Militant Hindutva as a Form of Extremism

The communal violence that unfolded in Leicester in 2022 marked a turning point in discussions about extremism, diaspora politics, and social cohesion in the United Kingdom. Long regarded as a model of multicultural coexistence, the city witnessed unprecedented clashes between sections of its Hindu and Muslim communities. In 2026, a major independent inquiry led by researchers from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and the London School of Economics (LSE) Better Together: Understanding the 2022 Violence in Leicester, reignited debate by recommending that the UK should formally recognise “militant Hindutva” as a form of extremism.

The 2022 Leicester Violence: Context and Escalation

The Leicester unrest did not emerge suddenly. It developed over several months in 2022 amid rising tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities, particularly among young men. Incidents included street confrontations, vandalism, and targeted attacks on homes and religious properties.

One early flashpoint reportedly involved a brutal assault on a Muslim young man by a group of 20 to 30 Hindu youths in May 2022 when they asked the Muslim youth about his religious identity before attacking him. This was followed by escalating tensions, including confrontations linked to India and Pakistan cricket rivalries and retaliatory incidents in August and September.

A significant escalation occurred in September when a large group of Hindu men arrived in Leicester. A large aggressive march was held by Hindu youths from a “Hindu area” (Belgrave) to a dominantly “Muslim area” (Green Lane Road, over 3 km away). It was mainly organised through WhatsApp groups. The march included up to 350 Hindu youths, most of whom were masked. Some of the marchers were carrying weapons, including knives. The march was chanting “Jai Shree Ram”, “Vande Mataram”, “Jai Bharatmata”, all of which are strongly associated with Hindu nationalism in India. This was an aggressive demonstration that had the intimidating characteristics of communalism. Another aggravating factor was that only eight police officers were present at the start of the march, despite knowledge of the tensions from previous weeks. A number of Muslims were attacked in and around Green Lane Road by these marchers and many Muslim as well as Hindu residents had to seek shelter from this violent Hindutva crowd. As a reaction to this intimidating march and the ineffective presence of the police, Muslim counter-protests were called via WhatsApp groups and these escalated into violent clashes during the afternoon in and around Green Lane Road and later that evening when the Hindu marchers were returning to Belgrave. All this unprecedented communal violence led to dread and fear prevailing in Leicester for months.

These provocative incidents mobilised large groups of Muslims who gathered on several consecutive nights in September in a car park area outside the Jame’ Masjid (mosque) to discuss the events and peaceful ways forward. Some Muslim youths, incited by a few individuals, broke away from the peaceful meeting, despite many attempts by others to calm the situation and prevent violence, and they attacked mostly Hindu individuals and property in the North Evington area. A Hindu man was stabbed by Muslim youths during these events. Police responses were criticised for being intensely harsh compared to their handling of Hindutva marches and attacks on Muslims, characterised as both heavy-handed and aggressive towards Muslims who had gathered to discuss the events. The police role was criticised for being delayed and insufficient by many Hindus whose homes were attacked.

What made the unrest particularly alarming was that Leicester had historically been viewed as a success story of multicultural integration. The violence exposed underlying fractures shaped by extremist aspects of Hindutva identity politics, their global influences provoking hatred beyond boundaries, and local socio-political faultlines.

The Role of Disinformation

A defining feature of the 2022 unrest in Leicester was the powerful and often destabilising role played by misinformation. The independent inquiry led by School of Oriental and African Studies researchers found that misleading and false content circulating online did not merely accompany the violence; rather, it actively intensified and accelerated it. Digital platforms became central arenas where narratives were constructed, contested, and weaponised, often with little regard for accuracy. This is the same phenomenon that had been witnessed in India’s domestic communal clashes that eventually led to multi-scale anti-Muslim pogroms in India.

One widely cited example in the report involved viral claims that Hindu temples had been attacked or desecrated by Muslim groups. These claims spread rapidly across platforms such as Twitter and WhatsApp, provoking anger and calls for retaliation. However, local police investigations found no evidence to substantiate many of these allegations. Despite official clarifications, the narratives persisted, demonstrating how misinformation can retain influence even after being debunked.

Hindutva groups actively sought to control the narrative of the Leicester unrest in highly divisive and polarising ways. Social media campaigns and lobbying efforts by Insight UK and its supporters further intensified polarisation. Although Hindutva influences are not apparently dominant among Hindus, they are active at multiple levels in Leicester, including within organised groups, youth mobilisation, religious events, and political advocacy. Local Hindutva groups and individuals supplied polarising and distorted accounts of the Leicester events to Hindutva organisations and media outlets in India, including television channels, news sites, and commentators aligned with Hindutva ideology. The failure to confront Hindutva supremacism risks deepening and entrenching communal tensions within UK South Asian communities.

A particularly concerning dimension identified by the inquiry was the transnational spread of misinformation. Some of the most widely shared posts originated from accounts outside the UK, particularly in India. These posts often framed the Leicester events within the context of Hindu-Muslim tensions in India, linking them to Hindutva’s broader ideological and political struggles. This external amplification not only distorted the reality of events in Leicester but also imported intensely polarised narratives that intensified divisions locally.

The inquiry further observed that misinformation spread through closed networks was difficult for authorities to monitor or counter. Community members often trusted information shared within these messaging networks more than official statements, allowing false claims to gain credibility and reaction. This dynamic created parallel information ecosystems, where different groups operated with entirely different understandings of the same event.

Crucially, the report concluded that deliberately shared misinformation served as a “central accelerant” rather than a root cause. It did not create tensions out of nothing, but it significantly magnified existing grievances and mistrust. By rapidly spreading emotionally charged and often unverified content, it reduced the space for dialogue and increased the likelihood of confrontation.

In this sense, the Leicester unrest illustrates a broader challenge facing modern societies, and that is the capacity of digital misinformation to transform local disputes into large-scale conflicts. The findings underscore the urgent need for more effective mechanisms to counter false narratives, improve digital literacy, and rebuild trust in credible sources of information.

Key Findings of the SOAS-Led Inquiry

The report, titled Understanding the 2022 Violence in Leicester, was based on extensive interviews with residents, community leaders, and witnesses. It also drew on broader sociological and political analysis.

Among its most significant findings were:

• No single group was solely responsible: Both Hindu and Muslim individuals were identified as “victims and perpetrators” in different instances.
• Failure of local leadership: The report criticised the response of local authorities, including the city council and police, citing “intelligence gaps” and poor communication.
• Fragmentation of community relations: Leicester’s social cohesion had weakened due to demographic changes, economic pressures, and ideological polarisation.
• Transnational influences: Ideologies such as Hindutva and political Islamism were identified as contributing factors to the escalation.

The report recommended that the UK government recognise “radical and militant Hindutva” as a form of extremism comparable to Islamist extremism and far-right white nationalism.

The Case for Recognising Militant Hindutva as Extremism

Supporters of the report’s recommendation argue that the UK’s counter-extremism framework must adapt to evolving threats, as the Leicester unrest suggests that newly empowered forms of ideological extremism can also pose risks to social cohesion. If extremism is defined by the promotion of violence, hatred, or supremacy, then militant forms of Hindutva meet these criteria in certain contexts. Treating all ideologies by the same standard ensures consistency and avoids accusations of bias. Recognising militant Hindutva as extremism could enable earlier intervention, including monitoring, community engagement, and targeted prevention strategies.

The Leicester unrest demonstrated how global political narratives can influence local conflicts. A broader definition of extremism would allow authorities to address these cross-border dynamics more effectively. By acknowledging all forms of extremism, policymakers can promote a more inclusive approach to social harmony, ensuring that no community feels unfairly targeted or ignored, as Muslims have started to feel targeted in the post-9/11 political atmosphere.

Whether or not the UK adopts this recommendation, the underlying issues cannot be ignored. Extremism is not confined to any single ideology or community. As societies become more interconnected, the challenge of maintaining cohesion in the face of diverse and sometimes conflicting identities will only grow.

Ultimately, the Leicester case serves as a warning and an opportunity. By learning from these events and adopting a nuanced, evidence-based approach, the UK can strengthen its resilience against extremism in all its forms while preserving the pluralism that defines it.