#Fact Check: Old Video Shared to Fuel Netanyahu Death Rumours

The UN established its first permanent Global Mechanism for cybersecurity which will begin operations in March 2026. The policy framework for Western countries exists because their current strategies are being developed. The situation in India presents greater complexity and higher levels of interest than any other country.

‍

The Fence That Became a Vantage Point
‍

The United Nations cybersecurity talks have seen India actively participate since their start. India brought its proposal for an open and inclusive multilateral framework which was supported by Western states who wanted to establish universal norms and responsible state behaviour but India did not accept their geopolitical viewpoint.

India did not support the Russia-led bloc which wanted a permanent open-ended working group that would focus only on plenary meetings and the country also rejected the European Union's Program of Action. India maintained its previous stance by supporting multilateralism as a general principle while showing hesitation about backing specific power structures.

The fence now provides an advantage because it no longer serves as a point of vulnerability. India's non-alignment provides him with operational power because the body operates through decision-making which requires all members to agree.

‍

Sovereignty First, Norms Second
‍

The digital sovereignty framework which defines India's long-standing cybersecurity diplomatic activities serves as the country's fundamental cybersecurity diplomatic framework. New Delhi has been reluctant to endorse frameworks that could constrain how it manages its own cyberspace, whether through content regulation, surveillance architecture, or incident response. The Indian government establishes its control over internet governance through its implementation of VPN regulations and CERT-In reporting requirements and data localization discussions. 

The new Global Mechanism creates a situation which India must handle because it creates an uncommon diplomatic situation. The framework's five pillars, threats, norms, international law, confidence-building measures, and capacity-building, each carry embedded assumptions that don't sit neatly with India's domestic policy posture. India supports the norm which prohibits countries from attacking each other's critical infrastructure while developing offensive cyber abilities and keeping its cyber response strategies secret.

‍

The Capacity-Building Opening
‍

The Indian government has a definite interest in dedicated thematic group 2 which focuses on building cybersecurity capacity. India exists in two opposing states because it operates as a developing nation which lacks basic national cybersecurity systems while also maintaining advanced cyber defense capabilities. The donor table exists as a platform which gives India both funding rights and complete rights to speak for developing nations. India should serve as a connecting force for DTG 2 by sharing its experience with CERT-In development and its sectoral frameworks for finance and telecom and its National Cyber Coordination Centre programs which train cybersecurity professionals while requesting capacity-building programs that follow demand-based needs assessment and local context understanding and which do not include the typical restrictions that accompany Western technical assistance.

India has done this before in other multilateral settings. The organization maintains its independence through its role as a credible Global South representative which it uses to speak for the Global South without aligning with any particular alliance.

‍

The DTG 1 Question: Critical Infrastructure and Strategic Ambiguity
‍

The DTG 1 study about ICT security challenges shows how resilience and cooperation and stability work together as different themes but creates complex challenges for India.

The 2020 Mumbai power grid incident which some researchers attribute to Chinese state-linked actors has become one of three major attacks against India's critical infrastructure together with AIIMS Delhi incidents in 2022 and ongoing cyber intrusions into defence and government networks. The international standards which govern critical infrastructure protection require actual implementation from India because the country possesses vital national assets.

India has not yet established formal processes for cyberattack attribution while its officials avoid the norm-enforcement diplomacy which Western countries practice through their coordinated attribution and sanction procedures. 

India must either develop deeper transparency about its operations or create specialized operational plans which can keep its needed information undercover if it wants to participate in DTG 1 about cross-border interdependencies and incident response collaboration. India will likely engage selectively, supporting the idea of critical infrastructure norms while resisting mechanisms that operationalise accountability.

‍

Geopolitical Triangulation
‍

The new Global Mechanism needs countries to implement their national policies because states must stop merely restating their positions. Multilateral cybersecurity forums operate as Geopolitical triangulation platforms for India. India's security system must protect its interests against its two main cyber adversaries which include China and Pakistan-based groups. 

The US and EU strategic partnership between India and these Western governments requires India to show closer ties with democratic nations through its participation in international forums. The new Global Mechanism will require India to pursue its current position by participating in capacity-building activities while developing common norms through its work on general norms language. 

India will maintain its current position between Western liberal order enforcement and Russia-China sovereignty-maximalist counter-narrative through its capacity-building activities and general norms language work.

‍

What India Should Actually Do
‍

The document establishes core argument which states early DTG development needs to be established for proper assessment of future results which applies to Indian territory and European territory. India has the credibility and technical foundation and diplomatic ties which enable it to establish itself as an agenda-setter who takes proactive actions instead of following others. India should take the following actions to achieve its goals: lead or co-lead DTG 2 discussions which focus on the capacity requirements of the Global South while advancing DG 1 areas that protect developing nations from actual threats and establish South-South cybersecurity agreements through this system which will help them bypass Western capacity development restrictions. The Global Mechanism offers an essential multilateral platform which provides advantages to countries that take initial actions. India has the ability to make an impact because it possesses strategic advantages which will be activated through its choice between active participation and total disengagement.

‍

References
‍

• http://interface-eu.org/publications/the-new-united-nations-mechanism-on-cybersecurity#a-european-strategy-for-the-dtgs
• https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/emerging-challenges/developments-field-information-and-telecommunications-context
• https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/redecho-targeting-indian-power-sector
• https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/cert-in-issues-directions-for-information-security-practices-procedure-prevention-response-and-reporting-of-cyber-incidents/

‍

Introduction

‍
In today’s digital era, warfare is being redefined. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently stated that “we are in the age of Grey Zone and hybrid warfare where cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and economic warfare have become tools to achieve politico-military aims without a single shot being fired.” The crippling cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections, and the ransomware strike on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States in 2021 all demonstrate how states are now using cyberspace to achieve strategic goals while carefully circumventing the threshold of open war.

Legal Complexities: Attribution, Response, and Accountability

‍

Grey zone warfare challenges the traditional notions of security and international conventions on peace due to inherent challenges such as :

• Attribution
  The first challenge in cyber warfare is determining who is responsible. Threat actors hide behind rented botnets, fake IP addresses, and servers scattered across the globe. Investigators can follow digital trails, but those trails often point to machines, not people. That makes attribution more of an educated guess than a certainty. A wrong guess could lead to misattribution of blame, which could beget a diplomatic crisis, or worse, a military one.
• Proportional Response
  Even if attribution is clear, designing a response can be a challenge. International law does give room for countermeasures if they are both ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. But defining these qualifiers can be a long-drawn, contested process. Effectively, governments employ softer measures such as protests or sanctions, tighten their cyber defences or, in extreme cases, strike back digitally.
• Accountability
  States can be held responsible for waging cyber attacks under the UN’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility. But these are non-binding and enforcement depends on collective pressure, which can be slow and inconsistent. In cyberspace, accountability often ends up being more symbolic than real, leaving plenty of room for repeat offences.

International and Indian Legal Frameworks

‍

Cyber law is a step behind cyber warfare since existing international frameworks are often inadequate. For example, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the closest thing we have to a rulebook for cyber conflict, is just a set of guidelines. It says that if a cyber operation can be tied to a state, even through hired hackers or proxies, then that state can be held responsible. But attribution is a major challenge. Similarly, the United Nations has tried to build order through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that promotes norms like “don’t attack. However, these norms are not binding, effectively leaving practice to diplomacy and trust.

India is susceptible to routine attacks from hostile actors, but does not yet have a dedicated cyber warfare law.  While Section 66F of the IT ACT, 2000, talks about cyber terrorism, and Section 75 lets Indian courts examine crimes committed abroad if they impact India,  grey-zone tactics like fake news campaigns, election meddling, and influence operations fall into a legal vacuum.

Way Forward

‍

• Strengthen International Cooperation
  Frameworks like the Tallinn Manual 2.0 can form the basis for future treaties. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries are essential to ensure accountability and cooperation in tackling grey zone activities.
• Develop Grey Zone Legislation
  India currently relies on the IT Act, 2000, but this law needs expansion to specifically cover grey zone tactics such as election interference, propaganda, and large-scale disinformation campaigns.
• Establish Active Monitoring Systems
  India must create robust early detection systems to identify grey zone operations in cyberspace. Agencies can coordinate with social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube, which are often exploited for propaganda and disinformation, to improve monitoring frameworks.
• Dedicated Theatre Commands for Cyber Operations
  Along with the existing Defence Cyber Agency, India should consider specialised theatre commands for grey zone and cyber warfare. This would optimise resources, enhance coordination, and ensure unified command in dealing with hybrid threats.

Conclusion

‍

Grey zone warfare in cyberspace is no longer an optional tactic used by threat actors but a routine activity. India lacks the early detection systems, robust infrastructure, and strong cyber laws to counter grey-zone warfare. To counter this, India needs sharper attribution tools for early detection and must actively push for stronger international rules in this global landscape. More importantly, instead of merely blaming without clear plans, India should focus on preparing for solid retaliation strategies. By doing so, India can also learn to use cyberspace strategically to achieve politico-military aims without firing a single shot.

References

‍

• Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Michael N. Schmitt)
• UN Document on International Law in Cyberspace (UN Digital Library)
• NATO Cyber Defence Policy
• Texas Law Review: State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions
• Deccan Herald: Defence Minister on Grey Zone Warfare
• VisionIAS: Grey Zone Warfare
• Sachin Tiwari, The Reality of Cyber Operations in the Grey Zone

‍

Introduction 

In the ever-evolving world of technological innovation, a new chapter is being inscribed by the bold visionaries at Figure AI, a startup that is not merely capitalising on artificial intelligence rage but seeking to crest its very pinnacle. With the recent influx of a staggering $675 million in funding, this Sunnyvale, California-based enterprise has captured the imagination of industry giants and venture capitalists alike, all betting on a future where humanoid robots transcend the realm of science fiction to become an integral part of our daily lives.

The narrative of Figure AI's ascent is punctuated by the names of tech luminaries and corporate giants. Jeff Bezos, through his firm Explore Investments LLC, has infused a hefty $100 million into the venture. Microsoft, not to be outdone, has contributed a cool $95 million. Nvidia and an Amazon-affiliated fund have each bestowed $50 million upon Figure AI's ambitious endeavours. This surge of capital is a testament to the potential seen in the company's mission to develop general-purpose humanoid robots that promise to revolutionise industries and redefine human labour.

The Catalyst for Change 

This investment craze can be traced back to the emergence of OpenAI's ChatGPT, a chatbot that caught the public eye in November 2022. Its success has not only ushered in a new era for AI but has also sparked a race among investors eager to stake their claim in startups determined to outshine their more established counterparts. OpenAI itself, once mulling over the acquisition of Figure AI, has now joined the ranks of its benefactors with a $5 million investment.

The roster of backers reads like a who's who of the tech and venture capital world. Intel's venture capital arm, LG Innotek, Samsung's investment group, Parkway Venture Capital, Align Ventures, ARK Venture Fund, Aliya Capital Partners, and Tamarack—all have invested their lot with Figure AI, signalling a broad consensus on the startup's potential to disrupt and innovate.

Yet, when probed for insights, these major players—Amazon, Nvidia, Microsoft, and Intel—have maintained a Sphinx-like silence, while Figure AI and other entities mentioned in the report have refrained from immediate responses to inquiries. This veil of secrecy only adds to the intrigue surrounding the company's prospects and the transformative impact its technology may have on society.

Need For AI Robots 

Figure AI's robots are not mere assemblages of metal and circuitry; they are envisioned as versatile beings capable of navigating a multitude of environments and executing a diverse array of tasks. From working at aisles of warehouses to the bustling corridors of retail spaces, these humanoid automatons are being designed to fill the void of millions of jobs projected to remain vacant due to a shrinking human labour force.

The company's long-term mission statement is as audacious as it is altruistic: 'to develop general-purpose humanoids that make a positive impact on humanity and create a better life for future generations.' This noble pursuit is not just about engineering efficiency; it is about reshaping the very fabric of work, liberating humans from hazardous and menial tasks, and propelling us towards a future where our lives are enriched with purpose and fulfilment.

Conclusion 

As we stand on the cusp of a new digital world, the strides of Figure AI serve as a beacon, illuminating the path towards machine and human symbiosis. The investment frenzy that has enveloped the company is a clarion call to all dreamers, pragmatists and innovators alike that the age of humanoid helpers is upon us, and the possibilities are as endless as our collective imagination.

Figure AI is forging a future where robots walk among us, not as novelties or overlords but as partners in forging a world where technology and humanity work together to unlock untold potential. The story of Figure AI is not just one of investment and innovation; it is a narrative of hope, a testament to the indomitable spirit of human ingenuity, and a preview of the wondrous epoch that lies just beyond the horizon.

References 

• https://cybernews.com/tech/openai-bezos-nvidia-fund-robot-startup-figure-ai/
• https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/bezos-nvidia-join-openai-funding-humanoid-robot-startup-3551476
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-23/bezos-nvidia-join-openai-microsoft-in-funding-humanoid-robot-startup-figure-ai
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/bezos-nvidia-join-openai-in-funding-humanoid-robot-startup-report/articleshow/107967102.cms?from=mdr

‍