#FactCheck - Fake Image Claiming Patanjali selling Beef Biryani Recipe mix is Misleading

Research Wing

Innovation and Research

PUBLISHED ON

Oct 17, 2024

Executive Summary:

A photo that has gone viral on social media alleges that the Indian company Patanjali founded by Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev is selling a product called “Recipe Mix for Beef Biryani”. The image incorporates Ramdev’s name in its promotional package. However, upon looking into the matter, CyberPeace Research Team revealed that the viral image is not genuine. The original image was altered and it has been wrongly claimed which does not even exist. Patanjali is an Indian brand designed for vegetarians and an intervention of Ayurveda. For that reason, the image in context is fake and misleading.

‍

Claims:

An image circulating on social media shows Patanjali selling "Recipe Mix for Beef Biryani”.

‍

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the viral image, the CyberPeace Research Team immediately conducted an in-depth investigation. A reverse image search revealed that the viral image was taken from an unrelated context and digitally altered to be associated with the fabricated packaging of "National Recipe Mix for Biryani".

The analysis of the image confirmed signs of manipulation. Patanjali, a well-established Indian brand known for its vegetarian products, has no record of producing or promoting a product called “Recipe mix for Beef Biryani”. We also found a similar image with the product specified as “National Biryani” in another online store.

Comparing both photos, we found that there are several differences.

Further examination of Patanjali's product catalog and public information verified that this viral image is part of a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation, likely to damage the reputation of the brand and its founder. The entire claim is based on a falsified image aimed at provoking controversy, and therefore, is categorically false.

Conclusions:

The viral image associating Patanjali and Baba Ramdev with "Recipe mix for Beef Biryani" is entirely fake. This image was deliberately manipulated to spread false information and damage the brand’s reputation. Social media users are encouraged to fact-check before sharing any such claims, as the spread of misinformation can have significant consequences. The CyberPeace Research Team emphasizes the importance of verifying information before circulating it to avoid spreading false narratives.

Claim: Patanjali and Baba Ramdev endorse "Recipe mix for Beef Biryani"
Claimed on: X
Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

PUBLISHED ON

Oct 17, 2024

Related Blogs

WhatsApp's New Username Revolution: Privacy Win or Scammer's Paradise?

July 3, 2026

Introduction

For more than 10 years, WhatsApp has been designed around one seemingly trivial but impactful idea: your phone number is your digital identity. This concept offered simplicity in terms of contact discovery and onboard- ing but inevitably exposed users to fraud, spam and the everyday necessity of sharing personal phone numbers with complete strangers in group chats and conversations. On June 29th Meta finally revealed a major move: you’ll now be able to choose and reservate a WhatsApp username and communicate without sharing your phone number.

This shift to a username based identity marks the company catching up to platforms like Telegram and Signal, which have utilized this functionality for years.

However, while presented as a push towards greater privacy for the millions using its platform, this new change has already created some alarm around impersonation, cybersquatting, and identity theft. The issues became amplified when, according to reports, the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology advised WhatsApp to halt the implementation of the new features while it clarifies details, shifting a mundane app update into a high-stakes discussion on digital privacy, platform responsibility, and government regulation.

How does the mechanism work?

“WhatsApp’s username is an added pseudonym layer on its current phone number architecture, not a replacement,” Meta said in a statement on Thursday, as reported by TechCrunch. A WhatsApp username is a three to 35-character name containing lower case letters, numbers, periods and underscores that must contain at least one letter and “should not look like a website address.” The feature will allow you to “reserve a unique identifier that you can share as an alternative to your phone number in WhatsApp Settings - Accounts - Username.”

It said the usernames will work in parallel with a username key which can serve as a passphrase to initiate conversation “with a recipient before sending a message for the first time.”

“The change - which will have some additional, protective measures like reserving usernames for people of public interest or those that would cause impersonation, and rate limits on claiming names - can help maintain phone number protection, while offering people more choices,” Meta said. WhatsApp said usernames will replace phone numbers as the primary way to initiate new chats, but will not be publicly searchable: “Anyone you message would need your exact username, and would still need you to respond.”

The Genuine Privacy Case

The upside is real. Phone numbers double as keys to two-factor authentication, banking apps and SIM-swap fraud, so handing one to a new acquaintance, a group chat of strangers or a customer-support bot has always carried quiet risk. Numbers harvested from public groups already fuel spam and scam campaigns, and a username-first model narrows that exposure considerably.

For journalists, small business owners and anyone who fields messages from people they've never met, decoupling identity from a number that also unlocks their bank account is a meaningful, overdue shift – and one that WhatsApp's closest competitors adopted years ago without major incident.

The Scammer's Paradise Scenario

The trouble lies in what a username removes. A phone number was never just an identifier; it was also a rough verification signal and, for law enforcement, a traceable data point. Security reporters testing the reservation system found that lookalike handles mimicking prominent Indian politicians, film stars and the Reserve Bank of India remained available to claim. Crypto executive Changpeng Zhao's own failed bid to capture his desired handle highlighted the first-come, first-served danger of the rollout and led researchers to advise people to manually activate the optional username key that Meta leaves disabled by default.

The Mozilla Foundation was unvarnished about the tradeoff, noting that impersonation from fake accounts and scams are an “inevitable consequence” of a design that abandons the “implicit signal of authenticity” that comes from owning a phone number.

Indian entrepreneur Ankur Warikoo called the rollout a potential “disaster” if robust enforcement against fraud isn’t immediately applied because scammers could register handles a few characters removed from a popular brand or public figure to launch investment and payment schemes, a concern mirrored by cyber security researchers who observed that many users neglect to check verification badges before trusting an account.

India's Regulatory Scrutiny of WhatsApp's Username Feature

So far the strongest reaction comes from New Delhi. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an official notice to Meta's compliance office that it should “temporarily suspend the feature” in the country pending further consultations and “provided an explanation in three days”. The cited concerns involve “digital arrest” fraud, a rapid boom category that involves crooks impersonating investigators like those with India's CBI, judges or customs agents to extort victims, in addition to standard concerns around phishing and bank or government impersonation.

A subtler concern, for India’s government anyway, is “traceability.”

At present, say officials, an Indian mobile number is a launching pad to determine whether a given suspect is a domestic or international actor, while a username and foreign SIM would leave authorities nowhere to begin. The Department of Telecommunications independently voiced concerns over how the change intersects with its SIM-binding regulations and over WhatsApp's lag time for such requests. The MeitY notice, the legal basis for which, incidentally, is in contention with some digital rights groups, specifically invokes Section 79 of the IT Act and various IT Rules from 2021 and provisions on identity theft and impersonation that target individual criminals rather than the tech tools. Not everyone, however, shares MeitY’s reading of the legal ground: the Internet Freedom Foundation says that Section 79 “deal with liability of intermediary” and “does not confer on the government power to license the features of a product,” while arguing the relevant criminal statutes were designed to criminalize impersonators, not tech platforms whose services are misused, echoing concerns that killed a similar government advisement about AI models last spring.

In the meantime, Meta says usernames are unavailable in the country for now and the multilayered safeguards it designed were always intended for exactly this level of risk.

Conclusion

WhatsApp's username feature is neither a total privacy upgrade nor a major security problem; instead, it reallocates risk, reducing phone number exposure while adding a risk of identity spoofing and misuse. Whether it pays off will hinge on the strength of Meta's crackdown on fraudulent usernames, the uptake of extra security features like the username key and whether the company can adequately satisfy regulatory concerns about traceability and user safety. Until all those questions are fully settled, users may want to use the feature tentatively, secure a desired username, enable any other protections and be watchful about new contacts.

References

‍

Digital Asymmetries: How Smaller Nations Can Use Cyber Warfare to Challenge Superpowers

Digital Asymmetries: How Smaller Nations Can Use Cyber Warfare to Challenge Superpowers.

October 31, 2025

Over the last decade, battlefields have percolated from mountains, deserts, jungles, seas, and the skies into the invisible networks of code and cables. Cyberwarfare is no longer a distant possibility but today’s reality. The cyberattacks of Estonia in 2007, the crippling of Iran’s nuclear program by the Stuxnet virus, the SolarWinds and Colonial Pipeline breaches in recent years have proved one thing: that nations can now paralyze economies and infrastructures without firing a bullet. Cyber operations now fall beyond the traditional threshold of war, allowing aggressors to exploit the grey zone where full-scale retaliation may be unlikely.

At the same time, this ambiguity has also given rise to the concept of cyber deterrence. It is a concept that has been borrowed from the nuclear strategies during the Cold War era and has been adapted to the digital age. At the core, cyber deterrence seeks to alter the adversary’s cost-benefit calculation that makes attacks either too costly or pointless to pursue. While power blocs like the US, Russia, and China continue to build up their cyber arsenals, smaller nations can hold unique advantages, most importantly in terms of their resilience, if not firepower.

‍

Understanding the concept of Cyber Deterrence

‍

Deterrence, in its classic sense, is about preventing action through the fear of consequences. It usually manifests in four mechanisms as follows:

Punishment by threatening to impose costs on attackers, whether by counter-attacks, economic sanctions, or even conventional forces.
Denial of attacks by making them futile through hardened defences, and ensuring the systems to resist, recover, and continue to function.
Entanglement by leveraging interdependence in trade, finance, and technology to make attacks costly for both attackers and defenders.
Norms can also help shape behaviour by stigmatizing reckless cyber actions by imposing reputational costs that can exceed any gains.

However, great powers have always emphasized the importance of punishment as a tool to showcase their power by employing offensive cyber arsenals to instill psychological pressure on their rivals. Yet in cyberspace, punishment has inherent flaws.

‍

The Advantage of Asymmetry

‍

For small states, smaller geographical size can be utilised as a benefit. Three advantages of this exist, such as:

With fewer critical infrastructures to protect, resources can be concentrated. For example, Denmark, with a modest population of $40 million cyber budget, is considered to be among the most cyber-secure nations, despite receiving billions of US spending.
Smaller bureaucracies enable faster response. The centralised cyber command of Singapore allows it to ensure a rapid coordination between the government and the private sector.
Smaller countries with lesser populations can foster a higher public awareness and participation in cyber hygiene by amplifying national resilience.

In short, defending a small digital fortress can be easier than securing a sprawling empire of interconnected systems.

‍

Lessons from Estonia and Singapore

‍

The 2007 crisis of Estonia remains a case study of cyber resilience. Although its government, bank, and media were targeted in offline mode, Estonia emerged stronger by investing heavily in cyber defense mechanisms. Another effort in this case stood was with the hosting of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence to build one of the world’s most resilient e-governance models.

Singapore is another case. Where, recognising its vulnerability as a global financial hub, it has adopted a defense-centric deterrence strategy by focusing on redundancy, cyber education, and international partnership rather than offensive capacity. These approaches can also showcase that deterrence is not always about scaring attackers with retaliation, it is about making the attacks meaningless.

‍

Cyber deterrence and Asymmetric Warfare

‍

Cyber conflict is understood through the lens of asymmetric warfare, where weaker actors exploit the unconventional and stronger foes. As guerrillas get outmanoeuvred by superpowers in Vietnam or Afghanistan, small states hold the capability to frustrate the cyber giants by turning their size into a shield. The essence of asymmetric cyber defence also lies in three principles, which can be mentioned as;

Resilience over retaliation by ensuring a rapid recovery to neutralise the goals of the attackers.
Undertaking smart investments focusing on limited budgets over critical assets, not sprawling infrastructures.
Leveraging norms to shape the international opinions to stigmatize the aggressors and increase the reputational costs.

This also helps to transform the levels of cyber deterrence into a game of endurance rather than escalating it into a domain where small states can excel.

There remain challenges as well, as attribution problems persist, the smaller nations still depend on foreign technology, which the adversaries have sought to exploit. Issues over the shortage of talent have plagued the small states, as cyber professionals have migrated to get lucrative jobs abroad. Moreover, building deterrence capability through norms requires active multilateral cooperation, which may not be possible for all small nations to sustain.

Conclusion

‍

Cyberwarfare represents a new frontier of asymmetric conflict where size does not guarantee safety or supremacy. Great powers have often dominated the offensive cyber arsenals, where small states have carved their own path towards security by focusing on defence, resilience, and international collaboration. The examples of Singapore and Estonia demonstrate the fact that the small size of a state can be its identity of a hidden strength in capabilities like cyberspace, allowing nimbleness, concentration of resources and societal cohesion. In the long run, cyber deterrence for small states will not rest on fearsome retaliation but on making attacks futile and recovery inevitable.

‍

References

‍

AI-Generated Images and Misinformation: A Double-Edged Sword

March 24, 2025

Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides a varied range of services and continues to catch intrigue and experimentation. It has altered how we create and consume content. Specific prompts can now be used to create desired images enhancing experiences of storytelling and even education. However, as this content can influence public perception, its potential to cause misinformation must be noted as well. The realistic nature of the images can make it hard to discern as artificially generated by the untrained eye. As AI operates by analysing the data it was trained on previously to deliver, the lack of contextual knowledge and human biases (while framing prompts) also come into play. The stakes are higher whilst dabbling with subjects such as history, as there is a fine line between the creation of content with the intent of mere entertainment and the spread of misinformation owing to biases and lack of veracity left unchecked. AI-generated images enhance storytelling but can also spread misinformation, especially in historical contexts. For instance, an AI-generated image of London during the Black Death might include inaccurate details, misleading viewers about the past.

The Rise of AI-Generated Historical Images as Entertainment

Recently, generated images and videos of various historical instances along with the point of view of the people present have been floating all over the internet. Some of them include the streets of London during the Black Death in the 1300s in England, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius at Pompeii etc. Hogne and Dan, two creators who operate accounts named POV Lab and Time Traveller POV on TikTok state that they create such videos as they feel that seeing the past through a first-person perspective is an interesting way to bring history back to life while highlighting the cool parts, helping the audience learn something new. Mostly sensationalised for visual impact and storytelling, such content has been called out by historians for inconsistencies with respect to details particular of the time. Presently, artists admit to their creations being inaccurate, reasoning them to be more of an artistic interpretation than fact-checked documentaries.

It is important to note that AI models may inaccurately depict objects (issues with lateral inversion), people(anatomical implausibilities), or scenes due to "present-ist" bias. As noted by Lauren Tilton, an associate professor of digital humanities at the University of Richmond, many AI models primarily rely on data from the last 15 years, making them prone to modern-day distortions especially when analysing and creating historical content. The idea is to spark interest rather than replace genuine historical facts while it is assumed that engagement with these images and videos is partly a product of the fascination with upcoming AI tools. Apart from this, there are also chatbots like Hello History and Charater.ai which enable simulations of interacting with historical figures that have piqued curiosity.

Although it makes for an interesting perspective, one cannot ignore that our inherent biases play a role in how we perceive the information presented. Dangerous consequences include feeding into conspiracy theories and the erasure of facts as information is geared particularly toward garnering attention and providing entertainment. Furthermore, exposure of such content to an impressionable audience with a lesser attention span increases the gravity of the matter. In such cases, information regarding the sources used for creation becomes an important factor.

Acknowledging the risks posed by AI-generated images and their susceptibility to create misinformation, the Government of Spain has taken a step in regulating the AI content created. It has passed a bill (for regulating AI-Generated content) that mandates the labelling of AI-generated images and failure to do so would warrant massive fines (up to $38 million or 7% of turnover on companies). The idea is to ensure that content creators label their content which would help to spot images that are artificially created from those that are not.

The Way Forward: Navigating AI and Misinformation

While AI-generated images make for exciting possibilities for storytelling and enabling intrigue, their potential to spread misinformation should not be overlooked. To address these challenges, certain measures should be encouraged.

Media Literacy and Awareness – In this day and age critical thinking and media literacy among consumers of content is imperative. Awareness, understanding, and access to tools that aid in detecting AI-generated content can prove to be helpful.
AI Transparency and Labeling – Implementing regulations similar to Spain’s bill on labelling content could be a guiding crutch for people who have yet to learn to tell apart AI-generated content from others.
Ethical AI Development – AI developers must prioritize ethical considerations in training using diverse and historically accurate datasets and sources which would minimise biases.

As AI continues to evolve, balancing innovation with responsibility is essential. By taking proactive measures in the early stages, we can harness AI's potential while safeguarding the integrity and trust of the sources while generating images.

References:

‍