A total of 32 individuals have faced convictions for various offences in connection to East Leicester’s violent clashes between Hindu and Muslim communities that erupted in August and September 2022, resulting in the city gaining international attention.
The offences include affray, threats to kill, racial or religious public order offenses, and illegal possession of weapons.
The violent clashes that erupted between members of the Hindu and Muslim communities a year ago, culminated in a significant outbreak of disorder on Belgrave Road on Saturday, September 17, 2022.
Today, the city bears the scars of those tumultuous events, as an ongoing government inquiry seeks to unravel the factors that fuelled the violence. Legal proceedings related to the incidents are still underway, Leicester Mercury reported.
Leicestershire Police mobilised a team comprising more than 50 officers to investigate over 100 incidents linked to these shocking events, meticulously reviewing more than 6,000 hours of body-worn camera footage, CCTV footage, and phone images.
Penalties have ranged from fines of up to £1,200 to prison sentences. Meanwhile, 19 cases remain unresolved.
The aftermath of the violence has had notable repercussions on the police force, affecting both its internal operations and its interactions with the communities it strives to serve. Chief Constable Rob Nixon addressed these matters in a discussion with LeicestershireLive, shedding light on the lessons learned and the persistent challenges.
Chief among the challenges, according to Nixon, has been the endeavour to rebuild public trust in the police force's handling of the disorder.
Some individuals contended that footage of a march in Highfields, which escalated into a violent clash, received implicit support from officers who appeared to be walking alongside the procession on Green Lane Road.
However, the police force consistently refuted these claims, asserting that it was simply outnumbered at that juncture, until reinforcements arrived.
To this day, concerns persist that the police may favour one community over another, a viewpoint that Nixon described as "saddening."
He emphasised the challenge of convincing people that the police force is dedicated to serving all communities and reiterated their commitment to impartially responding to incidents and following the evidence, irrespective of allegiances.
Nevertheless, there is a prevailing perception that individuals are either allied with one side or the other.
Despite these challenges, Nixon maintained that the disorder primarily involved a small minority of Leicester's population. In conversations with numerous individuals, he discovered a shared desire among many residents to restore Leicester's reputation as a symbol of diversity, which had been tarnished during the unrest.
Nixon remarked, "We're a year on, and I can't help but come back to saying that the vast majority of people in Leicester didn’t want this." He referred to them as the "silent majority" – individuals who take pride in living in Leicester and have successfully coexisted in harmony.
He acknowledged the existence of a vocal minority that amplifies tensions among different communities.
The global recognition of Leicester as a beacon of diversity was reiterated in the extensive media coverage of last year's events. Nevertheless, some city residents contended that tensions had been simmering beneath the surface for a considerable time before the outbreak of violence.
This prompted the police force to reevaluate its approach to engaging with the city's diverse communities, particularly in the east Leicester area.
In response to these evolving challenges, Nixon acknowledged that community dynamics were changing at an unprecedented pace within the organisation. He attributed this rapid transformation to various factors, including the influence of social media and shifts in the composition of different communities. The demographic landscape is constantly evolving, he said.
Nixon also stressed the importance of not becoming complacent in the face of these changes. Instead, he emphasised the need to adopt a sophisticated and targeted approach to engage with all communities effectively.
Additionally, he noted a shifting dynamic within each community, particularly in terms of intergenerational relationships.
He further recognised that the east Leicester area presented one of the most intricate blends of diverse cultures and faiths, often accompanied by strong opinions.
According to him, within this complex environment, a new phenomenon has emerged where faith and politics are aligned, a development previously unseen, posing additional challenges that needs to be addressed.
The police in Leicester have traditionally maintained relationships with individuals considered, or who have self-proclaimed themselves as community leaders.
However, Nixon has taken steps to broaden the force's engagement with the diverse groups comprising Leicester's population, especially following the events that escalated tensions.
To achieve this, a leadership restructuring has been implemented to ensure that city neighbourhoods receive adequate coverage. Additionally, a "cohesion team" has been established with the responsibility of identifying the different communities within the city and ensuring their voices and perspectives on local policing are heard.
Nixon has stressed the need for a more inclusive connection with these communities, aiming to engage with individuals who better reflect the diversity within them, as opposed to relying solely on designated community leaders.
In addition to reassessing the force's community engagement, an internal review has been conducted to determine potential improvements in police responses if similar events were to occur in the future.
This review has also identified areas in policing that require strengthening and emphasised the importance of being more responsive to external factors.
While Leicester has not witnessed a recurrence of the disorder, the aftermath continues to impact the allocation of police resources.
Extra personnel and assets were deployed in preparation for two Asia Cup cricket matches involving India and Pakistan earlier this month, and both occasions proceeded without any incidents.
TENSIONS with Pakistan, fluctuating ties with Bangladesh, and growing Chinese influence in Nepal and Sri Lanka have complicated India’s neighbourhood policy, a top foreign policy and security expert has said.
C Raja Mohan, distinguished professor at the Motwani Jodeja Institute for American Studies at OP Jindal Global University, has a new book out, called India and the Rebalancing of Asia.
He also described how India’s engagement with the US, Japan, Australia and Europe has moved from symbolism to one of substance. Raja Mohan said, “After independence, India withdrew from regional security politics, focusing on global issues and non-alignment. But the past decade has seen a reversal. India is now back in the Asian balance of power. The very concept of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ reflects that, putting the ‘Indo’ into the ‘Pacific.’”
The idea, he explained, has deep historical roots: “The British once viewed the Indian and Pacific Oceans as interconnected realms. Now, after decades of separation, those spaces are merging again.”
Narendra Modi with Xi Jinping and (right)Vladimir Putin at last month’s SCO summit in China
While India once aspired to build a “post-Western order” alongside China, those dreams have long since faded, according to the expert.
“Contradictions between India and China have sharpened,” he said, citing territorial disputes, a $100 billion (£75bn) trade deficit, and China’s growing influence among India’s neighbours.
By contrast, India’s ties with the US and Europe have strengthened.
“Where once India shunned security cooperation with Washington, it is now deeply engaged,” he said. Yet he emphasised that India remains an independent actor, “not a traditional ally like Japan or Australia.”
His comments were made during the Adelphi series, hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last month. According to the expert, who is also a visiting research professor at the National University of Singapore, the return of India to regional security politics marks a significant change in its foreign policy since independence. Popular discussions about the “rise of Asia” tend to oversimplify what Raja Mohan explained was a deeply uneven transformation. “It’s more accurate to say Asia as a whole is rising,” he said, adding, “but not evenly. China has risen much faster than the rest.”
This imbalance has created internal contradictions within Asia, according to the academic. “China’s sense of entitlement to regional dominance and its territorial claims have provoked reactions from other Asian countries,” he said.
While China’s economic ascent, once “a marriage of Western capital and Chinese labour”, that relationship has strained over the past 15 years as the Asian country grew into a global military and economic powerhouse, according to Raja Mohan.
And the US, which previously nurtured China’s growth, now seeks to restore balance in Asia, shifting from a policy of engagement to one of cautious competition, he said.
Dwelling on India’s rise, he said, “The question is not whether India can match China alone, but whether it can help build coalitions that limit unilateralism. History shows weaker states can play crucial balancing roles, as China once did against the Soviet Union.”
He explored how the US-China and India-China dynamics might evolve, particularly under US president Donald Trump.
“Some believe the US is retrenching to focus on Asia, others think Trump might seek a grand bargain with China,” Raja Mohan said. “Much depends on how Washington manages its ties with Russia and its global posture.”
He also described how India’s engagement with the US, Japan, Australia and Europe has moved from symbolism to one of substance. Raja Mohan said, “After independence, India withdrew from regional security politics, focusing on global issues and non-alignment. But the past decade has seen a reversal. India is now back in the Asian balance of power. The very concept of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ reflects that, putting the ‘Indo’ into the ‘Pacific.’”
The idea, he explained, has deep historical roots: “The British once viewed the Indian and Pacific Oceans as interconnected realms. Now, after decades of separation, those spaces are merging again.”
While India once aspired to build a “post-Western order” alongside China, those dreams have long since faded, according to the expert.
“Contradictions between India and China have sharpened,” he said, citing territorial disputes, a $100 billion (£75bn) trade deficit, and China’s growing influence among India’s neighbours.
By contrast, India’s ties with the US and Europe have strengthened.
“Where once India shunned security cooperation with Washington, it is now deeply engaged,” he said. Yet he emphasised that India remains an independent actor, “not a traditional ally like Japan or Australia.”
His comments were made during the Adelphi series, hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last month. According to the expert, who is also a visiting research professor at the National University of Singapore, the return of India to regional security politics marks a significant change in its foreign policy since independence. Popular discussions about the “rise of Asia” tend to oversimplify what Raja Mohan explained was a deeply uneven transformation. “It’s more accurate to say Asia as a whole is rising,” he said, adding, “but not evenly. China has risen much faster than the rest.”
This imbalance has created internal contradictions within Asia, according to the academic. “China’s sense of entitlement to regional dominance and its territorial claims have provoked reactions from other Asian countries,” he said.
While China’s economic ascent, once “a marriage of Western capital and Chinese labour”, that relationship has strained over the past 15 years as the Asian country grew into a global military and economic powerhouse, according to Raja Mohan.
And the US, which previously nurtured China’s growth, now seeks to restore balance in Asia, shifting from a policy of engagement to one of cautious competition, he said.
Dwelling on India’s rise, he said, “The question is not whether India can match China alone, but whether it can help build coalitions that limit unilateralism. History shows weaker states can play crucial balancing roles, as China once did against the Soviet Union.”
He explored how the US-China and India-China dynamics might evolve, particularly under US president Donald Trump.
“Some believe the US is retrenching to focus on Asia, others think Trump might seek a grand bargain with China,” Raja Mohan said. “Much depends on how Washington manages its ties with Russia and its global posture.”
China, he noted, has already toned down its aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomacy, realising that assertiveness has backfired. Yet the underlying structural contradictions between China and both the US and India “are unlikely to disappear.”
Asked about India’s balancing act between the US and Russia, especially after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, the expert was pragmatic.
“India has steadily moved closer to the US and the West, but Trump’s trade-first approach has caused turbulence,” Raja Mohan said.
He cited the threats of high tariffs on Indian imports and resentment over trade imbalances with Washington DC.
On Russia, Raja Mohan’s view was that the relationship has been “in slow decline since the 1990s.”
While India’s GDP now outpaces Russia’s, it continues to engage Moscow for practical reasons. “India’s oil purchases from Russia rose from two per cent to forty per cent after 2022. That’s pragmatism, not alignment,” Raja Mohan said.
He added that prime minister Narendra Modi’s recent handshakes with China’s president Xi Jinping and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin at the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO) summit in China were “signals, reminders to the West that India has options.”
Raja Mohan said India was at the cusp of a historic transformation. “India once provided security across Asia - in both world wars, millions of Indian soldiers fought overseas. That history was forgotten when India withdrew from global security,” he said.
“Now we are reclaiming that role. Ideally, the partnership with the US is the best. But if not, India and other Asian powers will have to shoulder the burden themselves.”
“Japan, Korea, India, Australia - all will have to do more on their own,” he said. “We’ll need to pull up our own bootstraps.”
Dr Benjamin Rhode, senior fellow at IISS, chaired the session.
aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomacy, realising that assertiveness has backfired. Yet the underlying structural contradictions between China and both the US and India “are unlikely to disappear.”
Asked about India’s balancing act between the US and Russia, especially after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, the expert was pragmatic.
“India has steadily moved closer to the US and the West, but Trump’s trade-first approach has caused turbulence,” Raja Mohan said.
He cited the threats of high tariffs on Indian imports and resentment over trade imbalances with Washington DC.
On Russia, Raja Mohan’s view was that the relationship has been “in slow decline since the 1990s.”
While India’s GDP now outpaces Russia’s, it continues to engage Moscow for practical reasons. “India’s oil purchases from Russia rose from two per cent to forty per cent after 2022. That’s pragmatism, not alignment,” Raja Mohan said.
He added that prime minister Narendra Modi’s recent handshakes with China’s president Xi Jinping and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin at the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO) summit in China were “signals, reminders to the West that India has options.”
Raja Mohan said India was at the cusp of a historic transformation. “India once provided security across Asia - in both world wars, millions of Indian soldiers fought overseas. That history was forgotten when India withdrew from global security,” he said.
“Now we are reclaiming that role. Ideally, the partnership with the US is the best. But if not, India and other Asian powers will have to shoulder the burden themselves.”
“Japan, Korea, India, Australia - all will have to do more on their own,” he said. “We’ll need to pull up our own bootstraps.”
Dr Benjamin Rhode, senior fellow at IISS, chaired the session.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.