#FactCheck - Deepfake Video Falsely Claims visuals of a massive rally held in Manipur

Executive Summary 

‍

A video widely circulated on social media claims to show a confrontation between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi during the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026. The video alleges that General Dwivedi made sensitive remarks regarding ‘Operation Sindoor’, including claims that the operation was still ongoing and that diplomatic intervention by former US President Donald Trump had restricted India’s military response. Several social media users shared the clip while questioning the Indian Army’s operational decisions and demanding accountability over the alleged remarks. The CyberPeace concludes that the viral video claiming to show a discussion between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi on ‘Operation Sindoor’ is misleading and digitally manipulated. Although the visuals were sourced from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026, the audio was artificially created and added later to misinform viewers. The Army Chief did not make any remarks regarding diplomatic interference or limitations on military action during the briefing.

‍

Claim:

‍

An X (formerly Twitter) user, Abbas Chandio (@AbbasChandio__), shared the video on January 14, asserting that it showed a Zee News journalist questioning the Army Chief about the status and outcomes of ‘Operation Sindoor’ during a recent press conference. In the clip, the journalist is purportedly heard challenging the Army Chief over his earlier statement that the operation was “still ongoing,” while the COAS is allegedly heard responding that diplomatic intervention during the conflict limited the Army’s ability to pursue further military action. Here is the link and archive link to the post, along with a screenshot.

‍

• https://x.com/AbbasChandio__/status/2011359054980161870?s=20 
• https://archive.ph/5BgLx 

‍

The reverse image search also directed to an extended version of the footage uploaded on the official YouTube channel of India Today. The original video was identified as coverage from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Conference 2026, held on January 13 in New Delhi and addressed by COAS General Upendra Dwivedi. Upon reviewing the original press briefing footage, CyberPeace found no instance where a Zee News journalist questioned the Army Chief about ‘Operation Sindoor’. There was also no mention of the statements attributed to General Dwivedi in the viral clip.

In the authentic footage, journalist Anuvesh Rath was seen raising questions related to defence procurement and modernization, not military operations or diplomatic interventions. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot.

‍

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqn8RLWLOc&t=3997s 

‍

‍

To further verify the claim, CyberPeace extracted the audio track from the viral video and analysed it using the AI-based voice detection tool Aurigin. The analysis revealed that the voice heard in the clip was artificially generated, indicating the use of synthetic or manipulated audio. This confirmed that while genuine visuals from the Army’s official press briefing were used, a fabricated audio track had been overlaid to falsely attribute controversial statements to the Army Chief and a Zee News journalist.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The CyberPeace concludes that the viral video claiming to show a discussion between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi on ‘Operation Sindoor’ is misleading and digitally manipulated. Although the visuals were sourced from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026, the audio was artificially created and added later to misinform viewers. The Army Chief did not make any remarks regarding diplomatic interference or limitations on military action during the briefing. The video is a clear case of digital manipulation and misinformation, aimed at creating confusion and casting doubts over the Indian Army’s official position.

‍

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

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍