Hit, Run and Hide: Shoaib Daniyal - A convenient disinformation tool for Scroll.in

A few days after the 2024 General Election concluded in the United Kingdom, a peculiar article targeting British Hindus appeared on a little-known site called Scroll.in ^[1]. “How Hindutva is playing a silent role in British politics”, written by Shoaib Daniyal, is mostly duplicitous propaganda drivel. Badly researched and riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, Scroll’s journalistic integrity lies in tatters.

Funding

With its Indian domain registration, readers might be fooled into thinking the organisation behind the article is run and funded solely in India. Scroll.in was actually incorporated in Delaware, USA. The company raised funds from the Omidyar Network, set up by the billionaire entrepreneur Pierre Omidyar, whose name at birth was Parviz Omidyar ^[13]^[5].

Shoaib Daniyal

Shoaib Daniyal has gained notoriety for writing on purported Muslim victimhood and blaming the Hindu community for all the woes of Muslims. He has openly defended the most controversial and hateful people.

As an example, he wrote an article arguing against the ban of Zakir Naik, an Islamist preacher ^[11]. In 2010, Naik was banned from entering the UK for his extreme views ^[12] and is also wanted in India for terror financing ^[18]^[19]. Oddly, Shoaib thinks he should not be banned.

Skipping the context that all attacks were on Hindus in Leicester

In the article, Shoaib covers the 2022 Leicester unrest and attempts to target the now highly successful Hindu Manifesto. He conveniently ignored key events during the unrest, nearly all of which involved attacks on Hindus, which partially encouraged the Hindu community to develop the Hindu Manifesto.

On the evening of September 17 2022, extremist Islamists attacked Leicestershire Brahma Samaj Shivalaya (Hindu Temple). A Hindu religious flag was ripped down and burned in front of Leicestershire police, displaying a blatant contempt for the law and the UK’s commitment to religious freedom.

These violent Islamists not only attempted to hold Hindus, including women and children, captive inside the Shivalaya, but also damaged vehicles and other Hindu-owned properties.

A series of attacks on Hindu temples followed in a number of cities across the UK. Majid Freeman (real name Majid Novsarka), along with many others, actively spread misinformation during the course of the violence. Novsarka, now arrested and charged by Leicestershire police for the encouragement of terrorism and supporting a proscribed terror organisation, had instigated violence against the Hindu community which resulted in open threats to the Hindu community by Muslim extremists.

Shoaib argues against the Hindu Manifesto, a document that seeks equal funding for Hindu places of worship. He ignores the fact that Hindus and Hindu temples in the UK are under severe attack with zero support from official channels and authorities, while other communities’ places of worship are recognised, preserved and provided exclusive government funding for their security.

Many communities get funds to promote faith-based practices but not Hindus. What is wrong with asking for funds for the protection of Hindu temples when Mosques and Synagogues benefit from taxpayers’ money? Is Shoaib supporting Islamist violence instead of the need for the Hindu community to protect itself?

Other religious organisations like Sikh Temples have also been attacked by Islamists [20], and they too are not beneficiaries of extra funding like Mosques are.

Conflating Hindutva and Hindu safety

In one section of the article, Shoaib claims INSIGHT UK are “openly pushing Hindutva into Britians politics”. Ignoring the poor spelling and grammar in the article, he fails to acknowledge the credibility of the Hindu Manifesto which is supported by dozens of Hindu organisations.

The Manifesto contains seven crucial pledges that the community expects from parliamentary candidates and future governments. These pledges are designed to ensure the protection, promotion, and progress of Hindu practices and interests within Britain. The government and police have clauses to recognise Islamophobia and Antisemitism as religious crimes. But, when it comes to Hinduphobia or anti-Hindu hate, why can’t these crimes be recognised? Why is Shoaib against Hindus being treated fairly in terms of access to protection?

Factual inaccuracies

The article goes on to state: “The influence of these Hindutva organisations has allowed them to lobby politicians for policies that fit their ideology, from moving motions against “Hinduphobia” in British society to blocking national anti-caste legislation”.

INSIGHT UK has not been involved in blocking historic anti-caste legislation cases. The article uses the term “Hindutva”, a word that translates merely as “Hinduism” in most Hindu circles.

The article also makes unfounded accusations that the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh is the “overseas wing” of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh based on unfounded research. If Shoaib had spell-checked his article more carefully, he would have noted a difference in one letter. Alternatively, he could have approached the organisation to find they are completely independent.

Shoaib also quotes a dated news report which has since been debunked, which states that Sewa International was sending funds raised in the UK to Hindutva organisations in India.

However, this can easily be debunked. INSIGHT UK conducted research on the UK Charity Commission’s website archives and found the Commission was satisfied that the funds had been properly expended, clearing Sewa International of any such accusations ^[14].

Such poorly researched information is simply lazy journalism, cherry-picking old news without validating it with the latest evidence. These were false accusations by the editors of Scroll.in, desperately trying to find fault where there is none.

Now compare this to the tens of thousands of Islamist groups and individuals on terror and extremist watchlists around the world, including over 40,000 on the UK Mi5 watchlist alone. There are no Hindu groups or Hindu individuals listed, including RSS and HSS. HSS is a well-known charity with decades of charitable and community contributions.

Articles peddled by so-called journalists like Shoaib Daniyal are exactly why the Hindu Manifesto is needed. Shoaib’s article falsely targets a peaceful community with accusations centred on Hindu hatred, and this type of lazy journalism must be held to account.

There are a number of further glaring inaccuracies in the article. Some names in the article are also incorrectly attributed to INSIGHT UK and other organisations.

Quoting well-known anti-Hindu voices

Throughout the article, Shoaib quotes names that have made extreme or controversial statements against Hindus, including:

Rajiv Sinha – director of Hindus for Human Rights UK, an organisation that does anything but speak for Hindu rights. The organisation has strong links to the Islamist outfit Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC).
Mukulika Banerjee – an academic who herself is embroiled in accusations of targeting Hindus at her campus.
Sunny Hundal – a journalist who spread misinformation with a social media post blaming Hindus for the Leicester unrest, which could have contributed to the escalation of the unrest.
Subir Sinha and Chetan Bhatt – other academics with clear outspoken views against Hindus. Both have appeared on the SOAS Leicester inquiry panel, which was recently investigated to have been compromised, due to having multiple people on its panel who have been involved in racist anti-Hindu hate ^[15].

Some of the above individuals have made comments that go almost as far as denying Hinduphobia exists, effectively denying hatred towards Hindus. This is similar to how Holocaust deniers create hatred for Jews, by labelling the blatant targeted hate they suffer as fabrication.

Such partiality might make a reader question if this is journalism with good intent, or propaganda masquerading on borderline Islamist narratives.

Lacking balance

Shoaib Daniyal’s article also lacks balance. It quotes “apparent” derogatory comments by Hindus against Muslims, but does not quote past videos of Muslims in the East Midlands who have made extremely derogatory remarks against Hindus.

He also failed to cover that whilst Shivani Raja won in Leicester East, a brother of an Islamist organisation won in Leicester South ^[17]. Shoaib also failed to cover the campaigning tactics used by a local group called “The Muslim Vote” during campaigning. Whilst Hindus peacefully distributed the Hindu Manifesto, Islamists were seen on the street harassing MP candidates such as Jonathon Ashworth.

This lack of balance perhaps shows what angle Shoaib is really coming from, seeking to make Hindus look bad, whilst masking and ignoring the real threat from Islamists. Further, The Telegraph reported that it was actually Islamic leaders who were trying to put undue pressure on Muslim voters to vote a particular way ^[21]. Unsurprisingly, Shoaib failed to cover this.

Web of propaganda

The Omidyar Network that set up Scroll.in has been accused of partnering with George Soros in attempting to influence Indian regime changes and circulate anti-India propaganda, including funding leftist media portals like The Wire, Scroll and News Laundry ^[7]^[8]^[9]. Why are these billionaire-backed organisations attempting this? Who is actually pulling the strings behind them in the US?

Many of the anti-Hindu voices named earlier have links to the organisations of these billionaires in one way or another.

The English editor of Scroll.in is Naresh Fernandes, a Goan, who says he grew up in a Roman Catholic (Christian) neighbourhood ^[2]^[3]. Fernandes regularly posts divisive articles on his social media feed targeting Hindus but rarely posts any negative news about Christians or Muslims^[4].

How can these journalists and controversial backers be trusted as a source of news on Indians and Hindus?

Satyameva Jayate – Truth alone triumphs

While Shoaib Daniyal has compromised journalistic ethics, the Hindu community can at least be comforted that the Hindu Manifesto has been published and promoted to Scroll.in readers. Some of these may be sceptical of Shoaib’s narrative.