#FactCheck - Digitally Altered Video of Olympic Medalist, Arshad Nadeem’s Independence Day Message
Executive Summary:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist and Javelin player Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day to the People of Pakistan, with claims of snoring audio in the background is getting viral. CyberPeace Research Team found that the viral video is digitally edited by adding the snoring sound in the background. The original video published on Arshad's Instagram account has no snoring sound where we are certain that the viral claim is false and misleading.
Claims:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day with snoring audio in the background.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the posts, we thoroughly checked the video, we then analyzed the video in TrueMedia, an AI Video detection tool, and found little evidence of manipulation in the voice and also in face.
We then checked the social media accounts of Arshad Nadeem, we found the video uploaded on his Instagram Account on 14th August 2024. In that video, we couldn’t hear any snoring sound.
Hence, we are certain that the claims in the viral video are fake and misleading.
Conclusion:
The viral video of Arshad Nadeem with a snoring sound in the background is false. CyberPeace Research Team confirms the sound was digitally added, as the original video on his Instagram account has no snoring sound, making the viral claim misleading.
- Claim: A snoring sound can be heard in the background of Arshad Nadeem's video wishing Independence Day to the people of Pakistan.
- Claimed on: X,
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs
The UN established its first permanent Global Mechanism for cybersecurity which will begin operations in March 2026. The policy framework for Western countries exists because their current strategies are being developed. The situation in India presents greater complexity and higher levels of interest than any other country.
The Fence That Became a Vantage Point
The United Nations cybersecurity talks have seen India actively participate since their start. India brought its proposal for an open and inclusive multilateral framework which was supported by Western states who wanted to establish universal norms and responsible state behaviour but India did not accept their geopolitical viewpoint.
India did not support the Russia-led bloc which wanted a permanent open-ended working group that would focus only on plenary meetings and the country also rejected the European Union's Program of Action. India maintained its previous stance by supporting multilateralism as a general principle while showing hesitation about backing specific power structures.
The fence now provides an advantage because it no longer serves as a point of vulnerability. India's non-alignment provides him with operational power because the body operates through decision-making which requires all members to agree.
Sovereignty First, Norms Second
The digital sovereignty framework which defines India's long-standing cybersecurity diplomatic activities serves as the country's fundamental cybersecurity diplomatic framework. New Delhi has been reluctant to endorse frameworks that could constrain how it manages its own cyberspace, whether through content regulation, surveillance architecture, or incident response. The Indian government establishes its control over internet governance through its implementation of VPN regulations and CERT-In reporting requirements and data localization discussions.
The new Global Mechanism creates a situation which India must handle because it creates an uncommon diplomatic situation. The framework's five pillars, threats, norms, international law, confidence-building measures, and capacity-building, each carry embedded assumptions that don't sit neatly with India's domestic policy posture. India supports the norm which prohibits countries from attacking each other's critical infrastructure while developing offensive cyber abilities and keeping its cyber response strategies secret.
The Capacity-Building Opening
The Indian government has a definite interest in dedicated thematic group 2 which focuses on building cybersecurity capacity. India exists in two opposing states because it operates as a developing nation which lacks basic national cybersecurity systems while also maintaining advanced cyber defense capabilities. The donor table exists as a platform which gives India both funding rights and complete rights to speak for developing nations. India should serve as a connecting force for DTG 2 by sharing its experience with CERT-In development and its sectoral frameworks for finance and telecom and its National Cyber Coordination Centre programs which train cybersecurity professionals while requesting capacity-building programs that follow demand-based needs assessment and local context understanding and which do not include the typical restrictions that accompany Western technical assistance.
India has done this before in other multilateral settings. The organization maintains its independence through its role as a credible Global South representative which it uses to speak for the Global South without aligning with any particular alliance.
The DTG 1 Question: Critical Infrastructure and Strategic Ambiguity
The DTG 1 study about ICT security challenges shows how resilience and cooperation and stability work together as different themes but creates complex challenges for India.
The 2020 Mumbai power grid incident which some researchers attribute to Chinese state-linked actors has become one of three major attacks against India's critical infrastructure together with AIIMS Delhi incidents in 2022 and ongoing cyber intrusions into defence and government networks. The international standards which govern critical infrastructure protection require actual implementation from India because the country possesses vital national assets.
India has not yet established formal processes for cyberattack attribution while its officials avoid the norm-enforcement diplomacy which Western countries practice through their coordinated attribution and sanction procedures.
India must either develop deeper transparency about its operations or create specialized operational plans which can keep its needed information undercover if it wants to participate in DTG 1 about cross-border interdependencies and incident response collaboration. India will likely engage selectively, supporting the idea of critical infrastructure norms while resisting mechanisms that operationalise accountability.
Geopolitical Triangulation
The new Global Mechanism needs countries to implement their national policies because states must stop merely restating their positions. Multilateral cybersecurity forums operate as Geopolitical triangulation platforms for India. India's security system must protect its interests against its two main cyber adversaries which include China and Pakistan-based groups.
The US and EU strategic partnership between India and these Western governments requires India to show closer ties with democratic nations through its participation in international forums. The new Global Mechanism will require India to pursue its current position by participating in capacity-building activities while developing common norms through its work on general norms language.
India will maintain its current position between Western liberal order enforcement and Russia-China sovereignty-maximalist counter-narrative through its capacity-building activities and general norms language work.
What India Should Actually Do
The document establishes core argument which states early DTG development needs to be established for proper assessment of future results which applies to Indian territory and European territory. India has the credibility and technical foundation and diplomatic ties which enable it to establish itself as an agenda-setter who takes proactive actions instead of following others. India should take the following actions to achieve its goals: lead or co-lead DTG 2 discussions which focus on the capacity requirements of the Global South while advancing DG 1 areas that protect developing nations from actual threats and establish South-South cybersecurity agreements through this system which will help them bypass Western capacity development restrictions. The Global Mechanism offers an essential multilateral platform which provides advantages to countries that take initial actions. India has the ability to make an impact because it possesses strategic advantages which will be activated through its choice between active participation and total disengagement.
References
- http://interface-eu.org/publications/the-new-united-nations-mechanism-on-cybersecurity#a-european-strategy-for-the-dtgs
- https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/emerging-challenges/developments-field-information-and-telecommunications-context
- https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/redecho-targeting-indian-power-sector
- https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/cert-in-issues-directions-for-information-security-practices-procedure-prevention-response-and-reporting-of-cyber-incidents/
Executive Summary:
A picture about the April 8 solar eclipse, which was authored by AI and was not a real picture of the astronomical event, has been spreading on social media. Despite all the claims of the authenticity of the image, the CyberPeace’s analysis showed that the image was made using Artificial Intelligence image-creation algorithms. The total solar eclipse on April 8 was observable only in those places on the North American continent that were located in the path of totality, whereas a partial visibility in other places was possible. NASA made the eclipse live broadcast for people who were out of the totality path. The spread of false information about rare celestial occurrences, among others, necessitates relying on trustworthy sources like NASA for correct information.
Claims:
An image making the rounds through social networks, looks like the eclipse of the sun of the 8th of April, which makes it look like a real photograph.
Fact Check:
After receiving the news, the first thing we did was to try with Keyword Search to find if NASA had posted any lookalike image related to the viral photo or any celestial events that might have caused this photo to be taken, on their official social media accounts or website. The total eclipse on April 8 was experienced by certain parts of North America that were located in the eclipse pathway. A part of the sky above Mazatlan, Mexico, was the first to witness it. Partial eclipse was also visible for those who were not in the path of totality.
Next, we ran the image through the AI Image detection tool by Hive moderation, which found it to be 99.2% AI-generated.
Following that, we applied another AI Image detection tool called Isitai, and it found the image to be 96.16% AI-generated.
With the help of AI detection tools, we came to the conclusion that the claims made by different social media users are fake and misleading. The viral image is AI-generated and not a real photograph.
Conclusion:
Hence, it is a generated image by AI that has been circulated on the internet as a real eclipse photo on April 8. In spite of some debatable claims to the contrary, the study showed that the photo was created using an artificial intelligence algorithm. The total eclipse was not visible everywhere in North America, but rather only in a certain part along the eclipse path, with partial visibility elsewhere. Through AI detection tools, we were able to establish a definite fact that the image is fake. It is very important, when you are talking about rare celestial phenomena, to use the information that is provided by the trusted sources like NASA for the accurate reason.
- Claim: A viral image of a solar eclipse claiming to be a real photograph of the celestial event on April 08
- Claimed on: X, Facebook, Instagram, website
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
India’s Rapid Digital Expansion
Over the past decade, India has experienced a rapid digitalisation process. The rise of digital financial services, affordable internet costs, and the penetration of smartphones have transformed the way people communicate, transact and do business online.
Online payment systems, including Unified Payments Interface (UPI), have enabled real-time transactions between banks and financial systems. As much as these systems have enhanced access to finance and efficiency, they have also created new opportunities for cybercriminals.
Cybercrime has evolved alongside the shift of financial and social interactions to digital platforms. The fraud attacks on online payments, online banking, and personal information have become common and increasingly costly.
To analyse the scale and trend of cybercrime in India, this analysis will use the datasets released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and financial fraud data released by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
Source: National Crime Records Bureau – Crime in India Reports
The data released by the NCRB documents cybercrime incidents registered by the police at the national level under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and criminal provisions covering offences such as cheating, impersonation, and digital fraud. In the past, the offences were listed in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following criminal law reforms in India, on 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC, came into force. Section 419 (cheating by impersonation), IPC, would be related to BNS Section 319 and Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), which would be related to BNS Section 318(4). Similarly, crimes involving forgery and use of forged documents or electronic documents, which were previously contained in the IPC Sections 465-471, are dealt with in BNS Sections 335-340.
The data published by the NCRB represent the number of crimes that reached the point of the First Information Report (FIR) registration, meaning they reflect only cybercrime cases that were formally presented to the law enforcement system to investigate, rather than all complaints reported. The data shows that cybercrime cases increased from 27,248 in 2018 to 86,420 in 2023, a 3.17-fold increase in 5 years.
Two structural shifts are visible: the post-pandemic jump and subsequent acceleration.
However, these figures likely underestimate the true scale of cybercrime because many incidents are reported only through online complaint portals and may not result in FIR registration.
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
This dataset tracks financial fraud complaints reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the estimated financial losses associated with those complaints.
The financial losses reported between 2021 and 2024 increased by 41 times over four years, compared to 2021, from 551 crore to 22,848 crore. At the same time, the number of complaints rose from 262,846 to over 1.9 million, an increase of ~623%, indicating both rising victimisation and greater public awareness of reporting mechanisms.
The contrast between these two trends is striking:
While complaints increased by around 7 times, financial losses increased by over 40 times.
Distribution of Cyber-Fraud Complaints and Financial Losses by Fraud Type
This divergence implies an uneven relationship between the number of incidents and the financial damage that they inflict. Most cyber fraud incidents involve relatively small transaction values; however, a smaller group of fraud categories result in disproportionate numbers of financial losses.
Distribution of Financial Losses Across Major Cyber-Fraud Categories in India
As reported by The Indian Express, based on the data compiled by the I4C, investment-related scams alone account for roughly 77% of reported cyber-fraud losses, followed by smaller shares from “digital arrest” scams (8%), credit card fraud (7%), sextortion (4%), e-commerce fraud (3%), and malware or app-based fraud (1%). This distribution means that even though scams with lower values, like phishing, OTP fraud, and small payment fraud, produce a high proportion of complaints, few categories of fraud produce most of the financial losses.
Analysis
1. Cybercrime is expanding faster than most traditional crimes: The fact that cybercrime cases have tripled in five years shows that cyber offences are presently becoming a significant element of Indian crime. Unlike conventional crimes that require physical proximity, cybercrime can be conducted remotely and at scale, enabling perpetrators to target large numbers of victims simultaneously.
2. Financial losses are concentrated in a small set of fraud categories: As cases of cybercrimes have been on the increase, the monetary losses of digital fraud cases have been increasing at a higher rate. The fact that the number of reported financial losses has increased 40 times in 4 years indicates that cybercrime has a very high economic impact.
3. Complaint volumes and financial damage follow different patterns: When comparing complaints and financial losses, it is evident that cyber fraud losses are unevenly distributed across types of incidents. Most of the prevalent scams reported, including phishing or OTP fraud, involve relatively small transaction values but yield a high portion of complaints. Conversely, fewer categories of fraud, especially investment-based schemes, contribute a significantly higher percentage of total financial losses.
4. Digital financial infrastructure has expanded the attack surface: India’s rapid adoption of digital payment systems, mobile banking and digital financial systems has dramatically increased the number of potential victims of cybercriminals. The scale of online transactions creates new vulnerabilities that organised cybercrime networks take advantage of.
5. Reporting improvements reveal previously hidden crime: The expansion of national reporting systems has enhanced the transparency in the trends of cybercrime. The increase in the number of complaints recorded is partially due to improved reporting systems and not necessarily to the increased criminal activity, meaning that previous data might have understated the magnitude of cyber fraud.
Recommendations
1. Move from reactive policing to proactive cyber-risk monitoring: The conventional models of policing focus on investigation of crimes that have already taken place. With such a magnitude and pace of cyber fraud, India should have systems that are designed to detect and prevent the fraud at its early stages, such as real-time observation of suspicious patterns in transactions by financial institutions.
2. Strengthen financial intelligence sharing across institutions: There are a lot of instances of cyber fraud that use more than one bank, payment system, and telecommunication provider. To detect new networks of fraud sooner, it can be suggested to establish more information-sharing measures between the financial institution and law enforcement agencies.
3. Target organised cyber fraud networks rather than individual incidents: Many digital scams operate through organised networks that coordinate phishing, mule accounts, and fake payment channels. The solution in regard to this involves dismantling these networks through investigative procedures instead of treating incidents on a case-by-case basis.
4. Improve recovery mechanisms for stolen funds: The recovery of the funds lost is one of the most difficult issues in cases of cyber fraud. Expanding systems such as the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) can improve the speed at which fraudulent transactions are frozen or reversed.
5. Strengthen digital financial literacy: A significant percentage of cyber frauds are based on social engineering methods that take advantage of user behaviour as opposed to technical weaknesses. Victimisation can be greatly reduced through specific public awareness efforts on typical scam schemes.
Conclusion
India’s experience illustrates a broader global trend: as economies digitise, crime increasingly follows the flow of digital money. While cybercrime incidents are rising steadily, the much faster growth in financial losses suggests that cybercriminals are becoming more organised, technologically sophisticated, and economically motivated.
References:
- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indians-lost-rs-53000-crore-fraud-cheating-cases-six-years-maharashtra-2025-10452185/
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2226441®=3&lang=2 -
- https://www.ncrb.gov.in/crime-in-india.html
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
