The Control of Information.
How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown
Fact checking in Asia – Part 2, Indian Subcontinent.
“Censorship is often justified on the grounds of maintaining public order, but the underlying motive is to keep the people uninformed of governmental activities”. Zafar Abbas.
The Indian Subcontinent.
The countries in this report from the Indian subcontinent, or central southern Asia, include Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet. The dominant country in this region is India, with its population of 1.4 billion. In 2025, over half of Indians had access to the internet (55.3%), and it is ranked second in terms of the total number of internet users, with China having the highest number of users [1] here.
Fact Checks in India.
India has a large number of fact check platforms, with 38 located for this report. There may of course be many more, as India is a country that uses diverse languages, and hence locating all fact check organisations is challenging. Most of the large platforms are linked to online news sites, with a minority linked to Indian NGOs. FactChecker.in claims to be the first independent fact check platform, launched in 2013 [2] here. BOOM Fact Check is the fact checking arm of the Indian online news platform BOOM, and it claims to be the first Indian member of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). It joined the IFCN in 2018, and BOOM became the first Indian third-party fact checker for Meta in the same year [3] here.
However, fact checking in India has not always had a smooth passage. The Indian government has been concerned at the influence of foreign funds on news presentation and narratives. In 2020, a minister complained about the impact of Facebook and fact checkers, accusing them of censorship [4] here. In 2022, Twitter took the government to court over its orders to block certain tweets, the court ruling against Twitter; and in 2023, the government was accused of threatening to shut down Twitter’s offices [5] here. In 2023, government officers raided the offices of foreign news offices, ostensibly for a tax investigation [6] here. One of the results of this increasing tension was the Indian government’s announcement that it planned to set up an Indian version of the IFCN. This project has been criticised by the ICFN and the Indian media, as the Indian government will have a say in what can be ruled as true or false [7] here. This Indian IFCN lookalike, the Misinformation Combat Alliance (MCA) was launched in 2022 and has 13 verified signatories [8] here , most of these are amongst the largest platforms in the Indian fact check industry, and all of the MCA members are also verified with the IFCN. In total, 19 Indian fact check platforms are, or have been, verified by the IFCN.
It is very difficult to assess the influences on Indian fact check platforms by assessing the funding mechanisms, as can sometimes be judged in other parts of the world. Firstly, most of the fact check platforms that are also online news outlets are Indian companies – for example, BOOM is part of Outcue Media Pvt Ltd and is headquartered in Mumbai, India [9] here. The company that owns a fact check platform is often named as the only source of funding. Sometimes, one can get an indication of funding sources from looking at the parent organisation’s accounts. However, Indian companies only have to declare sources of income that exceed 5% of total income. For example, on BOOM’s website it names Facebook and an Indian tech company as each providing more that 5% of its income [10] here, without declaring the exact amount. This means that other donors or contractors, some of them possibly from overseas, can donate up to 4.9% of income without this appearing on the balance sheet. The attitude of the Indian government towards foreign funding of sites associated with the media and fact checking gives an incentive to be as deceptive as possible about funding sources.
Another factor in areas that are sensitive to foreign donors is donor deception. For example, donors can give to an Indian NGO or company, who then passes on donations to content moderation platforms as a local donor. This was described as ‘legal money laundering’ by a speaker from the American NGO Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) [11] here. OCCRP funding has been given to many fact check platforms; however, due to its dependence on government funding, some see OCCRP as a tool of the US government [12] here. It was also suggested by OCCRP in the same meeting that if anyone criticised the motivation of donors, then these critics should be labelled ‘extremist groups’. Smearing of opponents is a typical tactic of the fact checking industry [13] here.
India and fact check platforms.
Of the 38 Indian fact check organisations located for this study, MCA is funded by the Indian government, AFP Fact Check with three fact checking sites in India is funded by the French government and Meta, and two BBC Fact Check sites are funded by the UK government. Of the remaining 35 platforms, 11 have no information on funding on their website, even though some have extensive staffing numbers – for example, one newswire that is a verified signatory of the IFCN has 600 journalists and 800 stringers. Seven others state their funding is from an Indian company or Indian companies; two of these say funding details can be found on their parent company’s website, but their financial details were not accessible. Two have vague details such as ‘high net worth individuals’, or ‘grants’. Three medical fact check groups all have named Western funders, including Google, World Health Organisation (WHO), IFCN, and Meta. Five others name their revenue source as ‘ads’, and sometimes this is linked to Google Adsense – these advertisements can be very visible on the website. Of the remaining eight, all acknowledge some funding from overseas sources. One is Logically, a large for-profit AI company with head offices in Ireland; Logically accepts money from corporations and several governments. Another is an Indian think tank with funding from the US, the UK, Australia and Europe. An Indian tech company that registered as a verified signatory with the IFCN was launched with a US grant but now sells fact checking tools and systems that provide a large part of its income. The others have funding from Meta and Google, probably for third-party fact checking operations or teaching media literacy. There is one Indian fact check platform, Vishvas News, that openly describes its Western ‘partners’ that might or might not be funders. The list includes two Indian companies, but also includes Meta, GoogleNI, UNICEF, Twitter, WHO, and the IFCN.
Interestingly, in 2023 Logically listed Indian Universities that were its partners, but in 2025 these have been removed from its website. Whilst it is highly likely that Indian universities are involved in censorship activities, as are Western universities, finding evidence is challenging. Searches found the launch of a report on ‘fake news’ by the Indian School of Business [14] here. An article on fact checking literature in Indian universities was also located, written by an academic from a university in Lucknow [15] here.
Stories of the threats of ‘fake news’ are also appearing in Indian media outlets, softening up the population for media literacy training. The media quotes Western institutions, such as the UN, WHO and World Economic Forum (WEF) as experts who explain the need to control information [16] here. These institutions have no democratic mandate, and they are funded by those with immense wealth; they dictate or enforce policy that has not been agreed by those upon whom policy is enacted. This is done by persuading global populations to agree to policies that are not in their interests, through censorship and propaganda.
The Indian government does not appear to be resisting Western narratives as much as imposing and enforcing its own agendas. For example, the government wanted to implement is own fact check platform; the Press Information Bureau’s (PIB) Fact Check Unit (FCU), a statutory body with powers to flag allegedly false information related to the government [17] here. This mirrors the actions of a few other countries, including the UK government that operated two fact checks platforms until they were ‘outed’ [18] here – this is now reduced to one British platform that the government describes as having more restricted activities [19] here and here. Of course, many autocratic governments also operate in this manner, but without needing consent, such as the Arab world’s Mukhabarat system. In India the government was taken to the Supreme Court over the PIB/FCU plans, and the court halted implementation due to “serious constitutional questions” [20] here. However, the government is now using an AI tool called Sahyog to monitor content, passing on censorship requests to social media corporations. Thus far, Google, Meta, and Amazon are fully complying with Sahyog requests. Only Elon Musk who operates X is resisting some requests; Chatham House has reported that Musk is taking the Indian government to court over this issue [21] here.
For example, X was asked via Sahyog to take down ‘hundreds of posts’ which showed people dying in ‘a massive crush at a major Hindu religious festival’. This request was made under restrictions in Section 79(3)(b) of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000, which allows Sahyog to moderate and order the removal of content on social media. Musk has complied with earlier Sahyog requests, for example, Twitter, now X, agreed to not accept posts relating to the protests of Indian farmers [22] here. The outcome of this legal battle will reflect, and perhaps influence, how information in India is controlled by the current government.
In 1947, India underwent a partition at the end of the British occupation, two areas on the east and west that were formerly part of India became independent states, West Pakistan, now Pakistan, and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Until 1971 East and West Pakistan were ruled as one country, but both now have independence.
Pakistan.
Pakistan is an Islamic country, positioned between eastern Asia and the Middle East. Like India, it is a nuclear power. Despite having a good economic base and potential to develop into a wealthy nation, Pakistan has been rocked by instability since it was founded. Problems include a long-standing territorial dispute with its neighbour India: terrorism; military coups; political assassinations, and civil war.
Pakistan has been unsettled since the popular and charismatic prime minister, and former international cricketer, Imran Khan was removed from office by a vote of no confidence in 2022. Khan has been tried on numerous charges since that date and given prison terms, most of which have later been overturned. His populist Party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), has been disqualified from taking part in elections, although most former party members have been re-elected to parliament as independent candidates. In response, the Pakistani public have taken part in demonstrations and protests, including violence and riots, and this has caused increased surveillance and censorship [23] here. As a further complication, border tensions with India have increased in 2025.
The state of censorship has been analysed by Zafar Abbas et al in a published paper. He states that:
“Censorship (worldwide) is often justified on the grounds of maintaining public order, but the underlying motive is to keep the people uninformed of governmental activities. It is argued that civil society, media personnel and the common people are working under pressure in Pakistan due to cyber and media laws. In the name of national security, the state has been working, intentionally, to put in place the best possible surveillance systems to establish a sort of watchdog over activists, bloggers, journalists and the general public.” [24] here.
According to Amnesty International, freedom of expression has been seriously curtailed, with examples given in this 2023/2024 report:
“On 5 March, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) placed a blanket ban on the broadcast of speeches by Imran Khan and suspended the transmission of ARY TV, a private news network…the PTA imposed an “indefinite” ban on mobile internet and blocked major social media platforms, including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Although the authorities claimed to have restored mobile internet on 12 May, people continued to experience difficulties in accessing social media sites. In December, social media access was blocked for hours across the country during the PTI’s “virtual” rally.…Parliament passed at least six laws and amendments that sought to restrict freedom of expression and civic space, including the space for parliamentary debate and dissent.” [25] here.
Additionally, in November 2024 Pakistan introduced a new Chinese technology firewall to enable to government to closely survey social media and internet use [26] here. The increased surveillance, and control of internet and social media has ironically made it more challenging for Western-funded censorship activities to operate in Pakistan, with a reduction in fact check platforms.
Unsurprisingly, the Pakistani government has its own fact checking platform, named Fact Checker MOIB (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting). It states that this service is a bridge between the Government, media and the people. It goes on to outlines its responsibilities for formulating and implementing policies, laws, rules and regulatory framework concerning the print and electronic media and news agencies [27] here.
Of the remaining nine fact check platforms that were accessed in 2023, three can no longer be located in 2025. None of the fact check platforms list any donors or sponsors, but one states that its income is from advertising. Two are associated with media companies and one of these is a verified signatory of the IFCN. AFP fact checks on behalf of Facebook. A think tank linked to fact checking activity was located, the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency. There was also an NGO that was active in media literacy Media Matters for Democracy, which has a fact check arm, Sachee Khabar. Unlike most countries, Pakistan’s Western-funded fact check industry appears to be in decline.
Bangladesh.
Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until 1971, when it became an independent country. It is a densely populated country, situated on the delta of the River Ganges and the River Jamuna. The population is mainly Muslim. It was ruled by Sheikh Hasina for 15 years until students protests caused her to resign and take refuge in India in 2024. A Nobel-prize winning economist was asked to stand as interim Prime Minister until elections are held, and he is still in post. Bangladesh passed a Digital Services Act (DSA) in 2018 [28] here, which some described as a means of government censorship; some of those arrested under the Act, for criticising the government, died in custody, or claimed to have been tortured [29] here. In 2023, the DSA was to be scrapped and replaced with a Cyber Security Act (CSA). The penalties in the new act will not include imprisonment [30] here.
The new interim government introduced a Bangla fact checking network, called CA Press Wing Facts and BanglaFact in October 2024. A Facebook page was found that is active. Some criticise this development as unconstitutional, and liken it to the hated DSA [31] here . An organisation called Bangladesh Fact Checking Network (BDFCN) claims to be a hub for Bangla fact checkers. The website has very little information on it, and it may be a new site. No information is available on its owner or funders, and the eight members listed on its website are probably not fact checking platforms. However, its website has a professional layout and uses the language of international fact checkers when describing its activities, its mission, and its values [32] here.
There are three Indian fact check platforms that operate in Bangladesh, BOOM, Fact Crescendo, and Newschecker. All of these are verified signatories of the IFCN. The French AFP is a third-party fact checker for Facebook in Bangladesh. Local fact checkers include Jaichai (Verified) that is active on social media but has no funding information, and the Fact Checking Hub that is linked to a Bangla NGO and a local newspaper, with two American funders. Fact Watch is a signatory of the IFCN, funded by Meta and the American Center Dhaka. Rumor Scanner, also a verified IFCN signatory, is funded by Google Adsense, ‘donations’ and ‘investments’. Even though the details are incomplete, the Western influence on the Bangla censorship industry is obvious. Despite the political complications and an ‘inhouse’ system of surveillance of information, unlike in India and Pakistan, Western style of censorship is accepted in Bangladesh.
Bhutan.
Bhutan is situated in the Eastern Himalayas, with China to the north and India to the south. It was relatively free of fact checking procedures before 2022, when the Journalists Association of Bhutan (JAB) and the Bhutan Media Foundation (BMF) had meetings with international partners who introduced fact check training and media literacy training to Bhutan. The BMF is partnered by a number of American and European governments, NGOs and journalists groups, many of which fund fact checking projects globally. A grant was given to the JAB to ‘empower Bhutanese to combat misinformation and disinformation’ in 2022, amounting to about US$9,500 [33] here. This was funded by the EU, a Swiss NGO, and the BMF.
Since then, reports have linked JAB and the BMF with the training of journalists in fact checking procedures [34] here and here. The JAB has also produced a 50 page booklet called ‘The Fact Checking Toolkit’, in which it referenced eleven American, British and European organisations as assisting with its production [35] here. Although it is reported that the JAB has founded a fact check platform, this could not be located.
Nepal.
Like Bhutan, Nepal is situated in the Himalayas, with India to the south and China to the north. It has a slightly longer history of fact checking, with two established platforms. Nepal Fact Check was founded in 2020, and it became a verified signatory of the IFCN code in 2022. It was founded by the Center for Media Research (CMR), that is itself involved in media literacy training and fact check training, and it also has written reports on misinformation. Neither organisation gives information on donors, funding, sponsors or partners on their websites in 2025. However, in 2023 Nepal Fact Check funders were named as Open Society, the American Asia Society that some claim has CIA links [36] here, and the EU organisation Center for Media, Data and Society. In a Reuters article in 2022, the editor of Nepal Fact Check stated that “Local funding doesn’t exist in Nepal; it’s international funders that we have to reach,” Reuters reported support from the British Westminster Foundation for Democracy at that time [37] here.
South Asia Check, also based in Nepal, only appears to be operating on Facebook in 2025. Its funders in 2023 were named as Open Society and the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED), often described as a CIA cutout. The interest of American funders associated with the CIA could be linked to the close proximity of Bhutan and Nepal to China.
Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is an island nation in the Indian Ocean, south of the mainland of India, previously named Ceylon. During the time of the British Empire, it was occupied but became an independent nation in 1948. It is a relatively well-developed country with one of the highest per capita incomes in South Asia. AFP Fact Check monitors Facebook content under the Meta third-party fact check platform. The Indian fact check platform Fact Crescendo also moderates content posted in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka introduced a censorship bill in 2023, which became the Sri Lanka Online Safety Act, 2024 [38] here. As in other countries that have been passed censorship laws, such as the Online Safety Act in UK and the Digital Services Act in the EU, concerns have been raised from its ambiguous language and the sweeping powers it vests in an Online Safety Commission. From reading accounts of this new law, it seems that this commission will take on the same role as Ofcom in UK [39] here.
Sri Lanka has its own fact checking platforms, one of which Citizen Fact Check is funded by its parent company, a media outfit. The remaining three platforms that were located are all funded by Western governments, NGOs, and philanthropists. However, as found elsewhere in the world, information on funders is less likely to be published in 2025 than it was in 2023. One is linked to a Sri Lankan think tank, Verite Research, named Factcheck.lk. Both of these have a large number of staff listed on their websites, and they must need substantial sums to operate. However, in 2025 no funding links, sponsors, partners, associates or donors were located on either website. In 2023, funders were named as the American Internews with its World Economic Forum (WEF) links, and a Scandinavian NGO. Factcheck.lk is a verified signatory of the IFCN, and some indication of funding should be on its website in order to comply with IFCN rules, but no information was located. Internews still operates in Sri Lanka, but it does not specify this platform as one of its projects.
The same is happening with another programme, Hashtag Generation. This was started by a group of young Sri Lankans with funding from Internews, British Council, the American think tank Freedom House, and Democracy Reporting International, funded by the EU. Included in its activities is fact checking. However, in 2025, no funding mechanisms or sources were found on their website. The only Sri Lankan fact check platform that is still listing its funders in 2025 is Watchdog, which is owned by Open Source Research Collective. Amongst other activities, it has designed an App which enables people to check information on their phones. Its funders are two American NGOs, both of which frequently fund censorship activities. These are OCCRP and International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX).
Information in Sri Lanka seems to be controlled in a very similar pattern to Western countries, with a recent censorship law operating, and a number of fact check platforms that have links to the IFCN and Western funders. In Sri Lanka, as in many other countries, fact check platforms are less open about donations in 2025 than they were in the recent past, in 2023.
In 2025, no information was located on fact checking activities in the island nations of the Maldives, west of Sri Lanka, although some Indian fact check platforms and AFP have reported fact checks on their own websites concerning the Maldives.
Conclusion.
In this area of South Asia, there are two patterns emerging in censorship practices. One is the increasing involvement of national governments in censorship, including legalising censorship activities, as has also occurred in Europe and the UK. Penalties for not complying with the demands of government may include imprisonment or fines. There are some signs that American very large online platforms and very large search engines are complying with South Asian governments’ new rules and regulations. As well as new restrictive laws emerging, governments are also running fact check platforms in order to monitor the behaviour of its citizens online.
The other trend is that Western governments, philanthropists and NGOs are continuing to push into new territories, whilst they continue to fund fact checking and media literacy activities in more established areas. However, funding mechanisms and donor identities are more likely to be hidden from view, and websites are not so apparent in 2025 as they were only two years ago, in 2023. In India, the government has made clear its irritation with independent fact checking platforms and foreign media companies, and this may give motivation to fact check platforms to be vague in this context, and for Western funders to disguise their donations. The exception to this is earned income from Meta, that can easily be described as payment for services. In Sri Lanka the reasons for omitting information on financial contributions are less clear, unless this relates to the recently passed Sri Lankan Online Safety Act.