Good journalism does not begin with a conclusion.
It begins with questions.
Recent Indian reporting that Chinese officials raised concerns about Falun Gong- and Tibet-linked media provides an opportunity to ask questions that have existed for years but rarely enter ordinary India-China diplomatic coverage.
These are not questions Indian journalists need to answer on behalf of Falun Gong practitioners.
They are questions Beijing itself can answer.
First: what is Falun Gong?
Falun Dafa, or Falun Gong, is a spiritual practice involving five meditative exercises and teachings centred on Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance. The CCP began suppressing it in July 1999. Amnesty International, Freedom House, the U.S. State Department and other organisations have since documented detention, imprisonment, torture, censorship and propaganda targeting practitioners. Freedom House
With that background, here are ten questions.
1. Why does the CCP still consider Falun Gong a major threat 27 years after the crackdown began?
The U.S. Justice Department says PRC officials classify Falun Gong among the “Five Poisons,” a term applied to perceived threats to Communist Party rule. U.S. DOJ
What precisely about the practice does Beijing consider threatening today?
2. Did the Chinese Embassy ask Indian authorities to restrict accreditation or access for Falun Gong-linked media?
Indian media have reported that such concerns were raised.
The appropriate next step is confirmation from both governments.
What exactly was requested, and was any specific journalist or publication named?
3. If a journalist follows Indian law and accreditation rules, why should his or her association with Falun Gong matter to Beijing?
A visiting government is entitled to security.
But does Beijing believe it should also determine the ideological acceptability of journalists operating in another sovereign country?
4. Why does China continue to imprison people for Falun Gong-related religious activity?
The U.S. State Department's recent religious-freedom reporting cites continuing imprisonment and prosecution of practitioners under provisions concerning banned religious groups. U.S. State Department
What conduct, beyond practising or communicating about their beliefs, does Beijing allege these individuals committed?
5. Why has the CCP maintained a specialised apparatus for suppressing Falun Gong?
The CECC has documented the 610 Office, created in 1999 to coordinate operations against Falun Gong. CECC
What legal authority originally governed it, and what structures perform its functions today?
6. How does Beijing respond to U.S. criminal cases involving PRC-directed activity against Falun Gong overseas?
John Chen and Lin Feng pleaded guilty to acting as unregistered PRC agents in a scheme aimed at a Falun Gong-run entity in the United States. DOJ says they acted at the direction of a PRC official.
Does Beijing deny directing them?
If so, how does it explain the evidence cited by U.S. prosecutors?
7. Will China allow genuinely independent investigation of organ-source allegations?
UN experts have raised concerns over credible information relating to involuntary medical testing of detainees from minority groups, while the European Parliament has cited findings concerning forced organ harvesting.
China denies that Falun Gong practitioners are killed for their organs. European Parliament
Would Beijing permit independent international investigators unrestricted access to transplant records, detention facilities and relevant datasets?
8. Why has propaganda been necessary if Falun Gong is simply a criminal or public-order problem?
The U.S. State Department described China's 1999 response as a combined political, propaganda and police campaign, while Freedom House describes extensive demonising propaganda. U.S. State Department
Why was persuasion of the entire population necessary alongside law enforcement?
9. Does China believe its prohibition of Falun Gong should have consequences outside Chinese territory?
This may be the central international question.
A practice can be prohibited in China while remaining lawful in India, Europe or the United States.
Does Beijing accept that distinction?
10. What would happen if China simply allowed peaceful Falun Gong practice again?
After 27 years of suppression, this may be the simplest question of all.
If practitioners meditate, study their spiritual teachings and do not violate ordinary criminal laws, why should that activity remain prohibited?
And if Beijing believes it presents a genuine public danger, will it make the evidence supporting that position available for independent scrutiny?
Questions are not accusations
None of these questions presupposes Beijing's answer.
Some may have explanations Chinese officials believe are compelling.
Others may expose irreconcilable differences between the CCP's concept of political security and the understanding of religious freedom in democratic societies.
But reporters do not serve the public by avoiding legitimate questions simply because a visiting government finds them uncomfortable.
Falun Gong has been the subject of a documented 27-year campaign.
Indian journalists have every right to understand why.