Hindu Council UK is concerned that Islamophobia Council set up by the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Raynor MP comprising of some Muslims only, under the chair of the barrister Dominic Grieve, who had apparently written a forward to their APPG definition of Islamophobia in 2019, may bring in Islamism into the UK as a matter of policy. This will harm not only the Hindus, but we believe the 99% of likeminded Muslims too. You may have noticed in the media some Islamists journalists writing about the ‘Common-Hatred’ among Hindus and Muslims, whereas our experience is quite the opposite of ‘Common-Love’ between Hindus and Muslims.
Angela Raynor had restricted this consultation to a select few organisations only, until challenged for a judicial review by the free speech stalwart Lord Young. Even then she opened it to the public for a limited period only. We had advised that the Islamophobia definition should be debated by all faiths and recommended to bring back Sir Tony Blair’s integrative Faith Communities Consultative Council as a way to do that, but Angela Raynor seems to be sidelining us and our suggestions altogether.
The Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is an atheist, and we do not think he understands the complexities of inter-faith. He has done well to challenge Antisemitism but we have seen he ignores the plight of Hindus when they are attacked by Islamists.
We urge our Temple Trustees to please respond to this Islamophobia consultation, open only to this Sunday 20 July 2025 and we have given two different answers for you to understand the context below. It should not take more than an hour, and the link is:
Suggested answers to the consultation for the 13 Questions in the consultation are shown under a) and b) below:
a) from Hindu Council UK on its members behalf, and
b) from Anil Bhanot in his individual capacity but who is being religiously persecuted, as agreed by the Hindu Council UK, under Islamophobia as Islamism by the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Office.
Q1 to Q5 are of personal data whether you are responding as an Individual or Organisation and your ethnicity and so on.
Please answer these initial questions as appropriate to yourself
Q6. When referring to discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, hatred or violence directed at Muslims, which term do you think should be used? For instance, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘anti-Muslim hatred’, ‘anti-Muslim racism’, ‘anti-Muslim prejudice’, ‘Muslimophobia’ etc.
a) anti-Muslim hatred is more semantically appropriate
b) anti-Muslim hatred
Q7. Please tell us your reason for suggesting this term
a) The term “Islamophobia” is common but semantically and legally imprecise, as it blurs criticism of Islam with hatred of Muslims and implies irrational fear. In contrast, “anti-Muslim hatred” is more appropriate in legal and policy contexts. Moreover, it is already used by UK authorities to describe hate crimes targeting Muslims and aligns with the Public Order Act 1986 and Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which address religiously aggravated offences. Terms like “anti-Muslim racism” or “prejudice” lack clear legal application.
b) Islamophobia is no longer about anti-Muslim hatred; it has become a term to protect Islamism and is thus equates to Islamism-phobia. There is a rational fear of Islamism, but Islamophobia passes it off as an irrational fear. Fear, rational or irrational, is a fluid concept, it cannot be singularity in law. Islamophobia needs to be weighed with its counter product Dhimmitude and tragically the Government machinery is imposing a form of dhimmitude on those who speak against Islamism.
As for Race, it is fixed so not applicable for faith.
Define Islamism and Dhimmitude before Anti-Muslim Hatred
Q8. Do you think the UK Government should adopt a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia? (any definition would be non-statutory)
a) No.
b) No
Q9. Please could you tell us more about why you think that?
a) Adopting a definition of anti-Muslim hatred risks enabling de facto blasphemy laws, curbing free speech and legitimate debate on religion, ideology, and policy. This could harm social cohesion and be counterproductive to the communities it aims to protect. The Hindu Council UK urges a balanced, inclusive approach that treats all faiths equally simultaneously e.g. HinduMisia (anti-Hindu hatred) and anti-Sikh hatred, anti-unbelief hatred (and so on) and protects free expression. Policies must reflect democratic values and uphold the right to critique without fear.
b) The APPG definition of Islamophobia in 2019 has already harmed the community cohesion built over decades before 2019 as it has since served to protect Islamism over faith generally and that definition was not even non-statutory. Thus to strengthen this concept in any form will create a Islam as a superior religion over my religion of Hinduism and this is where Islamism takes over Islam by underhand means. First there should be a non-statutory definition of Islamism and Dhimmitude which is now the need of the hour.
Definitions will then be needed on HinduMisia and all other faiths and none too.
Q10. Do you think Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia is also a form of racism?
a) No
b) No
Q11. Please could you say more about why you think that?
a) The proposal to align Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia with racism is particularly problematic. Islam, like Hinduism, is a religion that welcomes adherents from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Recognising religion as a choice, one protected by the Human Rights Act while race remains an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, is fundamental to an accurate and fair discussion on discrimination. Conflating religious identity with racial identity risks undermining the very principles of equal protection under the law and could inadvertently lead to legal and societal inconsistencies.
The selective focus on protecting one religious group over others disregards the historical injustices, threats, and discrimination faced by Hindus and other communities. It is imperative that the Government remains vigilant against linguistic manipulation that fosters division rather than unity.
b) The question is a nonsense as race is something fixed from birth whereas religion is a matter of choice. This question actually gives weight to the evidence experienced by many that Islamophobia is to protect Islamism and those who lobby for this definition have a far bigger agenda than most people realise.
The fact that the Government only opened this consultation to the wider public from its select few organisations, some of which may well have been even Islamists, after Lord Young threatened it with a judicial review, shows the Government’s nefarious agenda to impose Islamism on the wider public through any means, non-transparent and clandestine, and this question is a testament to that ill-behaviour.
Q12. Should any of the aspects below feature in a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia? Please tick all that apply.
a) None ticked
b) None ticked but other as explained below:
Before any attempt on defining anti-Muslim hatred is made the flawed definition of the APPG in 2019 of Islamophobia should be considered to protect Islamism and rejected for its being Islamophobia. Thus, first define Islamism to protect the integrity of Islam which 99% of Muslims adhere to but some of whom may suffer anti-Muslim hatred because of the onslaught by the Islamists conflating Islamism with Islam. After defining Islamism then define Dhimmitude which gives rise to punishment under the guise of Islamism-phobia because Islamophobia has never been counter-weighed by its byproduct of Dhimmitude. Then attempt to define anti-Muslim hatred along with HinduMisia and anti-hatred of other faiths and none.
Q13. If you wish to, please can you give an example(s) of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia that you have witnessed, experienced or read about over the last two years? Please refrain from disclosing personal information about other people involved in these examples – such as their name, address.
a) The Hindu Council UK have encountered cases where individuals who leave a religion—apostates—face hostility, even in professional settings. The Hindu Council UK, which helped establish inclusive prayer guidance in workplaces two decades ago, is concerned that protections framed under Islamophobia are now being used in ways that suppress freedom of belief and expression, particularly for those with no religious affiliation. This shift risks reversing the original aims of peace and mutual respect.
b) I am being religiously persecuted from 2024 under the accusation of Islamophobia by the Cabinet Office and its Honours Forfeiture Committee headed by prominent people like Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Hamid Patel.
The Forfeiture Committee removed my OBE of 2010 in November 2024 upholding a complaint against me on Islamophobia and Alex Rowe of the Cabinet Office put my name on their Government website among paedophiles and criminals for perpetuity. I had offered to return the OBE for its being tainted by Dhimmitude to Alex Rowe but he rejected any negotiation on that and went onto validate the death threats from the Islamists. Sir Keir Starmer as PM recommended their HinduMisic decision.
My crime from their conviction was to enter into a peaceable debate on Twitter with a dozen or so Lawyers in the Indian subcontinent when Hindus were being killed by Islamists in Bangladesh as Kafirs in the Autumn of 2021 for a dialogue and legislative measures against Islamists attacks and forced conversions.
Ends. 15 July 2025