#FactCheck - Bangladesh video falsely shared as BSF arresting an infiltrator at Bengal border
Executive Summary
A video showing security personnel overpowering a man is being widely shared on social media with the claim that it shows the Border Security Force (BSF) arresting an infiltrator attempting to cross the India-Bangladesh border in West Bengal. However, research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral video is from Bangladesh and is unrelated to India or the BSF.
Claim
An X user shared the viral video claiming: “He was crossing the Bengal border from beneath the barbed fencing when the BSF caught him on the spot.”
The post was circulated as an incident from the India-Bangladesh border in West Bengal.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. During the research, we found the same video posted on 21 March 2026 by an X handle named “Niru Nahar.”
According to the caption of that post, the video showed Bangladesh Border Guards arresting BNP leader Mizan, also known as “Baba Mizan,” near the border.
Further research led us to a Facebook post uploaded on 22 March 2026 by Bangladeshi news platform Jono Pulse. The post identified the detained individual as “Juel,” an alleged drug trafficker from Chapainawabganj, and stated that he had been arrested by the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB).
Chapainawabganj is located in Bangladesh, confirming that the video is unrelated to West Bengal or the BSF.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video does not show the BSF arresting an infiltrator at the Bengal border. It is actually from Bangladesh and depicts a separate incident involving Border Guard Bangladesh personnel.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Artificial intelligence is often hailed as a democratiser of knowledge, opportunity and skill. It is set to improve diagnostics, personalised learning, and productivity to boost the economy, which can assist millions of people to leave poverty. However, this may be an incomplete picture. A report of the United Nations Development Programme in 2025 tells a more complex tale. The Next Great Divergence: Why AI May Widen Inequality Between Countries cautions that, unless acts are taken to intervene, AI will not alleviate inequality between countries but will instead concentrate benefits in already advantaged economies and increase risks in more vulnerable ones.
Two Gaps, One Crisis
AI is not going to create a level playing field: it has been injected into a world where there is unprecedented inequality. The report outlines two structural asymmetries that will influence the ways in which its effects manifest: a capability gap and a vulnerability gap.
Those countries that have high connectivity, skills, compute and regulation will be in a position to reap a greater portion of the AI dividend. Others will be exposed to greater risks of job losses, information exclusion, misinformation, and the indirect consequences of increased energy and water demands.
The centre of this transition is the Asia-Pacific region, that harbors a population of more than 55 per cent of the world. More than half of the global AI users are now located in the region, but the initial positions are quite different. Nations such as Singapore and South Korea are already spending a lot of money on AI infrastructure, with others still striving to offer basic broadband services. Two out of three individuals already use AI tools in certain high-income economies. In most countries with low incomes, the utilisation is lower. Such figures are important as they depict not only a gap in technology but also a structural difference in terms of who controls AI and who is controlled by the latter.
When Inequality Becomes a Trust Problem
Any trusted technological system is based on three tenets: transparency, fairness and accountability. AI inequality negatively impacts all three.
If governments implement imported AI systems in areas with limited technical capability, with limited transparency on their operation, their construction, and their biases. Citizens do not really trust when decision-making systems are black boxes and domestic institutions lack the know-how to question them.
Data exclusion also interferes with fairness. The AI systems trained with the datasets not sufficiently representative of the rural population, linguistic minorities, and women will generate poorer results in those groups systematically. Since South Asian women are much less likely to own a smartphone, this impacts their representation in digital data, and consequently in any AI system trained on such data.
Safety Risks Are Not Evenly Distributed
The lack of trust has a direct safety aspect. For example, those countries that have less robust information ecosystems have a greater exposure to AI-generated misinformation that can bias the discourse of the populace, alter elections, and cause violence. They also have the weakest capability of screening, tagging, or combating such content.
The same can be said about labour markets. The very same technologies that can speed up marginalisation and destabilise governance increase human insecurity, especially among employees in the informal economy with weak social security. The UNDP report points out that the exposure of female employment to disruption by AI is disproportionate to that of male employment, which further presents a gendered dimension in an already unequal situation.
Risks of infrastructure are skewed as well. Large AI systems may create disproportionately high energy and water demands on countries that host the data infrastructure without there being an equivalent economic payback. The environmental cost is local while profits are outsourced. Dangers of AI spread downwards, and the advantages go upwards.
The Governance Gap and Regulatory Arbitrage
Governance is perhaps the most important aspect. There are only a few states that presently have extensive AI regulation systems. This gives rise to a patchy landscape, in which safety standards differ dramatically and where companies have an incentive to install systems in jurisdictions that have weaker regulation.
The main reason is the lack of capability, as expressed by Philip Schellekens, chief economist of the UNDP in Asia and the Pacific, who says that those countries that invest in skills, computing power and well-run governance structures will gain. The rest will be left far behind.
This departure has its ramifications outside the nations. When users in other areas are subjected to widely different rates of safety and equity by the same international platforms, the concept of uniform digital norms would no longer be sustainable. Confidence in AI systems is lost not only locally but also on a global scale.
Way Forward
The UNDP report makes it clear that there is no inevitability of divergence. To avert it, however, it is necessary to consider AI governance as a development, rather than a technology problem.
The capacity to govern should be constructed and not presumed. This implies assisting countries in establishing regulatory systems, institutional capacity, and facilitating cross-border collaboration on standards. It can also imply considering some AI features as a public good, with common models and open standards that do not allow a few firms or states to become too powerful.
The UNDP articulates the problem in a simple manner: in the end, the world's people and not machines must decide on what technologies should be given priority and how to utilise them optimally.
Conclusion
AI inequality is often framed as an economic divergence story. But its implications run deeper. It reshapes who is protected, who is visible in data, and who has the power to challenge harmful outcomes. The risk is not just that some countries fall behind economically. It is that the global digital ecosystem fragments into zones of high trust and low trust, high protection and low protection. The choices made now will determine which path prevails. AI can reinforce existing divides or help bridge them.
But that outcome will not be decided by the technology itself. It will be decided by how societies choose to distribute access, power, and responsibility in the systems they build.
References
- https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-12/undp-rbap-the-next-great-divergence_1.pdf
- https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/press-releases/ai-risks-sparking-new-era-divergence-development-gaps-between-countries-widen-undp-report-finds
- https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/blog/next-great-divergence-how-ai-could-split-world-again-if-we-dont-intervene
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/2/ai-threatens-to-widen-inequality-among-states-un
- https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/next-great-divergence
- https://www.eco-business.com/press-releases/ai-risks-spark-new-era-of-divergence-as-development-gaps-widen-undp-report/
Executive Summary
A picture of Mohan Bhagwat is going viral on social media, showing him allegedly laying the foundation stone of a so-called “52nd Shakti Peeth” named Bharatdurga. Users are claiming that the RSS chief insulted Sanatan Dharma by creating a new Shakti Peeth in Nagpur. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral image is AI-generated, and Mohan Bhagwat did not inaugurate any “52nd Shakti Peeth.” In reality, he laid the foundation stone of the Bharatdurga Temple.
Claim
An X user named Sandeep Dev shared the viral image and alleged that after creating “fake Shankaracharyas,” the RSS had now introduced a new form of Goddess Durga called “Bharat Durga” and declared it the 52nd Shakti Peeth. The post further claimed that the RSS was redefining Hinduism and creating new religious sites.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords and found reports published on April 24, 2026, by India TV and Navbharat Times. According to these reports, Mohan Bhagwat laid the foundation stone of the world’s first Bharatdurga Temple in Nagpur during a ceremony organized at the Jamtha campus of Dr. Abaji Thatte Seva and Research Institute. Several prominent saints and religious leaders attended the event. Importantly, none of the reports described the temple as the “52nd Shakti Peeth.”
Further research led us to the full video of the foundation ceremony uploaded on the YouTube channel of Devendra Fadnavis. The stage backdrop and video thumbnail clearly mention “Bharatdurga Temple Foundation Ceremony.” However, the viral image frame was not visible anywhere in the authentic footage.
We also analyzed the viral image using AI detection tools, which indicated that the image was AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the claim about Mohan Bhagwat laying the foundation of a “52nd Shakti Peeth” is false. The viral image is AI-generated. In reality, he participated in the foundation ceremony of the Bharatdurga Temple in Nagpur.
Executive Summary
A video showing people running amid smoke and chaos during an attack is being widely shared on social media with the claim that it depicts an Iranian strike on Israel. The clip, around 29 seconds long, shows thick black smoke rising as people flee the scene, with voices heard calling for help. However, research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is misleading. The video is actually from the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States.
Claim:
The video has been shared on Facebook with a caption claiming, “Iran has launched its most powerful attack on Israel. Thousands of soldiers have reportedly been killed. Massive protests have erupted within the country, and Israel appears completely helpless.”
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search using keyframes from the viral video. This led us to a longer version of the same footage uploaded on YouTube on September 11, 2016.
The relevant portion appears around the 2-minute 9-second mark. The video description identifies the footage as part of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Further, we found the same video in an archive folder on a website associated with the US Department of Commerce, which contains multiple images and videos related to the 9/11 attacks. This further confirms the origin of the footage.
Conclusion:
The viral claim is false. The video does not show an Iranian attack on Israel. It is from September 2001 and depicts the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks in New York, USA.
