#FactCheck : Edited video falsely claims Dr. Vikas Divyakirti targeted Narendra Modi
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows Dr. Vikas Divyakirti speaking during a podcast, where he is heard saying, “Those who cannot even memorise and speak four sentences are considered the greatest in India.” Several users are sharing the clip claiming that the remark was aimed at Narendra Modi. However, a research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the viral clip has been edited and shared out of context. In the original video, Divyakirti made the remarks in reference to film stars, not the Prime Minister.
Claim
On Facebook, a user shared the viral clip with an English caption alleging that Divyakirti criticised Modi, saying he cannot speak without a teleprompter or scripted interviews and has built a false image of greatness.
Similarly, another user shared the video on X, suggesting that people who cannot speak without a teleprompter are still considered great in India, indirectly linking the remark to Modi.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video uploaded on the official YouTube channel of Raj Shamani.
At around the 3:55 mark, the same clip can be seen. During the conversation, Shamani asks whether building a larger-than-life perception actually benefits an individual. Responding to this, Dr. Vikas Divyakirti explains that film stars often have an exaggerated public image. He notes that many of the dialogues they are praised for are not written by them, but by others, and some even rely on teleprompters while speaking. He further adds that there are individuals who cannot even memorise and deliver four sentences or think independently, yet are regarded as great in India. He also mentions that many social media personalities use teleprompters, but audiences remain unaware and assume they possess exceptional knowledge.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video has been edited and shared out of context. Dr. Vikas Divyakirti was referring to film stars and social media personalities, not Narendra Modi.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
A video is rapidly circulating on social media following claims that Iran’s national security chief Ali Larijani was killed in an Israeli airstrike. The viral clip is being shared with the assertion that it shows the moment Israel launched a powerful attack on Iran to eliminate Larijani, allegedly shaking the ground due to the intensity of the strike However, research by CyberPeace has found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is AI-generated and has no connection to real-world events.
Claim:
Social media users have shared the video with alarming captions. One such post by Deepak Sharma reads:
“WAR UPDATE… Iran is in its final phase… Israel is striking selectively… This attack will leave you shocked… Iran’s national security chief Ali Larijani has been killed in this attack… The intensity of the strike shook the Iranian الأرض.
Post links:
Similar videos were also shared by other users:
- urabh_raj3026/status/2038834832869032026
- https://x.com/ibmindia20/status/2038938020154597447
- https://x.com/Saurabh_raj3026/status/2038834832869032026
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. During this process, we found the same video on Instagram, uploaded on March 9, 2026, by the account “_iranwar_2026” without any descriptive caption.
According to a BBC report, Ali Larijani died on March 17 in an Israeli strike. This establishes that the viral video predates the reported incident, making the claim factually inconsistent. Further examination of the Instagram account revealed that it frequently shares pro-Iran content, including gaming visuals and AI-generated clips, raising doubts about the authenticity of the video.
To strengthen the verification, we analyzed the viral clip using the AI detection tool “Zhuque AI Detection Assistant.” The results indicated a 91.71% probability that the video is AI-generated, confirming that it is not real footage.
Conclusion
The viral claim linking the video to an Israeli airstrike that allegedly killed Ali Larijani is misleading and factually incorrect. Multiple layers of verification show that the video existed online before the reported incident, ruling out any direct connection. Additionally, AI detection analysis strongly suggests that the video is artificially generated. The source account’s pattern of sharing AI and gaming-related content further weakens the credibility of the claim. There is no verified evidence to support that the viral clip depicts a real attack or any event related to Larijani’s death. Instead, the video appears to be a digitally created visual circulated without context to amplify misinformation.
Introduction
The recent cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), one of the world's best-known car makers, has revealed extensive weaknesses in the interlinked character of international supply chains. The incident highlights the increasing cybersecurity issues of industries going through digital transformation. With its production stopped in several UK factories, supply chain disruptions, and service delays to its customers worldwide, this cyber-attack shows how cyber events can ripple into operation, finance, and reputation risks for large businesses.
The Anatomy of a Breakdown
Jaguar Land Rover, a Tata Motors subsidiary, was forced to disable its IT infrastructure because of a cyber-attack over the weekend. This shut down was already an emergency shut down to mitigate damage and the disruption to business was serious.
- No Production - The car plants at Halewood (Merseyside) and Solihull (West Midlands) and the engine plant (Wolverhampton) were all completely shut down.
- Sales and Distribution: Car sales were significantly impaired during a high-volume registration period in September, although certain transactions still passed through manual procedures.
- Global Effect: The breakdown did not reach only the UK, dealers and fix experts across the world, including in Australia, suffered with inaccessible parts databases.
JLR called the recovery process "extremely complex" as it involved a controlled recovery of systems and implementing alternative workarounds for offline services. The overall effects include the immediate and massive impact to their suppliers and customers, and has raised larger questions regarding the sustainability of digital ecosystems in the automobile value chain.
The Human Impact: Beyond JLR's Factories
The implications of the cyber-attack have extended beyond the production lines of JLR:
- Independent Garages: Repair centres such as Nyewood Express of West Sussex indicated that they could not use vital parts databases, which brought repair activities to a standstill and left clients waiting indefinitely.
- Global Dealers: Land Rover experts as distant as Tasmania indicated total system crashes, highlighting global dependency on centralized IT systems.
- Customer Frustration: Regular customers in need of urgent repairs were stranded by the inability to order replacement parts from original manufacturers.
This attack is an example of the cascading effect of cyber disruptions among interconnected industries, a single point of failure paralyzing complete ecosystems.
The Culprit: The Hacker Collective
The hack is justifiably claimed by a so-called hacker collective "Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters." The so-called hacking collective says that it consists of young English-speaking hackers and has previously targeted blue-chip brands like Marks & Spencer. While the attackers seem not to have publicly declared whether they exfiltrated sensitive information or deployed ransomware, they went ahead and posted screenshots of internal JLR documents-the kind of documents that probably are not supposed to see the light of day, including troubleshooting guides and system logs-implicating what can only be described as grossly unauthorized access into some of Jaguar Land Rover's core IT systems.
Jaguar Land Rover had gone on record to claim with no apropos proof or evidence that it probably did not see anyone getting into customer data; however, the very occurrence of this attack raises some very serious questions on insider threats, social engineering concepts, and how efficient cybersecurity governance architectures really are.
Cybersecurity Weaknesses and Lessons Learned
The JLR attack depicts some of the common weaknesses associated with large-scale manufacturing organizations:
- Centralized IT Dependencies: Today's auto firms are based on worldwide IT systems for operations, logistics, and customer care. Compromise can lead to broad outages.
- Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Tier-2 and Tier-1 suppliers use OEM systems for placing and tracing components. Interrupting at the OEM level automatically stops their processes.
- Inadequate Incident Visibility: Several suppliers complained about no clear information from JLR, which increased uncertainty and financial loss.
- Rise of Youth Hacking Groups: Involvement of youth hacker groups highlight the necessity for active monitoring and community-level cybersecurity awareness initiatives.
Broader Industry Context
With ever-increasing cyber-attacks on the automotive industry, an area currently being rapidly digitalised through connected cars, IoT-based factories, and cloud-based operations, this series of incidents falls within such a context. In 2023, JLR awarded an £800 million contract to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for services in support of the company's digital transformation and cybersecurity enhancement. This attack shows that, no matter how much is spent, poorly conceptualised security programs can never stand up to ever-changing cyber threats.
What Can Organizations Do? – Cyberpeace Recommendations
To contain risks and develop a resilience against such events, organizations need to implement a multi-layered approach to cybersecurity:
- Adopt Zero Trust Architecture - Presume breach as the new normal. Verify each user, device, and application before access is given, even inside the internal network.
- Enhance Supply Chain Security - Perform targeted assessments on a routine basis to identify risk factors in diminishing suppliers. Include rigorous cybersecurity provisions in the agreements with suppliers, namely disclosure of vulnerabilities and the agreed period for incident response.
- Durable Backups and Their Restoration - Backward hampers are kept isolated and encrypted to continue operations in case of ransomware incidents or any other occur in system compromise.
- Periodic Red Team Exercises - Simulate cyber-attacks on IT and OT systems to examine if vulnerabilities exist and evaluate current incident response measures.
- Employee Training and Insider Threat Monitoring - Social engineering being the forefront of attack vectors, continuous training and behavioural monitoring will have to be done to avoid credential disposal.
- Public-Private Partnership - Interact with several government agencies and cybersecurity groups for sharing threat intelligence and enforcing best practices complementary to ISO/IEC 27001 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
Conclusion
The hacking at Jaguar Land Rover is perhaps one of a thousand reminders that cybersecurity can no longer be seen as a back-office job but rather as an issue of business continuity at the very core of the organization. In the process of digital transformation, the attack surface grows, making the entities targeted by cybercriminals. Operation security demands that cybersecurity be ensured on a proactive basis through resilient supply chains and stakeholders working together. The JLR attack is not an isolated event; it is a warning for the entire automobile sector to maintain security at every level of digitalization.
References
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jzl1lw4y1o
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/07/disruption-to-jaguar-land-rover-after-cyber-attack-may-last-until-october
- https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/jaguar-factory-workers-told-stay-073458122.html
Introduction
Fundamentally, artificial intelligence (AI) is the greatest extension of human intelligence. It is the culmination of centuries of logic, reasoning, math, and creativity, machines trained to reflect cognition. However, such intelligence no longer resembles intelligence at all when it is put in the hands of the irresponsible, the one with malice, or the perverse, unleashed into the wild with minimal safeguards. Instead, distortion seems as a tool of debasement rather than enlightenment.
Recent incidents involving sexually explicit photographs created by AI on social media sites reveal an extremely unsettling reality. When intelligence is detached from accountability, morality, and governance, it corrodes society rather than elevates it. We are seeing a failure of stewardship rather than just a failure of technology.
The Cost of Unchecked Intelligence
The AI chatbot Grok, which operates under Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), is the subject of a debate that goes beyond a single platform or product. The romanticisation of “unfiltered” knowledge and the perilous notion that innovation should come before accountability are signs of a bigger lapse in the digital ecosystem. We have allowed mechanisms that can be used as weapons against human dignity, especially the dignity of women and children, in the name of freedom.
We are no longer discussing artistic expression or experimental AI when a machine can digitally undress women, morph photos, or produce sexualised portrayals of kids with a few keystrokes. We stand in the face of algorithmic violence. Even if the physical touch is absent, the harm caused by it is genuine, long-lasting, and extremely personal.
The Regulatory Red Line
A major inflexion was reached when the Indian government responded by ordering a thorough technical, procedural, and governance-level audit. It acknowledges that AI systems are not isolated entities. Platforms that use them are not neutral pipes, but rather intermediaries with responsibilities. The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, the IT Act, the IT Rules 2021, and the possible removal of Section 79 safe-harbour safeguards all make it quite evident that innovation is not automatic immunity.
However, the fundamental dilemma cannot be resolved by legislation alone. AI is hailed as a force multiplier for innovation, productivity, and advancement, but when incentives are biased towards engagement, virality, and shock value, its misuse shows how easily intelligence can turn into ugliness. The output receives greater attention the more provocative it is. Profit increases with attention. Restraint turns into a business disadvantage in this ecology.
The Aftermath
Grok’s own acknowledgement that “safeguard lapses” enabled the creation of pictures showing children wearing skimpy attire underscores a troubling reality, safety was not absent due to impossibility, but due to insufficiency. It was always possible to implement sophisticated filtering, more robust monitoring, and stricter oversight. They were simply not prioritised. When a system asserts that “no system is 100% foolproof,” it must also acknowledge that there is no acceptable margin of error when it comes to child protection.
The casual normalisation of such lapses is what is most troubling. By characterising these instances as “isolated cases,” systemic design decisions run the risk of being trivialised. In addition to intelligence, AI systems that have been taught on enormous amounts of human data also inherit bias, misogyny, and power imbalances.
Conclusion
What is required today is recalibration. Platforms need to shift from reactive compliance to proactive accountability. Safeguards must be incorporated at the architectural level; they cannot be cosmetic or post-facto. Governance must encompass enforced ethical boundaries in addition to terms of service. The idea that “edgy” AI is a sign of advancement must also be rejected by society.
Artificial Intelligence has never promised freedom under the guise of vulgarity. It was improvement, support, and augmentation. The fundamental core of intelligence is lost when it is used as a tool for degradation.So what’s left is a decision between principled innovation and unbridled novelty. Between responsibility and spectacle, between intelligence as purpose and intellect as power.
References
https://www.rediff.com/news/report/govt-orders-x-review-of-grok-over-explicit-content/20260103.htm
