled scepticism among critics. Whether justified or not, funding sources inevitably shape public perception. For communities already concerned about ideological bias, the association reinforced doubts about independence.

In public discourse, credibility matters as much as methodology. Academic work that fails to command confidence among affected communities undermines its own influence.

Ignorance of precedent and independent reports 

Any serious analysis of Leicester violence must start with evidentiary discipline. In the case of Hegab v The Spectator before the High Court of Justice, allegations about Leicester were subjected to judicial scrutiny, and the court did not find substantiated evidence to uphold certain claims that had circulated publicly, which clears the cloud of doubts created by anti-Hindu proponents. When a superior court applies evidentiary standards and declines to endorse particular narratives, subsequent reports bear the heavy burden of demonstrating their factual basis with precision. In this context, the independent investigations and field-based findings published by Henry Jackson Society (“HJS”), including the reports done by Douglas Murray and Charlotte Littlewood, cannot simply be dismissed as partisan interventions.

It is interesting to point out that HJS finds itself in the report five times and at every instance, they are labelled as Hindutva aligned organisations simply because of their alternative conclusions. If their conclusions diverge from the dominant framing pushed by SOAS, the proper response is rigorous engagement with their evidence, sources and methodology, but calling them inherently illegitimate because they offer an alternative account is both craven and slanderous.

A one-sided narrative?

Perhaps the most serious criticism is that the report frames “Hindutva” as a central explanatory factor while downplaying documented instances of Islamist extremism, coordinated online misinformation, and attacks targeting Hindu homes and temples.

Community organisations point to the damage suffered during the unrest, including attacks on over one hundred Hindu properties and two Hindu temples, arguing that the experiences of the victims were insufficiently reflected. They also cite a 2025 High Court ruling, which noted an absence of evidence linking organised “Hindutva” activity to the violence, contradicting narratives the SOAS report advances.

Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, the perception among many British Hindus (and beyond) is clear: their lived experiences were marginalised within an academic framework that had already identified its primary culprit.

Waiting for an authoritative account

For many Hindu organisations, the focus now turns to the forthcoming UK Government inquiry. They hope it will examine the coordinated role of misinformation, identify those responsible for incitement, and provide a balanced account acknowledging both causes and consequences of the unrest.

The expectation is not vindication but accuracy, a record grounded in evidence rather than ideological framing.

A warning for policymakers and media

The debate surrounding the SOAS report is ultimately larger than Leicester. It raises uncomfortable questions about how minority communities are studied, represented, and sometimes categorised within Western academic discourse.

Calls to classify baseless defined concepts such as “militant Hindutva” as extremism risk, constructing a political “bogeyman” unsupported by demonstrable evidence. Such framing may satisfy motivated narrative models but can obscure the complex realities of communal conflict on the ground.

Policymakers and journalists should therefore approach the report critically and with extreme caution, recognising that legitimacy depends on trust from those most affected.

An inquiry conducted without meaningful participation from a major stakeholder community cannot claim to deliver reconciliation. At best, it becomes one interpretation among many. At worst, it entrenches grievance and misunderstanding.

If the goal after Leicester is to identify the truth and move towards social cohesion, Britain must ensure that investigations into communal tensions illuminate the truth rather than be motivated by false narratives.

END OF ARTICLE