Savera: United Against Supremacy
Savera describes itself as a coalition 'united against supremacy' and presents its reports as independent investigations into Hindu American organizations. The scoring data tells a different story: the word 'supremacist' appears hundreds of times across three reports without any published criteria for what qualifies. The organizations that co-authored the reports cite each other as independent sources, and these relationships are never disclosed to readers.
Methodology Overview
Strengths and weaknesses across this org's corpusStrengths
Savera archives its sources using web.archive.org — 182 times in one report, 116 in another. This protects against links breaking over time and lets readers verify what the authors saw. The reports also use IRS filings and the subjects' own websites as primary evidence, which makes key claims independently checkable.
The reports build their case using the investigated organizations' own public records — their websites, IRS tax filings, and official publications. This grounds the financial and personnel claims in documentary evidence rather than third-party allegations alone. This scored 6 out of 10 on two of the three reports.
Weaknesses
The word 'supremacist' appears 84 times in one report, 81 in another, and 25 in the third — without ever publishing criteria for what qualifies. No codebook, no decision rules, no definition. A reader cannot apply the same standard and reach the same conclusion. If the label is earned, the reports do not show their work.
Three reports published in sequence by the same coalition, each citing the previous one as established fact. Political Research Associates co-publishes all three, then cites them in its own work as independent research. Coalition members endorse reports they co-authored. These relationships are not disclosed to readers.
None of the three reports responds to the investigated organizations' counter-arguments. VHP-A's claims of independence from VHP-India are not addressed. HAF's public rebuttals are ignored. No report includes a limitations section or corrections policy. The reports treat their subjects' responses as not worth engaging with.
Key patterns (1)
Members of the coalition that produced these reports have public, adversarial relationships with the organizations they investigated. None of this is disclosed as a conflict of interest. No funding details are published beyond naming the coalition. This is the weakest governance transparency of any organization with multiple scored reports in the CID corpus.