High: D6 · Tier 3 Data Access Severe
Scope: No documented access pathway to underlying evidence. Tier 3 classification. Independent verification of core claims not possible through any published mechanism.
Hindutva Harassment Field Manual
The manual's citation network confirms a circular sourcing pattern. 18% of its URLs point to its own domains, and 82% are classified as advocacy sources. It cites the organizations it is designed to support, which then cite it back. This is not independent evidence.
Scoring Summary
Composite score 2.49 / 10 — Advocacy-Grade. Raw weighted score was 2.49.
Rubric v0.3.2.
Non-compensatory rules: D3 < 3 caps the score at 5.9; D6 < 7 prevents Research-Grade.
Dimension Scoring
D1–D8 · CID Rubric v0.3.2| Dim | Dimension | Score | Weight | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Definitional Precision | 3 | 17.9% | — |
| D2 | Classification Rigor | N/A | 0% | — |
| D3 | Case Capture & Sampling | N/A | 0% | — |
| D4 | Coverage Symmetry | 2 | 22.4% | SWAP_TEST_FAIL |
| D5 | Source Independence | 2 | 14.9% | CIRCULAR_SOURCING |
| D6 | Verification Standards | 3 | 26.9% | TIER_3_DATA_ACCESS |
| D7 | Transparency & Governance | 4 | 7.5% | — |
| D8 | Counter-Evidence | 1 | 10.4% | NO_COUNTER_EVIDENCE |
| Composite Score | 2.49 | Advocacy-Grade | ||
Dimension Radar
Where scoring is strongest and weakestMetrics
Denominators, self-citation, flags- Denominator Rate
- N/ANot applicable for this document typeShare of numeric claims that include a denominator or base rate. Low rates suggest missing context.
- Self-Citation Rate
- 18%citations from org or affiliatesHow often the report cites its own organization or close affiliates. High rates reduce source independence.
- Critical Flags
- 4of 5 total flagsFlags at "high" or "severe" severity — methodological issues that materially affect the score.
Methodology Flags
5 flags High: D4 · Swap Test Fail Severe
Scope: Identification criteria built around specific organizational names rather than behavioral definitions. Criteria would not produce symmetric classifications with identity markers reversed.
High: D5 · Circular Sourcing Severe
Scope: 18.3% self-citation rate (24/131 URLs). 81.7% advocacy sourcing. Verification chain loops through SASAC-Equality Labs-Rutgers CSRR cluster documented in CID-0007/CID-0008.
High: D8 · No Counter Evidence Severe
Scope: Zero counter-evidence infrastructure: no limitations section, no corrections policy, no engagement with criticism. Below minimum floor for adapted advocacy document pathway.
Medium: D4 · Scope Claim Mismatch
Scope: Title framing 'Intersectional Hate' implies universalist coverage. Content is 100% unidirectional: anti-Hindu directional terms account for all pipeline-flagged instances.
Scoring Notes
Per-dimension evidence D1
Definitional Precision
AdaptedCore term 'Hindutva' appears 80 times across 6,728 words. Definitions/glossary section detected (1 of 2 structural elements present). But characterizing terms ('Hindutva,' 'Hindu nationalist,' 'right-wing,' 'far-right,' 'supremacist') lack operational differentiation criteria. The gap between 'Hindu political activism' and 'Hindutva harassment' is left to reader judgment. No decision rules for borderline cases. Five independent readers could not apply these terms consistently.
D2
Classification Rigor
N/AN/A for TYPE 6 Advocacy Document. Weight redistributed proportionally.
D3
Case Capture & Sampling
N/AN/A for TYPE 6 Advocacy Document. Weight redistributed proportionally. Non-compensatory sampling integrity limit does not apply.
D4
Coverage Symmetry
SWAP_TEST_FAIL
Pipeline detected title 'Intersectional Hate' (universalist framing). Content is 100% unidirectional: anti-Hindu directional content accounts for all flagged terms. Hindu as target 31 times, agent 4 times (ratio 7.8). Swap Test fails: identification criteria built around specific organizational names (RSS, HSS, BJP, Hindu YUVA, CoHNA, HAF), not behavioral criteria applicable regardless of group. No section addresses harassment from non-Hindutva actors. Particularist coverage under universalist framing.
D5
Source Independence
CIRCULAR_SOURCING
Source split: 1 academic, 22 media, 1 government, 107 advocacy/other (81.7%). Self-citation: hindutvaharassmentfieldmanual.org (16) + southasiacollective.org (8) = 24/131 URLs (18.3%). SASAC citation ecosystem in full: equalitylabs.org (4), Rutgers CSRR (5, CID-scored 3.7 Advocacy-Grade). Provenance Trace loops through cluster documented in CID-0007/CID-0008. Herfindahl 0.0316 masks organizational homogeneity. No published finding contradicting or complicating prior work.
D6
Verification Standards
AdaptedTIER_3_DATA_ACCESS
Adapted pathway: citation accuracy evaluation. 131 URLs across 72 unique domains, but 81.7% advocacy sourcing means verification chain checks advocacy-to-advocacy accuracy, not independent empirical claims. One substantive quantitative claim ('two-third of American adults witnessed online harassment') references Pew, verifiable but not specific to HHFM's core claims. No methodology section, no data availability, no corrections policy. Tier 3 data access: no documented pathway to underlying evidence.
D7
Transparency & Governance
Funding disclosure detected (1 of 2 structural elements). No conflict of interest statement. SASAC operates as a 'collective' with opaque organizational boundaries between the collective, members' academic affiliations, and allied orgs (Equality Labs, Savera). No board with governance authority evident. No external financial audit. No published data ethics policy. Meets minimum for 4-6 band.
D8
Counter-Evidence
AdaptedNO_COUNTER_EVIDENCE
Adapted pathway weights limitations acknowledgment and corrections policy. Structure audit: no limitations section, no counter-evidence/opposing views, no corrections/errata policy. Zero of three prioritized elements. No false-positive risk acknowledged. HAF appears 7 times as subject, never as a perspective engaged. No evidence of methodological evolution, corrections, or engagement with criticism.
Citation Ecosystem
1 escalation · 5 trackedHow this report's findings have been cited or applied after publication. Severity reflects the gap between what the report establishes and how it was represented.
University administrators (intended audience) Medium
Claimed scope: The HHFM's 'Employers' section presents its framework as a basis for institutional policy: safety risk assessments, statements of support, and toolkit adoption by university employers.
Established scope: The HHFM is a guidance document produced by an advocacy collective. It does not meet independent research standards (CID score 2.49, Advocacy-Grade). Its identification criteria have not been independently validated.
The HHFM contains a dedicated 'Employers' section (detected in pipeline heading analysis) with subsections: 'Understanding Hindutva: Resources for Employers,' 'Tool Kit for Employers,' 'Check Ins and Listening,' 'Assessment of Safety Risks,' 'Issuing Statements of Support.' This section instructs university administrators to adopt the manual's identification framework for campus policy. If adopted without independent validation, an advocacy document's unverified criteria would become institutional policy. Specific adoption instances would require further documentation beyond the pipeline data.
Additional Citations Tracked (5)
Equality Labs
Scope: The HHFM is a guidance document for self-identified targets of Hindutva-associated harassment. It does not collect original data or establish prevalence.
equalitylabs.org appears 4 times in the HHFM's citation list, plus 2 links to equalitylabs.medium.com (6 total). Equality Labs and SASAC share overlapping scholarly networks in the South Asian advocacy space. The Equality Labs survey (CID-0005) and the HHFM draw from the same organizational ecosystem. When each cites the other as corroboration, the appearance of independent confirmation is created from a single network. The circularity pattern matches the ecosystem documented in CID-0007 and CID-0008.
Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR)
Scope: The HHFM is a guidance document for self-identified targets of Hindutva-associated harassment. It does not collect original data or establish prevalence.
Rutgers appears 5 times in the HHFM's citation list. The Rutgers CSRR report was independently scored by CID at 3.7 (Advocacy-Grade). SASAC and Rutgers CSRR share overlapping scholars and advisory networks. The academic institutional affiliation lends credibility to the citation chain, but the underlying sourcing network is not independent. Cross-citation between the HHFM and CSRR creates apparent academic-advocacy corroboration from within the same cluster.
SASAC (self-citation)
Scope: The HHFM is itself a SASAC product. Self-referential links do not constitute independent evidence.
hindutvaharassmentfieldmanual.org (16 links) and southasiacollective.org (8 links) together account for 24 of 131 URLs (18.3%). The manual's own website is its single most-cited domain. This is self-referential by definition. While some internal linking is normal in web documents, this rate means nearly one in five citations points back to the authoring organization.
Inside Higher Ed
Scope: The HHFM is a guidance document produced by SASAC, an advocacy collective, scored at 2.49 (Advocacy-Grade) by CID.
insidehighered.com appears twice in the HHFM's citation list. Inside Higher Ed is a trade publication covering higher education. Its coverage of Hindutva-on-campus disputes is cited by the HHFM as supporting evidence. The direction of citation documented here is HHFM citing Inside Higher Ed, not the reverse. Whether Inside Higher Ed subsequently cited or amplified the HHFM framework would require separate documentation. Included as a baseline: a media outlet cited in context without documented escalation.
Historians Against Hindutva network
Scope: The HHFM is a guidance document. It does not establish that the described harassment patterns are organized or systematic through independent empirical evidence.
historians.org (American Historical Association) appears 3 times in HHFM citations. The 'Hindutva and Academic Freedom' section of the HHFM positions itself within an academic freedom framework. Overlapping participants between SASAC and academic signatories of statements on Hindutva and academic freedom create a network where advocacy positions and academic endorsements circulate within the same group of scholars. The circularity is structural rather than direct: the same individuals appear as SASAC participants, HHFM contributors, and signatories to statements the HHFM cites as independent academic support.