LSE Response and our Counter response to the HMB Review of the Destructive Lies" Report commissioned by Open Doors

HMB's response ...

 you for your letter dated 27 October 2021.

 

With reference to the preliminary steps you have undertaken in relation to my allegations of research misconduct, I would like to make the following points on the conclusion you have drawn. I do not understand how your investigations have addressed my academic concerns, other than being told, you do not feel that there is a case of research misconduct to answer. As such, I remain of the opinion that there is a case of research misconduct due to unjustifiable departures from the accepted academic practices, procedures, and protocols.

 

You fail to provide me with any further information regarding the research conducted. I note you consulted with the original LSE authors and relevant senior colleagues. Are you able to share their comments with me?

 

Given that I had submitted a review document, I would have expected to see a more particularised response from you, that dealt with my concerns. As I already stated in my original letter, the literature used by the authors does not provide a full account of the highly complex situation in India. It remains my opinion that this omission, to provide a systematic narrative of the existing literature, amounts to a misrepresentation of data, as per section 9 of the Code of Research Conduct.

 

Moreover, successful case studies analyse genuine life situations, from the source. Case studies should relate the theory to a practical situation. Given that this research relies on case study narratives to provide evidence for its claims and recommendations, I have doubts over case studies 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. These cases were reported in the media and even a cursory examination shows there to exist striking resemblances between the media reports and the case study narratives. Media reports informing research does not give rise to robust and academically sound research findings. Moreover, this observation demonstrates an untruthful methodological framework.

 

Case study 2: (December 2020) seems to originate from here: https://hindutvawatch.org/in-a-madhya-pradesh-village-no-fir-registered-two-months-after-rss-attack-on-adivasi-family/

 

Case study 3: (2017) has been reported here: https://thewire.in/rights/an-adivasi-woman-in-jharkhand-is-taking-on-the-gau-rakshaks-who-killed-her-husband

 

Case study 6: (June 2020) reported here: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/odisha-boy-crushed-to-death-with-stone-body-chopped-into-pieces-1686597-2020-06-08

 

Case study 7: reported here: (December 2020) https://theprint.in/india/ram-mandir-fund-collection-drive-stokes-tension-in-mp-clashes-bid-to-damage-mosques-reported/576598/

 

Case study 8: (December 2020) reported here: https://www.thequint.com/news/india/bjym-rally-sparks-communal-clashes-in-ujjain-what-we-know-so-far#read-more

 

Concerning section 8 of the Code, I do not see how any of the content of this section is fulfilled in this research. There is no robust or appropriate research design. There is no documenting of methods and outcomes. There is little to no documentation of this research being conducted in line with relevant ethical standards or responsible data management.

 

Concerning section 9 of the Code, there appears to be a misrepresentation of the data, through the suppression of relevant findings and data. There is also likely to be mismanagement of data and primary materials.

 

I repeat what I wrote in my initial letter, as a scholar working on the British Hindu diaspora, in particular on the issue of Hinduphobia, I am concerned that the dissemination of this report fulfils questionable political and religious agendas against British Hindus. Such research does not provide knowledge of India, instead prescribes solutions without a clear and honest understanding of the facts.

 

I urge you to reconsider my concerns and conduct further investigations in adherence to the information I have provided above. 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Many thanks for your email of 27 October with __________'s letter.

 

I do not understand how this preliminary investigations has addressed my concerns.

 

Please expect a fuller response from me in due course.

 

Yours sincerely,