Following the Editors Guild of India report last month on the media’s coverage of the Manipur violence, which continues since early May, multiple FIRs were filed against the organisation responsible for protecting press freedom in the country. This unprecedented action taken against the three-member team of the EGI has brought attention to the role of fact-finding missions in a democracy and their ability to thrive in an atmosphere that constantly questions and discredits them.
More importantly, what becomes of the ‘truth’ and how does one identify it in a world often referred to as the ‘post-truth world’?
Human rights advocacy relies on fact-finding missions around the world. In India too, several independent, citizen-led groups have conducted their own investigations that challenge the official version—whether it’s the probe into the death of manhole workers or communal riots in Haryana’s Nuh. These efforts have led to the vilification of fact-finding missions, and the FIR against the EGI is one more step in that direction. Last year, the Narendra Modi government called these independent investigations a “sinister practice”, wherein a “motivated malicious sinister device is created by certain vested interest individuals, private organizations, NGOs, etc to give the offence political/communal flavor of being backed by the government of the day, helping a particular community”.
However, former chief justice of Telangana and Uttarakhand high courts, Justice RS Chauhan, is of the view that people have a right to investigate for themselves and find out what is happening in the country. At a webinar hosted by The Leaflet on 2, Chauhan addressed the viewers: “For example, we would all like to know as citizens of this country, what exactly is happening in Kashmir ever since there has been almost a Kashmir blackout in the media, or what is happening presently in Manipur, or even in states which are not burning up at this moment…perhaps many good things are also happening that we don’t know about.”
Justice Chauhan and several experts, including former Supreme Court judge Justice MB Lokur, AltNews co-founder Pratik Sinha, and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) president Kavita Srivastava, attended the session that looked back at MK Gandhi’s idea of truth, and what ‘fact-finding’ means in today’s India. Gandhi himself had authored a fact-finding report on the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, while the Champaran Satyagraha of 1917 began as an extensive fact-finding exercise.
The discussion, moderated by founder member of Alternative Law Forum, Arvind Narrain, witnessed panelists emphasise that while fact-finding cannot substitute police investigation, it can provide an objective assessment of the situation on ground–whether it’s an environmental issue like Joshimath sinking or communal clashes. The panelists referenced the 1984 Sikh riots in Kanpur, the 2019 Hyderabad ‘fake’ encounter of four gang rape accused, the 2020 Delhi riots, and the Nuh communal violence this year, among others, to highlight the importance of fact-finding teams conducting investigations separate from the police and government.
The panelists then talked about the “criminalisation” of fact-finding missions, and the credibility crisis that they are going through.
Facts vs disinformation
The panelists began the discussion by reflecting on Gandhi’s relevance today and what he means to them. While Justice Lokur wanted Indians to think about the right to protest peacefully and the principle of non-violence, Justice Chauhan began his address by calling Gandhi “almost a renaissance man”.
As the co-founder of fact-checking website AltNews, Pratik Sinha brought a social-media perspective to the discussion. According to him, it is an “algorithm driven world” where most people have access to “very selective information”. “All the conversations are going farther and farther away from fact,” he said.
Sinha advocated for a ‘mask’ that Indians should wear to protect themselves from misinformation. “Just like during Covid, in today’s time, I feel that because we are consuming the kind of information that we are consuming, each one of us needs a mask, each one of us needs how to figure out what information is authentic, what information is not authentic, and how to look at something as basic as sources,” he said.
Srivastava talked about fact-finding being a tool for human rights organisations—after all, PUCL has been at the forefront of several such fact-finding enquiries, from hunger deaths to human rights violations against sexual minorities in India. She turned nostalgic about the effect fact-finding reports had in the past, with lawyers and courts taking prompt cognisance.
Now, however, “because of the kind of polarisation that has been created, our fact-finding reports have a kind of declining credibility”, she said. She emphasised on the importance of “who” undertakes this fact-finding—asserting that this was connected not just with the skills of the fact-finding authority, but also with their objectivity.
Both retired judges firmly placed fact-finding within the realm of the Constitution. Justice Chauhan found objections to fact-finding very “undemocratic” and “unfair”.
So, what is the way forward?
Srivastava wants more voices to come forward, while Sinha advocates for discovering better ways and strategies to communicate the truth to the people. “How do we take our credible work and place it before people,” he asked and then proceeded to offer a solution — there is a need for a more “united effort” among different organisations with different skill sets. “Organisations like ours [AltNews] have certain skills, PUCL has certain skills and there has to be a coming together of different organisations who are involved in the process of fact-finding, and also understand different aspects of how to propagate the message so that facts reach more people,” he said.
(Edited by Prashant)