#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
Cyber financial offences in India have experienced an alarming surge both in terms of frequency and complexity. Be it phishing attacks or organised fraud syndicates, the nation has been facing a spurt in online financial threats, which leave the victims at their mercy because of procedural lags on the part of law enforcement agencies. To counter this, the Government of India has stepped up measures to create a Cyber-Secure Bharat, focusing on speedy resolution, accountability, and digital empowerment. A key move in this direction is the introduction of the e-Zero FIR initiative, brought forth by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) with Union Home Minister Amit Shah at the helm. This newly developed digital-first system is expected to revolutionise the way cyber financial crimes, particularly those that result in high monetary losses, are handled and investigated.
What Is the e-Zero FIR Initiative?
The e-Zero FIR program is a technology-based platform that enables the automated registration of Zero FIRs for value cyber financial crimes. Led by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, the programme is now piloted in Delhi and aims to fill a pressing lacuna: the time lag involved in transitioning cybercrime complaints to First Information Reports (FIRs).
Complaints of financial frauds worth more than ₹10 lakh, reported through the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) or helpline number 1930, will be automatically turned into e-Zero FIRs under this scheme. Such electronic FIRs are directed to the e-Crime Police Station in Delhi, regardless of jurisdiction, and then relayed to the corresponding territorial cybercrime unit. Complainants can visit the cybercrime Police Station within 3 days and get the Zero FIR converted into a regular FIR.
Key Features of the Initiative
- Pilot Implementation in Delhi
Launched as a pilot project in Delhi, it will later serve as the first use case for the national rollout. The success of the pilot will determine its implementation in other states and Union Territories.
- Seamless Digital Integration
The project provides strong back-end integration between:
- NCRP (National Cybercrime Reporting Portal)
- e-FIR System (Delhi Police)
- CCTNS (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems – NCRB)
This integrated model enables complaints to pass smoothly between platforms and agencies.
- Zero FIR Auto-Registration and Routing
Now, for complaints lodged through 1930 or the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal related to financial losses exceeding the threshold of ₹10 lakh, the system will automatically register a Zero FIR to the e-Crime Police Station of Delhi and then route it to the concerned territorial cybercrime police station, triggering immediate case processing.
- Victim-Centric Conversion Mechanism
Complainants are given 3 days from the time of filing to physically report to the police station and transform the e-Zero FIR into a conventional regular FIR under Section 173 (1) and 1(ii) of the newly enacted Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This ensures legal redress is quicker and easier.
Impact and Significance: The CyberPeace View
The e-Zero FIR system is a significant change in India's cybercrime enforcement, offering quicker response times and improved recovery opportunities. Cyber fraud reported within the "golden hour" can boost recovery levels of financial fraud. The system also eliminates jurisdictional barriers and procedural bottlenecks, making it more victim-friendly. Union Home Minister Amit Shah emphasised the initiative's alignment with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of a digitally resilient India. The system is a scalable national model of tech-based policing supported by organised digital workflows. The initiative allows for real-time analysis of fraud graphs and detection of fraud syndicates through identification and device-based clustering. This is a step towards more automated, context-aware cyber policing, focusing on AI, identity graphs, and velocity to prevent crimes. The system is a step towards a next-generation cyber law enforcement strategy, focusing on AI, identity graphs, and velocity.
Conclusion
The roll-out of the e-Zero FIR program is a turning point in India's battle against cybercrime. By marrying automation with inter-agency coordination and easy-to-use mechanisms, the government has eradicated one of the major stumbling blocks for victims, the delay in taking legal action. Though its pilot phase targets high-value financial frauds in Delhi, its potential for having a countrywide impact is vast. With digital transactions on the upswing and frauds getting more cunning, efforts like these are the key to making a safe, responsive, and victim-centric cyber environment. CyberPeace commends and welcomes this important move towards establishing a Cyber-Secure Bharat, wherein all citizens can make digital transactions with confidence.
References
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2129715
- https://www.mha.gov.in/en
- https://cybercrime.gov.in/
- https://www.ncrb.gov.in/
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/save/new-e-zero-fir-govt-launches-pilot-for-swift-action-against-cybercrimes-how-it-can-help-you/articleshow/121314437.cms?from=mdr
AI has grown manifold in the past decade and so has its reliance. A MarketsandMarkets study estimates the AI market to reach $1,339 billion by 2030. Further, Statista reports that ChatGPT amassed more than a million users within the first five days of its release, showcasing its rapid integration into our lives. This development and integration have their risks. Consider this response from Google’s AI chatbot, Gemini to a student’s homework inquiry: “You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed…Please die.” In other instances, AI has suggested eating rocks for minerals or adding glue to pizza sauce. Such nonsensical outputs are not just absurd; they’re dangerous. They underscore the urgent need to address the risks of unrestrained AI reliance.
AI’s Rise and Its Limitations
The swiftness of AI’s rise, fueled by OpenAI's GPT series, has revolutionised fields like natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics. Generative AI Models like GPT-3, GPT-4 and GPT-4o with their advanced language understanding, enable learning from data, recognising patterns, predicting outcomes and finally improving through trial and error. However, despite their efficiency, these AI models are not infallible. Some seemingly harmless outputs can spread toxic misinformation or cause harm in critical areas like healthcare or legal advice. These instances underscore the dangers of blindly trusting AI-generated content and highlight the importance and the need to understand its limitations.
Defining the Problem: What Constitutes “Nonsensical Answers”?
Harmless errors due to AI nonsensical responses can be in the form of a wrong answer for a trivia question, whereas, critical failures could be as damaging as wrong legal advice.
AI algorithms sometimes produce outputs that are not based on training data, are incorrectly decoded by the transformer or do not follow any identifiable pattern. This response is known as a Nonsensical Answer and the situation is known as an “AI Hallucination”. It can be factual inaccuracies, irrelevant information or even contextually inappropriate responses.
A significant source of hallucination in machine learning algorithms is the bias in input that it receives. If the inputs for the AI model are full of biased datasets or unrepresentative data, it may lead to the model hallucinating and producing results that reflect these biases. These models are also vulnerable to adversarial attacks, wherein bad actors manipulate the output of an AI model by tweaking the input data ina subtle manner.
The Need for Policy Intervention
Nonsensical AI responses risk eroding user trust and causing harm, highlighting the need for accountability despite AI’s opaque and probabilistic nature. Different jurisdictions address these challenges in varied ways. The EU’s AI Act enforces stringent reliability standards with a risk-based and transparent approach. The U.S. emphasises creating ethical guidelines and industry-driven standards. India’s DPDP Act indirectly tackles AI safety through data protection, focusing on the principles of accountability and consent. While the EU prioritises compliance, the U.S. and India balance innovation with safeguards. This reflects on the diverse approaches that nations have to AI regulation.
Where Do We Draw the Line?
The critical question is whether AI policies should demand perfection or accept a reasonable margin for error. Striving for flawless AI responses may be impractical, but a well-defined framework can balance innovation and accountability. Adopting these simple measures can lead to the creation of an ecosystem where AI develops responsibly while minimising the societal risks it can pose. Key measures to achieve this include:
- Ensure that users are informed about AI and its capabilities and limitations. Transparent communication is the key to this.
- Implement regular audits and rigorous quality checks to maintain high standards. This will in turn prevent any form of lapses.
- Establishing robust liability mechanisms to address any harms caused by AI-generated material which is in the form of misinformation. This fosters trust and accountability.
CyberPeace Key Takeaways: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility
The rapid growth in AI development offers immense opportunities but this must be done responsibly. Overregulation of AI can stifle innovation, on the other hand, being lax could lead to unintended societal harm or disruptions.
Maintaining a balanced approach to development is essential. Collaboration between stakeholders such as governments, academia, and the private sector is important. They can ensure the establishment of guidelines, promote transparency, and create liability mechanisms. Regular audits and promoting user education can build trust in AI systems. Furthermore, policymakers need to prioritise user safety and trust without hindering creativity while making regulatory policies.
We can create a future that is AI-development-driven and benefits us all by fostering ethical AI development and enabling innovation. Striking this balance will ensure AI remains a tool for progress, underpinned by safety, reliability, and human values.
References
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/googles-ai-chatbot-tells-student-you-are-not-needed-please-die/articleshow/115343886.cms
- https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/ai-statistics/#2
- https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/artificial-intelligence-trade-secrets-2023-12-11/
- https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/chatgpt-has-gone-mad-today-openai-says-it-is-investigating-reports-of-unexpected-responses-2505070-2024-02-21
Executive Summary:
A video from an India TV news show related to the Assam elections is going viral on social media. In the clip, anchor Meenakshi Joshi is allegedly seen claiming that there is a rift between the BJP and the RSS in Assam. The video further suggests that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi stating that former Congress members have taken over the BJP, and that RSS volunteers would not work for the party in Assam. However, a research by the CyberPeace found that the viral video is edited and misleading. The original video contains no such claims.
Claim:
A social media user Ajit Singh shared the video on X with the caption:“The core idea of today’s BJP is to capture power by any means. We have been saying this for long, and now even RSS has accepted that BJP in Assam has been taken over by Congress mindset.”
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords about the alleged letter by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, we found no credible media reports supporting this claim. We then checked the YouTube channel of India TV but could not find the viral clip there. During the search, we did find a similar video from Meenakshi Joshi’s show. In the beginning of that video, the portion seen in the viral clip appears.
In the original video, the anchor is discussing the announcement of election dates in five states. There is no mention of any rift between the BJP and RSS in Assam.
Conclusion:
The viral India TV video claiming a rift between the BJP and RSS in Assam is edited and misleading. The original broadcast was about election dates in five states and did not include any such claims.
