This article is based on a profile we have produced which examines Vichaar Manthan, the organisation the Henry Jackson Society worked with to produce their report investigating the Leicester unrest. You can find this profile here:
In our previous article taking a look at Henry Jackson Society’s (HJS) report on the Leicester unrest, we noted how, given the flat-out false information, downplaying of clear Hindutva threads, and a distinct lack of representation and investigation of facts and incidents impacting Muslims, the report was less of a report and more of a PR whitewash for the Hindutva.
We drew attention to HJS’s collusion with Vichaar Manthan UK (VMUK), an organisation that platforms and promotes various, hardened, Islamophobic RSS/BJP/Hindutva proponents like Ram Madhav and Dattatreya Hosabale.
In this piece, we scrutinise this connection as well as VMUK, before raising questions about the report’s credibility.
The attempts to manufacture the Leicester unrest into a social cohesion (aka counter-extremism) issue that frames Muslims for the blame continues with a “research brief” published by the “Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism” within the hate-financed Henry Jackson Society (HJS).
The title of the brief is “Hindu-Muslim civil unrest in Leicester – ‘Hindutva’ and the creation of a false narrative” (available here).
In this piece we’ll examine why the brief needs to be rubbished and rejected by all reasonable, concerned people.
The neocons at the hate-financed Henry Jackson Society (HJS) are doing their best to spin the Leicester tensions by deflecting the Hindutva factor and manufacturing a Muslim integration problem. They have even gone to the extent of making up and then tearing down red herrings (“there is no evidence of RSS terrorists in Leicester” – no one in their right mind has claimed this).
But we know Hindutva mobs and trolls are vicious. And we also know of their direct involvement in the Leicester tensions.
Recent weeks have seen a flurry of social media activity around Jordan Peterson.
Some sections of Muslims, schooled in various strands of leftists thought have been disturbingly berating Muslims for wanting Peterson to accept Islam, asserting that they have fallen for his discursive allure or simply chasing clicks and clout.
The latter attack has been particularly made against da’iys such as Mohammed Hijab, who has recently engaged Peterson again to present the message of Islam. Hijab has previously taken Peterson to task for his reliance on discredited and disreputable individuals like Ayaan Hirsi Ali for his understanding of Islam, and his poorly chosen remarks about the Prophet ﷺ. Despite this, Hijab’s intentions have been prejudged by many Muslims despite clear narrations that caution against such baseless speculation. It is doubted that such critics have teared open the hearts of those who call to Islam to confirm their intentions.
Then there are those Muslims who seem to possess a rose-tinted view of Peterson, fawning over a personality whose incoherence was rudely exposed by Hijab’s simple line of questioning concerning his belief in God.
NOTE: We must urgently diffuse the points made in the concluding part of this piece within the Muslim community. A T20 cricket match between Pakistan and India is scheduled to take place on the 23rd of October. It is likely that nefarious neocon-Hindutva networks will do their best to destabilise communities in Britain. We will need to remain on guard against actions that will be used to manufacture further pretexts to the detriment of the Muslim minority.
For decades the Muslim and Hindu Gujrati communities in Leicester have lived together in relative harmony. And this is the case despite various historic trigger factors, such as the two-nation theory that led to formation of Pakistan and India, Kashmir, and the destruction of the Babri masjid.
So, what has changed in recent years?
Whilst there are compounded socio-economic factors that have been exacerbated due to foolish foreign policies, the attributes of the unrest that took place in Leicester in recent months can be traced chronologically and ideologically to a much deeper problem: the pro-Israeli Hindutva ideology and its convergence with pro-Israeli far-right/neocons – both of which are animated by a shared, violently vitriolic hatred of Islam.
Given the neocon-Hindutva nexus’s ideological convergence and the terroristic praxis it seems to have led to with Breivik, it would be most disconcerting to see anyone approving people or groups that support such hateful streams of thought.
Shockingly, however, we have individuals within Parliament who proudly sit within the interstices of the neocon-Hindutva nexus. Moreover, they even happily work with RSS fascist fronts in the UK. This seems to have contributed to the social impact that was manifested in two ways through the Leicester unrest in early September: the first is that Muslims were scapegoated despite clear Hindutva fascist provocations and violence; and second, there was a muted response from the British Hindu community on the topic of Hindutva, RSS, and BJP.
In this part of the series, we will delineate each of these aspects.
Douglas Murray is a useful entry point for understanding the ideological aspect of this whole affair. His Spectator piece, in which he demonstrated his cowardice by directing cheap shots at Mohammed Hijab, abjectly failed to mention Hindutva or the RSS.
Rather, his focus towards the end of his diatribe was on the failure of multi-cultural societies:
“There are all sorts of advantages to a multi-cultural society. But the downside is that we are only one internet rumour, flag-attack or ethnic chant away from civil unrest.”
To properly understand the implication of omitting mention of Hindutva fascism whilst simultaneously blaming multicultural societies, we need to elaborate the political philosophies of neoconservatism and Hindutva fascism and their dark ideological nexus.
The brunt of the “Islamist agitators” claims were reserved for Muslim public intellectual Mohammed Hijab. In this piece, we examine these claims to demonstrate how they have been manufactured to problematise Muslims in the Leicester flare-up.
The “Battle of Cable Street” is often cited as a watershed moment in the fight against fascists. In 1936, Jews, Irish, and left-wing activists in their hundreds of thousands gathered in East London to prevent a fascist march through a Jewish neighbourhood. They used weapons for their purpose: sticks, rocks, and chair legs were used whilst marbles were deployed to destabilise police horses. In a fierce battle, Oswald Moseley and his Blackshirts were forced to retreat.
As one Times of Israelarticle noted, despite scores of police officers injured, this incident was a cause célèbre in left wing and Jewish papers such as the Jewish Chronicle. It is held up today as a model response by anti-fascist groups and prominent politicians alike.
The attempts to disconnect Muslims in one locality from believers and the realities they face in the rest of world has many different, subtle forms. They normally revolve around the fostering and/or promotion of a “British Islam”. A version of this attempt has been on full display in recent days.
With the passing of the Queen and the ascendancy of Charles III as King, there has a been a deluge of reports about imams, mosques, and organisations exhibiting a strange level of fawning and overcooked deference.