#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows CRPF Trooper Criticizing PM Modi and BJP Government

Introduction

Two videos are being widely circulated on social media with the claim that Chinese troops have entered Arunachal Pradesh, India. The first video shows a large group of soldiers marching in formation, while the second shows armed personnel disembarking from military trucks. Social media users claim that the footage shows Chinese soldiers advancing into Indian territory. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. The two viral videos are unrelated to India and actually show Thai Army personnel during military training exercises. Both the Government of India and the Indian Army have also dismissed the claim of any recent Chinese intrusion into Indian territory.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user, "mtkv.ideo," shared the viral videos on July 7, 2026, with the caption,"Chinese army has entered 60 km inside India."

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaehrgExzUl/

https://perma.cc/ZQV9-C6KJ 

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted several keyframes from the viral videos and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens.

During the research, we found one of the videos posted on June 16, 2026, on the Facebook page "Liangpha Kha Khaeng."

https://www.facebook.com/reel/992963226961409 

https://perma.cc/6YJB-RT9Z

‍

According to the information provided with the post, the video shows a training exercise of Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) from the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Regiment of the Royal Thai Army. The page also contains several other posts featuring Thai military drills and training activities. We further reviewed the Facebook page and found multiple training videos featuring the same flag carried by soldiers in the viral footage, confirming that the personnel shown belong to the Thai Army, not the Chinese military.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61588894033585&locale=hi_IN

‍

‍

We also found a report published by The Times of India, quoting Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, who dismissed claims of any Chinese intrusion into Arunachal Pradesh. Rijiju clarified that no intrusion had taken place, adding that occasional movement across undemarcated areas occurs because the boundary has not been fully delineated. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-intrusion-transgression-in-absence-of-demarcation-kiran-rijiju/articleshow/132101410.cms

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral claim is false. The videos being shared as evidence of Chinese troops entering Arunachal Pradesh actually show Royal Thai Army personnel participating in military training exercises in Thailand. There is no evidence that the footage is related to India or that it depicts any recent Chinese military intrusion into Indian territory. Government officials have also rejected the viral claim.

‍

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍

Introduction

On September 27, 2024, the Indian government took a significant step toward enhancing national security by amending business allocation rules through an extraordinary gazette notification. This amendment, which assigns specific roles to different Union Ministries and Departments regarding telecom network security, cybersecurity, and cybercrime, aims to clarify and streamline efforts in these critical areas. With India's evolving cybersecurity landscape, the need for a structured regulatory framework is pressing, as threats grow in complexity. Recent developments, such as the July 2024 global cyber outage and increasing cyber crimes like SMS scams, highlight the urgency of such reforms. Under Article 77 clause (3), the President amended the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, to designate clearer responsibilities, reinforcing India's readiness to tackle emerging digital threats.

Key Highlights of the Gazette Notification

• Telecom Networks Security: A new entry ‘1A’ matters relating to the security of telecom networks" has been added under the Department of Telecommunications, highlighting an increased focus on securing the nation's telecom infrastructure.
• Cyber Security Responsibilities: Cyber security responsibilities have been added as a new entry under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), "5B. This assigns responsibility to MeitY for cybersecurity issues, concerning the Information Technology Act of 2000, giving the ministry the mandate to support other ministries or departments regarding cybersecurity matters.
• Oversight for Cyber Crime: Under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, a new entry "36A Matters relating to Cyber Crime" is introduced. This emphasises that the MHA will handle cybercrime issues, highlighting the government's attention toward enhancing internal security against cyber threats.
• Cyber Security Strategic Coordination: Any matter related to the "overall coordination and strategic direction for Cyber Security," has been given to the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). This consolidates the role of the NSCS in guiding cybersecurity strategies at the national level.

Impact on Policy and Governance 

The amendments introduced through the notification are poised to significantly enhance the Indian government's cybersecurity framework by clarifying the roles of various ministries. The clear separation of responsibilities, telecom network security to the Department of Telecommunications, cybercrime to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and overall cyber strategy to the National Security Council Secretariat could seen as better coordination between ministries. This clarity is expected to reduce bureaucratic delays, allowing for quicker response times in addressing cyber threats, cybercrimes, and telecom vulnerabilities. Such efficient handling is crucial, especially in the evolving landscape of digital threats. These changes have been largely welcomed as it recognises the potential for improved regulatory oversight and faster policy implementation and a step forward in bolstering India’s cyber resilience. 

Conclusion 

The Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 amendments mark a critical step in strengthening India's cybersecurity framework. By setting out specific responsibilities for telecom network security, cybercrime, and overall cybersecurity strategy among key ministries, the government seeks to improve coordination and reduce bureaucratic delays. This policy shift is poised to enhance India’s digital resilience, providing a foundation for rapid responses to emerging cyber threats. However, success hinges on effective implementation, resource allocation, and collaboration across ministries. Addressing concerns like potential jurisdictional overlap and ensuring the inclusion of bodies like NCIIPC will be pivotal to ensuring comprehensive cyber protection. The complexity of cyber crimes and threats is evolving every day and the government's ability and preparedness to handle them with regulatory insight is a high priority.

References

• https://egazette.gov.in/(S(4r5oclueuwrjypfvr5b4vtzg))/ViewPDF.aspx 
• https://www.ptinews.com/story/national/govt-specifies-roles-on-matters-related-to-security-of-telecom-network-cyber-security-and-cyber-crime/1856627
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/centre-to-further-streamline-mechanism-to-deal-with-cyber-security-cyber-crime/article68694330.ece
• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/govt-specifies-roles-on-matters-related-to-security-of-telecom-network-cyber-security-and-cyber-crime/113754501 

‍