Prime Minister’s Cabinet Office Forfeiture Committee seems to be setting a wrong precedent to cull one’s fundamental right for peaceable Free Speech debate against the unadulterated violence leashed on an innocent community over the protection of indefinable ‘phobia’s
Anil Bhanot’s OBE Honour awarded in 2010 is withdrawn by the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Office in December 2024, as punishment for his reply-tweets in the autumn of 2021, which opposed the Bangladesh Islamists’ mob violence killing Hindus as Kafirs.
The Honour withdrawal aside, I fear the problem for us Hindus has suddenly become very much of second class citizens in the UK when it comes to speaking against the injustices we may suffer from Islamists, so we have to suffer silently and not say anything for fear of being accused of Islamophobia, which seems now the number one priority of this Government.
During the Autumn of 2021, I got involved in tweet-debates from the Indian subcontinent when Islamist mobs in Bangladesh went from town to town seeking out poor Hindus to attack as kafirs and destroy their temples. My reply-tweets were mostly one-line reactions to others’ tweets amongst the horror unfolding there against Hindus. They were neither tweets or re-tweets but reply-tweets to debates from India by journalists, lawyers and doctors, and were only with India not anyone in the UK. Then compounded by the fact that the BBC was silent on reporting these incidents, I felt I had to speak for those innocent souls being targeted by mob violence. Now of course we see a full-scale genocide of Hindus, which the 2021 violence seems like a mini trailer.
Then later in December 2021, a Hindu child Lavanya committed suicide because of pressure to convert. Then again, I replied to tweets from the subcontinent because of my empathy for a helpless child tweeting that coercive or forced Dawah or Proslytisation is wrong, that it is evil – does the Forfeiture Committee think a child committing suicide because of such pressure is acceptable? When I consulted on the Forced Marriage legislative measures many of our faith leaders stance was that it is evil. For forced marriage I nominated someone for their work at the harsh end of it but the Cabinet Office didn’t think it was a worthy enough cause, which I couldn’t understand then but clearly I was being singled out as a strong Hindu leader to be ignored.
But at all times, I asked for dialogue and legislative measures only, even for my claim that Hinduism is the father of all religion, my purpose was not to claim some superiority, far from it, but in all humbleness show that the high level spirituality in all religions we share alike, that we should see the unity in spirit to enable us cohabit peacefully. Now the historian William Dalrymple in his book the Golden Road gives evidence of global trade from the time of the Indus Valley civilisation 4,500 years ago and he even discovered Buddha statue in a temple in Egypt. More recently in the 17th century, Dara Shikoh, a Mughal prince, who was a Sanskrit scholar said that some of the spiritual verses in Islam are akin to those in the ancient Hindu Upanishads. Zoroastrian, Yezidism, Old Judaism all shared stories with Hinduism, not to mention doctrines like Reincarnation. As for Jesus teachings, they are all complimentary to the Hindu, Buddh, Jain and Sikh spiritual tenets. Spirituality is shared across all religions, including Bahai of course, with differences in traditions making them interesting not conflicting.
Anyway during late February 2022, a young individual from the 5 pillars of Islam picked some of these one liner reply-tweets and exposed them out of context, as Islamophobic. I did try to engage with him then too but in vain. He complained to the Charity Commission and the Institute of Chartered Accountants ICAEW, but both institutions rejected the complaint and absolved me under the free speech and s.10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. In addition, the ICAEW cited two cases of BSB v Holbrook and of Toch where, in March 2022, both Holbrook and Toch were cleared of tweet complaints.
The Government is eager to prioritise injunctions against Islamophobia. But the Islamophobia definition is flawed, indeed it would be impossible to define it. Instead, the Government should try and define anti-Muslim hatred to protect Muslims and likewise Hindu-Misia, as they’ve defined Antisemitism. The legislative emphasis should be on anti-hatred not a perceived phobia which will always be a moving target, never a singularity in legislation. We have seen that Islamophobia’s definition of Muslimness implodes within Islam sects and only works when a minority of Muslims can be seen to be united on whom they consider non-Muslims as Kafirs. Surely, that cannot pass the Equality Act 2010.
I think the Forfeiture Committee found it convenient to impose an anti-Hindu dhimmitude on me in their attempt to show they are taking action against what they may think is Islamophobia. How is it Islamophobic to label the killings of people simply for being Hindu Kafirs as violent? Its unadulterated inhuman violence. As a religious leader am I not allowed to speak the Truth under this Government? I deny I am Islamophobic and have harmonious relations with Muslims who are my friends, colleagues, relations, clients, and several of my employees. But the consequences of this Government’s action are that I am left feeling religiously persecuted under the Equality Act 2010, the irony of it is that I consulted on its religious strand when it was just a draft Bill, and even more ironic it was the Labour Government then too.
After the 7/7 bombing I did ask the Communities Dept to debate the word ‘Kafir’ as I claimed it comes from the Sanskrit word ‘Kaayer’ for Coward, but nobody took responsibility to do such difficult debates. My reactionary tweets centred around the mob violence the Islamists were persecuting the poor Hindus in the Autumn of 2021, and sometimes to push the boundaries of debate but with the aim of bringing a peaceful solution to such mindless violence.
I gave contextual explanations to all my tweets and indeed refuted each one of the claims in the Cabinet Office letter, but it seems the Government’s priority is to set an example even by wrongful means. I did tweet that Islamophobia culls free speech and so what else is this? Please don’t judge me, ask me too. I would be the first one to protect Muslims under attack as I have spoken against their wrongful killings too, as well Christians, indeed for humanity, but the Government doesn’t understand that Islamophobia vagueness has to be weighed in by its natural consequence of Dhimmitude and only then it will lead to the right definition of anti-Muslim hatred, which finally would be workable in legislation.
The Hindu Council UK directors consider the Forfeiture Committee action wrong and lop-sided, upon which their unanimous decision is for me to seek legal advice. There doesn’t seem to be any appeals procedure, nor did they allow me an independent legal review. They stuck to their original letter’s decision which quite arrogantly said that they cannot have me as a role model, which is what the Honours System is designed for, merely because of the complaints – which were all rejected after thorough and professional investigations, and my representations submitted full supporting evidence.
I should point out that Hindu Council UK was in an internal dispute among its own directors in 2023, where 3 of the 8 directors tried to hijack the umbrella body but in vain. These 3 directors were removed by members at the AGM on 22 September 2024. But one director to cover a ‘safeguarding’ issue at his temple reported me to the police on these tweets and got a crime reference number and it seems the Forfeiture Committee re-ignited this case against me after that. I did disclose these 3 directors wrong doings breaching the Constitution but it seems their ethics differ from mine.
That the Honours have a higher threshold than the rulings of professional bodies like the ICAEW, then what exactly is their lofty threshold – is it to cull peaceable Free Speech debate when radicals are killing innocent people, to not even allow another independent review of their decision which I called flawed with dhimmitude? I did disclose to them the threats by radicals and it seems they want to put me in harms way, and after 3 years.
Debates need to be had by interfaith and no belief leaders on religious ‘phobias to define any real hatreds for workable legislative singularities, not some flawed moving targets of perceived rationalities v irrationalities to punish people as the Forfeiture Committee is doing. I fear the radicals killing innocent human beings as kafir’s and that is my rational fear. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Office Forfeiture Committee consider it an irrational fear, a phobia, and thus they condemn my peaceable Free Speech debate, albeit on twitter during that difficult Autumn of 2021, when even the BBC kept silent for which there was a large demonstration by the Bangladeshi Hindus joined by many Bangladeshi Muslim diaspora.
I deny I have brought the Honours System into disrepute, rather the Cabinet Office is targeting strong vocal community-based Hindus to suppress their voice. I have nominated the most excellent people for nominations recently they have refused to acknowledge their worth, like the late Mr Paul Stephenson OBE I nominated for a Knighthood – admittedly my secondary aim was to crystalise our own British history of race relations civil movement from 1964 but he deserved to be a ‘Sir’ in any case, a most humbling activist – but the Cabinet office has no time for promoting the British Values we have grown up with. I support the Honours System, but I believe its Cabinet Office patronage should surely be reviewed and the word Empire could be changed to Excellence, but with the King’s rights of investiture.
I told the Cabinet Office their action is my religious persecution, but they don’t seem to care so long as they appease their ‘phobia perceptions. Forfeiture Committee guidelines say they only act on others investigations but all those I was cleared on in 2022, so don’t understand their procedures, even denying me a legal representation – see timeline note 2 below.
Forfeiture Committee reminds of an Indian poet’s Urdu shaeyer:
“Voh Katal Bhi Kartay Hain, To Charchaa Nahi Hota; Hum Ahh Hi Bhartay Hain To Ho Jatay Hain Badnaam” –
They even Kill others, yet Nobody Murmurs a Word; We simply take a Sigh and are put to Shame.
Anil Bhanot
Notes:
1. Anil Bhanot co-founded the Hindu Council UK in 1994 after a two-year consultation with the UK wide British Hindu community and their Temples. He was its General Secretary from 2003 to 2009, its Interfaith Director from 2010 to 2023 and is now its Managing Trustee. Hindu Council UK work is always in a voluntary capacity as Sewa Service to the Community. In his day job, Anil is a practising Chartered Accountant in London and he also runs a social enterprise Charity group with a community arts centre in Leicester.
2. Correspondence Timeline: 4 January 2024 – I received Cabinet Office letter; 12 January 2024 – I submitted my representations with full evidence; 14 May 2024 – I enquired the progress and asked the procedure for returning OBE voluntarily as it was tainted now with dhimmitude; 16 May 2024 – Cabinet office replied saying the King has to approve it and so I relented for not causing unnecessary embarrassment as I was sure the Forfeiture Committee will rule in my favour; November 2024 – I received a letter to return the OBE and I asked for my return on account of dhimmitude. I asked them to allow me a lawyer and they refused. A closed end procedure.
3. Hindu Council UK member sent this link to ponder on the state of civil servants now by a former civil servant: https://fathomjournal.org/scandalous-indoctrination-inside-a-kings-college-counter-terrorism-course-for-uk-civil-servants/
4. Best wishes for a festive season and Merry Christmas 