#FactCheck-Stone Pelting Video from Mathura Misrepresented as Part of “Cockroach Janata Party” Campaign; Fact Check Reveals Old Incident

Introduction

On the precipice of a new domain of existence, the metaverse emerges as a digital cosmos, an expanse where the horizon is not sky, but a limitless scope for innovation and imagination. It is a sophisticated fabric woven from the threads of social interaction, leisure, and an accelerated pace of technological progression. This new reality, a virtual landscape stretching beyond the mundane encumbrances of terrestrial life, heralds an evolutionary leap where the laws of physics yield to the boundless potential inherent in our creativity. Yet, the dawn of such a frontier does not escape the spectre of an age-old adversary—financial crime—the shadow that grows in tandem with newfound opportunity, seeping into the metaverse, where crypto-assets are no longer just an alternative but the currency du jour, dazzling beacons for both legitimate pioneers and shades of illicit intent.

The metaverse, by virtue of its design, is a canvas for the digital repaint of society—a three-dimensional realm where the lines between immersive experiences and entertainment blur, intertwining with surreal intimacy within this virtual microcosm. Donning headsets like armor against the banal, individuals become avatars; digital proxies that acquire the ability to move, speak, and perform an array of actions with an ease unattainable in the physical world. Within this alternative reality, users navigate digital topographies, with experiences ranging from shopping in pixelated arcades to collaborating in virtual offices; from witnessing concerts that defy sensory limitations to constructing abodes and palaces from mere codes and clicks—an act of creation no longer beholden to physicality but to the breadth of one's ingenuity.

The Crypto Assets

The lifeblood of this virtual economy pulsates through crypto-assets. These digital tokens represent value or rights held on distributed ledgers—a technology like blockchain, which serves as both a vault and a transparent tapestry, chronicling the pathways of each digital asset. To hop onto the carousel of this economy requires a digital wallet—a storeroom and a gateway for acquisition and trade of these virtual valuables. Cryptocurrencies, with NFTs—Non-fungible Tokens—have accelerated from obscure digital curios to precious artifacts. According to blockchain analytics firm Elliptic, an astonishing figure surpassing US$100 million in NFTs were usurped between July 2021 and July 2022. This rampant heist underlines their captivating allure for virtual certificates. Empowers do not just capture art, music, and gaming, but embody their very soul.

Yet, as the metaverse burgeons, so does the complexity and diversity of financial transgressions. From phishing to sophisticated fraud schemes, criminals craft insidious simulacrums of legitimate havens, aiming to drain the crypto-assets of the unwary. In the preceding year, a daunting figure rose to prominence—the vanishing of US$14 billion worth of crypto-assets, lost to the abyss of deception and duplicity. Hence, social engineering emerges from the shadows, a sort of digital chicanery that preys not upon weaknesses of the system, but upon the psychological vulnerabilities of its users—scammers adorned in the guise of authenticity, extracting trust and assets with Machiavellian precision.

The New Wave of Fincrimes 

Extending their tentacles further, perpetrators of cybercrime exploit code vulnerabilities, engage in wash trading, obscuring the trails of money laundering, meander through sanctions evasion, and even dare to fund activities that send ripples of terror across the physical and virtual divide. The intricacies of smart contracts and the decentralized nature of these worlds, designed to be bastions of innovation, morph into paths paved for misuse and exploitation. The openness of blockchain transactions, the transparency that should act as a deterrent, becomes a paradox, a double-edged sword for the law enforcement agencies tasked with delineating the networks of faceless adversaries.

Addressing financial crime in the metaverse is Herculean labour, requiring an orchestra of efforts—harmonious, synchronised—from individual users to mammoth corporations, from astute policymakers to vigilant law enforcement bodies. Users must furnish themselves with critical awareness, fortifying their minds against the siren calls that beckon impetuous decisions, spurred by the anxiety of falling behind. Enterprises, the architects and custodians of this digital realm, are impelled to collaborate with security specialists, to probe their constructs for weak seams, and to reinforce their bulwarks against the sieges of cyber onslaughts. Policymakers venture onto the tightrope walk, balancing the impetus for innovation against the gravitas of robust safeguards—a conundrum played out on the global stage, as epitomised by the European Union's strides to forge cohesive frameworks to safeguard this new vessel of human endeavour.

The Austrian Example 

Consider the case of Austria, where the tapestry of laws entwining crypto-assets spans a gamut of criminal offences, from data breaches to the complex webs of money laundering and the financing of dark enterprises. Users and corporations alike must become cartographers of local legislation, charting their ventures and vigilances within the volatile seas of the metaverse.

Upon the sands of this virtual frontier, we must not forget: that the metaverse is more than a hive of bits and bandwidth. It crystallises our collective dreams, echoes our unspoken fears, and reflects the range of our ambitions and failings. It stands as a citadel where the ever-evolving quest for progress should never stray from the compass of ethical pursuit. The cross-pollination of best practices, and the solidarity of international collaboration, are not simply tactics—they are imperatives engraved with the moral codes of stewardship, guiding us to preserve the unblemished spirit of the metaverse.

Conclusion

The clarion call of the metaverse invites us to venture into its boundless expanse, to savour its gifts of connection and innovation. Yet, on this odyssey through the pixelated constellations, we harness vigilance as our star chart, mindful of the mirage of morality that can obfuscate and lead astray. In our collective pursuit to curtail financial crime, we deploy our most formidable resource—our unity—conjuring a bastion for human ingenuity and integrity. In this, we ensure that the metaverse remains a beacon of awe, safeguarded against the shadows of transgression, and celebrated as a testament to our shared aspiration to venture beyond the realm of the possible, into the extraordinary.

References 

• https://www.wolftheiss.com/insights/financial-crime-in-the-metaverse-is-real/ 
• https://gnet-research.org/2023/08/16/meta-terror-the-threats-and-challenges-of-the-metaverse/
• https://shuftipro.com/blog/the-rising-concern-of-financial-crimes-in-the-metaverse-aml-screening-as-a-solution/

‍

Executive Summary

‍

A claim is being widely circulated on social media alleging that more than 20,000 Sikh and Muslim personnel have resigned from the Indian Army.The viral graphic further attributes a statement to Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi, claiming that the resignations were triggered by Indian media allegedly blaming Muslims and Sikhs for the Delhi riots.  The graphic also includes the alleged remark that “Bhagwakaran (saffronisation) has destroyed us.” Several social media users are sharing the claim as genuine. CyberPeace Rresearch Wing ’s research found the viral claim to be false. Our research  revealed that there is no credible evidence to support the allegation that more than 20,000 Sikh and Muslim soldiers resigned from the Indian Army. We found no official statement from the Indian Army or the Ministry of Defence confirming such resignations. Additionally, the statement attributed to Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi has been fabricated and does not appear in his original speech. The viral claim is therefore misleading and based on false information.

‍

Claim

‍

An X user shared the viral graphic with the caption, “Under the guise of ‘Bhagwakaran’ (saffronisation), RSS has wanted a Hindu Rashtra for 100 years. Since 2014, the process of ‘Hindu purification’ has begun. Agniveer recruitment is being filled with RSS-BJP supporters. Twenty thousand Sikh and Muslim soldiers have resigned from the Indian Army, creating job opportunities for RSS and BJP supporters.”

Post Link:

https://x.com/RatnakarGedam/status/2078659496801661426?s=20 

https://archive.ph/submit/?url 

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we conducted keyword-based searches on Google using terms related to the alleged resignation of 20,000 Sikh and Muslim soldiers from the Indian Army. Our search found no credible news reports supporting the claim. We also found no official statement from the Indian Army or the Ministry of Defence confirming that such resignations had taken place. During the research , we located the original video of General Upendra Dwivedi, published by the news agency IANS. In the video, the Army Chief is addressing the Delhi Defence Dialogue, where he discusses modern warfare, emerging military technologies, future security challenges, and land warfare strategy.

His remarks are entirely focused on defence preparedness, technological advancements, and strategic military issues. At no point does he mention the resignation of 20,000 Sikh or Muslim soldiers, the Delhi riots, or any of the claims circulating on social media.

https://x.com/ians_india/status/1988566879053693282?s=20

‍

‍

The viral quote attributed to General Dwivedi does not appear anywhere in his speech and has been fabricated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research  found that the claim alleging 20,000 Sikh and Muslim soldiers resigned from the Indian Army is false.There is no credible evidence that such mass resignations took place, and General Upendra Dwivedi never made the statement attributed to him in the viral posts. The claim is based on a fabricated quote and is being circulated to mislead the public.

‍

Introduction

‍

“an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not ‍, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force”

‍

Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals itself through its own gaps. The most recent notification from MeitY, G.S.R. 775(E) dated October 22, 2025, is an illustration of that self-correction. On November 15, 2025, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, will come into effect. They accomplish two crucial things: they restrict who can use "actual knowledge” to initiate takedown and require senior-level scrutiny of those directives. By doing this, they maintain genuine security requirements while guiding India’s content governance system towards more transparent due process. 

‍

When Regulation Learns Restraint

‍

To better understand the jurisprudence of revision, one must need to understand that Regulation, in its truest form, must know when to pause. The 2025 amendment marks that rare moment when the government chooses precision over power, when regulation learns restraint. The amendment revises Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules. Social media sites, hosting companies, and other digital intermediaries are still required to take action within 36 hours of receiving “actual knowledge” that a piece of content is illegal (e.g. poses a threat to public order, sovereignty, decency, or morality). However, “actual knowledge” now only occurs in the following situations: 

(i) a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, or

(ii) a reasoned written intimation from a duly authorised government officer not below Joint Secretary rank (or equivalent)

‍

The authorised authority in matters involving the police “must not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)”. This creates a well defined, senior-accountable channel in place of a diffuse trigger. 

There are two more new structural guardrails. The Rules first establish a monthly assessment of all takedown notifications by a Secretary-level officer of the relevant government to test necessity, proportionality, and compliance with India’s safe harbour provision under Section 79(3) of the IT Act. Second, in order for platforms to act precisely rather than in an expansive manner, takedown requests must be accompanied by legal justification, a description of the illegal act, and precise URLs or identifiers. The cumulative result of these guardrails is that each removal has a proportionality check and a paper trail. 

‍

Due Process as the Law’s Conscience 

‍

Indian jurisprudence has been debating what constitutes “actual knowledge” for over a decade. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) connected an intermediary’s removal obligation to notifications from official channels or court orders rather than vague notice. But over time, that line became hazy due to enforcement practices and some court rulings, raising concerns about over-removal and safe-harbour loss under Section 79(3). Even while more recent decisions questioned the “reasonable efforts” of intermediaries, the 2025 amendment institutionally pays homage to Shreya Singhal’s ethos by refocusing “actual knowledge” on formal reviewable communications from senior state actors or judges. 

The amendment also introduces an internal constitutionalism to executive orders by mandating monthly audits at the Secretary level. The state is required to re-justify its own orders on a rolling basis, evaluating them against proportionality and necessity, which are criteria that Indian courts are increasingly requesting for speech restrictions. Clearer triggers, better logs, and less vague “please remove” communications that previously left compliance teams in legal limbo are the results for intermediaries.

‍

The Court’s Echo in the Amendment

‍

The essence of this amendment is echoed in Karnataka High Court’s Ruling on Sahyog Portal, a government portal used to coordinate takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), was constitutional. The HC rejected X’s (formerly Twitter’s) appeal contesting the legitimacy of the portal in September. The business had claimed that by giving nodal officers the authority to issue takedown orders without court review, the portal permitted arbitrary content removals. The court disagreed, holding that the officers’ acts were in accordance with Section 79 (3)(b) and that they were “not dropping from the air but emanating from statutes.” The amendment turns compliance into conscience by conforming to the Sahyog Portal verdict, reiterating that due process is the moral grammar of governance rather than just a formality. 

‍

Conclusion: The Necessary Restlessness of Law 

‍

Law cannot afford stillness; it survives through self doubt and reinvention. The 2025 amendment, too, is not a destination, it’s a pause before the next question, a reminder that justice breathes through revision. As befits a constitutional democracy, India’s path to content governance has been combative and iterative. The next rule making cycle has been sharpened by the stays split judgments, and strikes down that have resulted from strategic litigation centred on the IT Rules, safe harbour, government fact-checking, and blocking orders. Lessons learnt are reflected in the 2025 amendment: review triumphs over opacity; specificity triumphs over vagueness; and due process triumphs over discretion. A digital republic balances freedom and force in this way. 

‍

Sources

• https://pressnews.in/law-and-justice/government-notifies-amendments-to-it-rules-2025-strengthening-intermediary-obligations/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/90dedea70a3fdfe6d58efb55b95b4109.pdf 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2181719 
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/x-relies-on-shreya-singhal-in-arbitrary-content-blocking-case-in-karnataka-hc/ 
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/10/223-content-takedown-rules-online-platforms-36-hr-deadline-officer-rank/#:~:text=It%20specifies%20that%20government%20officers,Deputy%20Inspector%20General%20of%20Police%E2%80%9D.

‍

‍