#FactCheck-Viral Video of Assam MLA Assaulting Man Misleadingly Shared as BJP MLA

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

Social media platforms have begun to shape the public understanding of history in today’s digital landscape. You may have encountered videos, images, and posts that claim to reveal an untold story about our past. For example, you might have seen a post on your feed that has a painted or black and white image of a princess and labelled as "the most beautiful princess of Rajasthan who fought countless wars but has been erased from history.” Such emotionally charged narratives spread quickly, without any academic scrutiny or citation. Unfortunately, the originator believes it to be true. 

Such unverified content may look harmless. But it profoundly contributes to the systematic distortion of historical information. Such misinformation reoccurs on feeds and becomes embedded in popular memory. It misguides the public discourse and undermines the scholarly research on the relevant topic.  Sometimes, it also contributes to communal outrage and social tensions. It is time to recognise that protecting the integrity of our cultural and historical narratives is not only an academic concern but a legal and institutional responsibility. This is where the role of the Ministry of Culture becomes critical.

‍

Pseudohistorical News Information in India

Fake news and misinformation are frequently disseminated via images, pictures, and videos on various messaging applications, which is referred to as “WhatsApp University” in a derogatory way. WhatsApp has become India’s favourite method of communication, while users have to stay very conscious about what they are consuming from forwarded messages. Academic historians strive to understand the past in its context to differentiate it from the present, whereas pseudo-historians try to manipulate history to satisfy their political agendas. Unfortunately, this wave of pseudo-history is expanding rapidly, with platforms like 'WhatsApp University' playing a significant role in amplifying its spread. This has led to an increase in fake historical news and paid journalism. Unlike pseudo-history, academic history is created by professional historians in academic contexts, adhering to strict disciplinary guidelines, including peer review and expert examination of justifications, assertions, and publications.

‍

How to Identify Pseudo-Historic Misinformation 

1. Lack of Credible Sources: There is a lack of reliable primary and secondary sources. Instead, pseudohistorical works depend on hearsay and unreliable eyewitness accounts.

2. Selective Use of Evidence: Misinformative posts portray only those facts that support their argument and minimise the facts which is contradictory to their assertions.  

3. Incorporation of Conspiracy Theories: They often include conspiracy theories, which postulate secret groups, repressed knowledge. They might mention that evil powers influenced the historical events. Such hypotheses frequently lack any supporting data. 

4. Extravagant Claims: Pseudo-historic tales sometimes present unbelievable assertions about historic persons or events. 

5. Lack of Peer Review: Such work is generally never published on authentic academic platforms. You would not find them on platforms like LinkedIn, but on platforms like Instagram and Facebook, as they do not pitch for academic publications. Authentic historical research is examined by subject-matter authorities. 

6. Neglect of Established Historiographical Methods: Such posts lack knowledge of a recognised methodology and procedures, like the critical study of sources.

7. Ideologically Driven Narratives: Political, communal, ideological, and personal opinions are prioritised in such posts. The author has a prior goal, instead of finding the truth.

8. Exploitation of Gaps in the Historical Record: Pseudo-historians often use missing or unclear parts of history to suggest that regular historians are hiding important secrets. They make the story sound more mysterious than it is. 

9. Rejection of Scholarly Consensus: Pseudo-historians often reject the views of experts and historians, choosing instead to believe and promote their strange ideas.

10. Emphasis on Sensationalism: Pseudo-historical works may put more emphasis on sensationalism than academic rigour to pique public interest rather than offer a fair and thorough account of the history.

‍

Legal and Institutional Responsibility

Public opinion is the heart of democracy. It should not be affected by any misinformation or disinformation. Vested interests cannot be allowed to sabotage this public opinion. Specifically, when it concerns academia, it cannot be shared unverified without any fact-checking. Such unverified claims can be called out, and action can be taken only if the authorities take over the charge. In India, the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) regulates the historical academia. As per the official website, their stated aim is to “take all such measures as may be found necessary from time to time to promote historical research and its utilisation in the country,”. However, it is now essential to modernise the functioning of the ICHR to meet the demands of the digital era. Concerned authorities can run campaigns and awareness programmes to question the validity and research of such misinformative posts. Just as there are fact-checking mechanisms for news, there must also be an institutional push to fact-check and regulate historical content online. The following measures can be taken by authorities to strike down such misinformation online: 

1. Launch a nationwide awareness campaign about historical misinformation.
2. Work with scholars, historians, and digital platforms to promote verified content.
3. Encourage social media platforms to introduce fact-check labels for historical posts.
4. Consider legal frameworks that penalise the deliberate spread of false historical narratives.

History is part of our national heritage, and preserving its accuracy is a matter of public interest. Misinformation and pseudo-history are a combination that misleads the public and weakens the foundation of shared cultural identity. In this digital era, false narratives spread rapidly, and it is important to promote critical thinking, encourage responsible academic work, and ensure that the public has access to accurate and well-researched historical information. Protecting the integrity of history is not just the work of historians — it is a collective responsibility that serves the future of our democracy.

‍

References:

1. https://kuey.net/index.php/kuey/article/view/4091 
2. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/social-media-and-the-menace-of-false-information 

‍

On 6 June 2025, the EU Council officially adopted the revised Cybersecurity Blueprint, marking a significant evolution from the 2017 guidance. This framework, formalised through Council Recommendation COM(2025) 66 final, responds to a transformed threat environment and reflects new legal milestones like the NIS2 Directive (Network and Information Security Directive) and the Cyber Solidarity Act.

From Fragmented Response to Cohesive Strategy

‍

Between 2017 and now, EU member states have built various systems to manage cyber incidents. Still, real-world events and exercises highlighted critical gaps - uncoordinated escalation procedures, inconsistent terminology, and siloed information flows. The updated Blueprint addresses these issues by focusing on a harmonised operational architecture for the EU. It defines a clear crisis lifecycle with five stages: Detection, Analysis, Escalation, Response, and Recovery. Each stage is supported by common communication protocols, decision-making processes, and defined roles. Consistency is key; standardised terminology along with a broad scope of application that eases cross-border collaboration and empowers coherent response efforts.

Legal Foundations: NIS2, ENISA & EU‑CyCLONe

‍

Several core pillars of EU cybersecurity directly underpin the Blueprint:

• ENISA – The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity continues to play a central role. It supports CSIRTs' Network operations, leads EU‑CyCLONe ( European cyber crisis liaison organisation network) coordination, conducts simulation exercises, and gives training on incident management
• NIS2 Directive, particularly Article 16, is a follow-up of NIS. NIS2 mandates operators of critical infrastructure and essential services to implement appropriate security measures and report incidents to the relevant authorities. Compared to NIS, NIS2 expands its EU-wide security requirements and scope of covered organisations and sectors to improve the security of supply chains, simplify reporting obligations, and enforce more stringent measures and sanctions throughout Europe. It also formally legitimises the EU‑CyCLONe network, which is the crisis liaison mechanism bridging technical teams from member states.

‍

These modern tools, integrated with legal backing, ensure the Blueprint isn’t just theoretical; it’s operationally enforceable.

‍

What’s Inside the Blueprint?

‍

The 2025 Blueprint enhances several critical areas:

‍

1. Clear Escalation Triggers - It spells out when a national cyber incident merits EU-level attention, especially those affecting critical infrastructure across borders. Civilian Military Exchange. The Blueprint encourages structured information sharing with defence institutions and NATO, recognising that cyber incidents often have geopolitical implications 
2. Recovery & Lessons Learned – A dedicated chapter ensures systematic post-incident reviews and shared learning among member states.

‍

Adaptive & Resilient by Design

‍

Rather than a static document, the Blueprint is engineered to evolve:

• Regular Exercises: Built into the framework are simulation drills that are known as Blueprint Operational Level Exercises—to test leadership response and cross-border coordination via EU‑CyCLONe
• Dynamic Reviews: The system promotes continuous iteration- this includes revising protocols, learning from real incidents, and refining role definitions.
  
  

This iterative, learning-oriented architecture aims to ensure the Blueprint remains robust amid rapidly evolving threats, including AI-boosted hacks and hybrid cyber campaigns.

Global Implications & Lessons for Others

‍

The EU’s Cybersecurity Blueprint sets a global benchmark in cyber resilience and crisis governance:

• Blueprint for Global Coordination: The EU’s method of defined crisis stages, empowered liaison bodies (like EU‑CyCLONe), and continuous exercise can inspire other regional blocs or national governments to build their own crisis mechanisms.
• Public–Private Synergy: The Blueprint’s insistence on cooperation between governments and private-sector operators of essential services (e.g., energy, telecom, health) provides a model for forging robust ecosystems.
• Learning & Sharing at Scale: Its requirement for post-crisis lessons and peer exchange can fuel a worldwide knowledge network, cultivating resilience across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

‍

The 2025 EU Cybersecurity Blueprint is more than an upgrade; it’s a strategic shift toward operational readiness, legal coherence, and collaborative resilience. Anchored in NIS2 and ENISA, and supported by EU‑CyCLONe, it replaces fragmented guidance with a well-defined, adaptive model. Its adoption signals a transformative moment in global cyber governance as for nations building crisis frameworks, the Blueprint offers a tested, comprehensive template: define clear stages, equip liaison networks, mandate drills, integrate lessons, and legislate coordination. In an era where cyber threats transcend borders, this proves to be an important development that can offer guidance and set a precedent.

‍

For India, the EU Cybersecurity Blueprint offers a valuable reference point as we strengthen our own frameworks through initiatives like the DPDP Act, the upcoming Digital India Act and CERT-In’s evolving mandates. It reinforces the importance of coordinated response systems, cross-sector drills, and legal clarity. As cyber threats grow more complex, such global models can complement our national efforts and enhance regional cooperation.

‍

References

• https://industrialcyber.co/expert/the-eus-cybersecurity-blueprint-and-the-future-of-cyber-crisis-management/
• https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/06/06/eu-adopts-blueprint-to-better-manage-european-cyber-crises-and-incidents/ 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/eu-incident-response-and-cyber-crisis-management 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/news/new-cyber-blueprint-to-scale-up-the-eu-cybersecurity-crisis-management 
• https://www.isc2.org/Insights/2025/01/EU-Cyber-Solidarity-Act 
• https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/eu-incident-response-and-cyber-crisis-management/eu-cyclone 
• https://nis2directive.eu/what-is-nis2/ 

‍