#FactCheck – False Claim of Lord Ram's Hologram in Srinagar - Video Actually from Dehradun
Executive Summary:
A video purporting to be from Lal Chowk in Srinagar, which features Lord Ram's hologram on a clock tower, has gone popular on the internet. The footage is from Dehradun, Uttarakhand, not Jammu and Kashmir, the CyberPeace Research Team discovered.
Claims:
A Viral 48-second clip is getting shared over the Internet mostly in X and Facebook, The Video shows a car passing by the clock tower with the picture of Lord Ram. A screen showcasing songs about Lord Ram is shown when the car goes forward and to the side of the road.
The Claim is that the Video is from Kashmir, Srinagar
Similar Post:
Fact Check:
The CyberPeace Research team found that the Information is false. Firstly we did some keyword search relating to the Caption and found that the Clock Tower in Srinagar is not similar to the Video.
We found an article by NDTV mentioning Srinagar Lal Chowk’s Clock Tower, It's the only Clock Tower in the Middle of Road. We are somewhat confirmed that the Video is not From Srinagar. We then ran a reverse image search of the Video by breaking down into frames.
We found another Video that visualizes a similar structure tower in Dehradun.
Taking a cue from this we then Searched for the Tower in Dehradun and tried to see if it matches with the Video, and yes it’s confirmed that the Tower is a Clock Tower in Paltan Bazar, Dehradun and the Video is actually From Dehradun but not from Srinagar.
Conclusion:
After a thorough Fact Check Investigation of the Video and the originality of the Video, we found that the Visualisation of Lord Ram in the Clock Tower is not from Srinagar but from Dehradun. Internet users who claim the Visual of Lord Ram from Srinagar is totally Baseless and Misinformation.
- Claim: The Hologram of Lord Ram on the Clock Tower of Lal Chowk, Srinagar
- Claimed on: Facebook, X
- Fact Check: Fake
Related Blogs
Introduction
The ongoing debate on whether AI scaling has hit a wall has been rehashed by the underwhelming response to OpenAI’s ChatGPT v5. AI scaling laws, which describe that machine learning models perform better with increased training data, model parameters and computational resources, have guided the rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) so far. But many AI researchers suggest that further improvements in LLMs will have to be effected through large computational costs by orders of magnitude, which does not justify the returns. The question, then, is whether scaling remains a viable path or whether the field must explore new approaches. This is not just a tech issue but a profound innovation challenge for countries like India, charting their own AI course.
The Scaling Wall: Gaps and Innovation Opportunities
Escalating costs, data scarcity, and diminishing gains mean that simply building larger AI models may no longer guarantee breakthroughs. In such a scenario, LLM developers will have to refine new approaches to training these models, for example, by diversifying data types and redefining training techniques.
This global challenge has a bearing on India’s AI ambitions. For India, where compute and data resources are relatively scarce, this scaling slowdown poses both a challenge and an opportunity. While the India AI Mission embodies smart priorities such as democratising compute resources and developing local datasets, looming scaling challenges could prove a roadblock. Realising these ambitions requires strong input from research and academia, and improved coordination between policymakers and startups. The scaling wall highlights systemic innovation gaps where sustained support is needed, not only in hardware but also in talent development, safety research, and efficient model design.
Way Forward
To truly harness AI’s transformative power, India must prioritise policy actions and ecosystem shifts that support smarter, safer, and context-rich research through the following measures:
- Driving Efficiency and Compute Innovation: Instead of relying on brute-force scaling, India should invest in research and startups working on efficient architectures, energy-conscious training methods, and compute optimisation.
- Investing in Multimodal and Diverse Data: While indigenous datasets are being developed under the India AI Mission through AI Kosha, they must be ethically sourced from speech, images, video, sensor data, and regional content, apart from text, to enable context-rich AI models truly tailored to Indian needs.
- Addressing Core Problems for Trustworthy AI: LLMs offered by all major companies, like OpenAI, Grok, and Deepseek, have the problem of unreliability, hallucinations, and biases, since they are primarily built on scaling large datasets and parameters, which have inherent limitations. India should invest in capabilities to solve these issues and design more trustworthy LLMs.
- Supporting Talent Development and Training: Despite its substantial AI talent pool, India faces an impending demand-supply gap. It will need to launch national programs and incentives to upskill engineers, researchers, and students in advanced AI skills such as model efficiency, safety, interpretability, and new training paradigms
Conclusion
The AI scaling wall debate is a reminder that the future of LLMs will depend not on ever-larger models but on smarter, safer, and more sustainable innovation. A new generation of AI is approaching us, and India can help shape its future. The country’s AI Mission and startup ecosystem are well-positioned to lead this shift by focusing on localised needs, efficient technologies, and inclusive growth, if implemented effectively. How India approaches this new set of challenges and translates its ambitions into action, however, remains to be seen.
References
- https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/ai-scaling-laws/
- https://www.marketingaiinstitute.com/blog/scaling-laws-ai-wall
- https://fortune.com/2025/02/19/generative-ai-scaling-agi-deep-learning/
- https://indiaai.gov.in/
- https://www.deloitte.com/in/en/about/press-room/bridging-the-ai-talent-gap-to-boost-indias-tech-and-economic-impact-deloitte-nasscom-report.html
Introduction
Today, on the International Day of UN Peacekeepers, we honour the brave individuals who risk their lives to uphold peace in the world’s most fragile and conflict-ridden regions. These peacekeepers are symbols of hope, diplomacy, and resilience. But as the world changes, so do the arenas of conflict. In today’s interconnected age, peace and safety are no longer confined to physical spaces—they extend to the digital realm. As we commemorate their service, we must also reflect on the new frontlines of peacekeeping: the internet, where misinformation, cyberattacks, and digital hate threaten stability every day.
The Legacy of UN Peacekeepers
Since 1948, UN Peacekeepers have served in over 70 missions, protecting civilians, facilitating political processes, and rebuilding societies. From conflict zones in Africa to the Balkans, they’ve worked in the toughest terrains to keep the peace. Their role is built on neutrality, integrity, and international cooperation. But as hybrid warfare becomes more prominent and digital threats increasingly influence real-world violence, the peacekeeping mandate must evolve. Traditional missions are now accompanied by the need to understand and respond to digital disruptions that can escalate local tensions or undermine democratic institutions.
The Digital Battlefield
In recent years, we’ve seen how misinformation, deepfakes, online radicalisation, and coordinated cyberattacks can destabilise peace processes. Disinformation campaigns can polarise communities, hinder humanitarian efforts, and provoke violence. Peacekeepers now face the added challenge of navigating conflict zones where digital tools are weaponised. The line between physical and virtual conflict is blurring. Cybersecurity has gone beyond being just a technical issue and is now a peace and security issue as well. From securing communication systems to monitoring digital hate speech that could incite violence, peacekeeping must now include digital vigilance and strategic digital diplomacy.
Building a Culture of Peace Online
Safeguarding peace today also means protecting people from harm in the digital space. Governments, tech companies, civil society, and international organisations must come together to build digital resilience. This includes investing in digital literacy, combating online misinformation, and protecting human rights in cyberspace. Peacekeepers may not wear blue helmets online, but their spirit lives on in every effort to make the internet a safer, kinder, and more truthful place. The role of youth, educators, and responsible digital citizens has never been more crucial. A culture of peace must be cultivated both offline and online.
Conclusion: A Renewed Pledge for Peace
On this UN Peacekeepers’ Day, let us not only honour those who have served and sacrificed but also renew our commitment to peace in all its dimensions. The world’s conflicts are evolving, and so must our response. As we support peacekeepers on the ground, let’s also become peacebuilders in the digital world, amplifying truth, rejecting hate, and building safer, inclusive communities online. Peace today is not just about silencing guns but also silencing disinformation. The call for peace is louder than ever. Let’s answer it, both offline and online.
Introduction
Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals through its own gaps. States often find themselves navigating a shared frontier without a mutual guide or lines of law in an era of expanding digital boundaries and growing cyber damages. The United Nations General Assembly ratified the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime on December 24, 2024, and more than sixty governments were in attendance in the signing ceremony on 24th & 25th October this year, marking a moment of institutional regeneration and global commitment.
A new Lexicon for Global Order
The old liberal order is being strained by growing nationalism, economic fracturing, populism, and great-power competition as often emphasised in the works of scholars like G. John Iken berry and John Mearsheimer. Multilateral arrangements become more brittle in such circumstances. Therefore, the new cybercrimes convention represents not only a legal tool but also a resurgence of international promise, a significant win for collective governance in an uncertain time. It serves as a reminder that institutions can be rebuilt even after they have been damaged.
In Discussion: The Fabric of the Digital Polis
The digital sphere has become a contentious area. On the one hand, the US and its allies support stakeholder governance, robust individual rights, and open data flows. On the other hand, nations like China and Russia describe a “post-liberal cyber order” based on state mediation, heavily regulated flows, and sovereignty. Instead of focusing on ideological dichotomies, India, which is positioned as both a rising power and a voice of the Global South, has offered a viewpoint based on supply-chain security, data localisation, and capacity creation. Thus, rather than being merely a regulation, the treaty arises from a framework of strategic recalibration.
What Changed & Why it Matters
There have been regional cybercrime accords up to this point, such as the Budapest Convention. The goal of this new international convention, which is accessible to all UN members, is to standardise definitions, evidence sharing and investigation instruments. 72 states signed the Hanoi signature event in October, 2025, demonstrating an unparalleled level of scope and determination. In addition to establishing structures for cooperative investigations, extradition, and the sharing of electronic evidence, it requires signatories to criminalise acts such as fraud, unlawful access to systems, data interference, and online child exploitation.
For the first time, a legally obligatory global architecture aims to harmonise cross-border evidence flows, mutual legal assistance, and national procedural laws. Cybercrime offers genuine promise for community defence at a time when it is no longer incidental but existential, attacks on hospitals, schools and infrastructure are now common, according to the Global Observatory.
Holding the Line: India’s Deliberate Path in the Age of Cyber Multilateralism
India takes a contemplative rather than a reluctant stance towards the UN Cybercrime Treaty. Though it played an active role during the drafting sessions and lent its voice to the shaping of global cyber norms, New Delhi is yet to sign the convention. Subtle but intentional, the reluctance suggests a more comprehensive reflection, an evaluation of how international obligations correspond with domestic constitutional protections, especially the right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017).
Prudence is the reason for this halt. Policy circles speculate that the government is still assessing the treaty’s consequences for national data protection, surveillance regimes, and territorial sovereignty. Officials have not provided explicit justifications for India’s refusal to join. India’s position has frequently been characterised by striking a careful balance between digital sovereignty and taking part in cooperative international regimes. In earlier negotiations, India had even proposed including clauses to penalise “offensive messages” on social media, echoing the erstwhile Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, but the suggestion found little international traction.
Advocates for digital rights such as Raman Jit Singh Chima of Access Now have warned that ensuring that the treaty’s implementation upholds constitutional privacy principles may be necessary for India to eventually endorse it. He contends that the treaty’s wording might not entirely meet India’s legal requirements in the absence of such voluntary pledges.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres praised the agreement as “a powerful, legally binding instrument to strengthen our collective defences against “cybercrime” during its signing in Hanoi. The issue for India is to make sure that multilateral collaboration develops in accordance with constitutional values rather than to reject that vision. Therefore, the path forward is one of assertion rather than absence, careful march towards a cyber future that protects freedom and sovereignty.
