#FactCheck - Misleading Video Allegedly Depicting Trampling of Indian Tri-colour in Kerala or Tamil Nadu Circulates on Social Media

Introduction

Artificial intelligence is often hailed as a democratiser of knowledge, opportunity and skill. It is set to improve diagnostics, personalised learning, and productivity to boost the economy, which can assist millions of people to leave poverty. However, this may be an incomplete picture. A report of the United Nations Development Programme in 2025 tells a more complex tale. The Next Great Divergence: Why AI May Widen Inequality Between Countries cautions that, unless acts are taken to intervene, AI will not alleviate inequality between countries but will instead concentrate benefits in already advantaged economies and increase risks in more vulnerable ones.

Two Gaps, One Crisis

AI is not going to create a level playing field: it has been injected into a world where there is unprecedented inequality. The report outlines two structural asymmetries that will influence the ways in which its effects manifest: a capability gap and a vulnerability gap. 

Those countries that have high connectivity, skills, compute and regulation will be in a position to reap a greater portion of the AI dividend. Others will be exposed to greater risks of job losses, information exclusion, misinformation, and the indirect consequences of increased energy and water demands. 

The centre of this transition is the Asia-Pacific region, that harbors a population of more than 55 per cent of the world. More than half of the global AI users are now located in the region, but the initial positions are quite different. Nations such as Singapore and South Korea are already spending a lot of money on AI infrastructure, with others still striving to offer basic broadband services. Two out of three individuals already use AI tools in certain high-income economies. In most countries with low incomes, the utilisation is lower. Such figures are important as they depict not only a gap in technology but also a structural difference in terms of who controls AI and who is controlled by the latter.

When Inequality Becomes a Trust Problem

Any trusted technological system is based on three tenets: transparency, fairness and accountability. AI inequality negatively impacts all three.

If governments implement imported AI systems in areas with limited technical capability, with limited transparency on their operation, their construction, and their biases. Citizens do not really trust when decision-making systems are black boxes and domestic institutions lack the know-how to question them.

Data exclusion also interferes with fairness. The AI systems trained with the datasets not sufficiently representative of the rural population, linguistic minorities, and women will generate poorer results in those groups systematically. Since South Asian women are much less likely to own a smartphone,  this impacts their representation in digital data, and consequently in any AI system trained on such data. 

Safety Risks Are Not Evenly Distributed

The lack of trust has a direct safety aspect. For example, those countries that have less robust information ecosystems have a greater exposure to AI-generated misinformation that can bias the discourse of the populace, alter elections, and cause violence. They also have the weakest capability of screening, tagging, or combating such content.

The same can be said about labour markets. The very same technologies that can speed up marginalisation and destabilise governance increase human insecurity, especially among employees in the informal economy with weak social security. The UNDP report points out that the exposure of female employment to disruption by AI is disproportionate to that of male employment, which further presents a gendered dimension in an already unequal situation.

Risks of infrastructure are skewed as well. Large AI systems may create disproportionately high energy and water demands on countries that host the data infrastructure without there being an equivalent economic payback. The environmental cost is local while profits are outsourced. Dangers of AI spread downwards, and the advantages go upwards.

The Governance Gap and Regulatory Arbitrage

Governance is perhaps the most important aspect. There are only a few states that presently have extensive AI regulation systems. This gives rise to a patchy landscape, in which safety standards differ dramatically and where companies have an incentive to install systems in jurisdictions that have weaker regulation.

The main reason is the lack of capability, as expressed by Philip Schellekens, chief economist of the UNDP in Asia and the Pacific, who says that those countries that invest in skills, computing power and well-run governance structures will gain. The rest will be left far behind. 

This departure has its ramifications outside the nations. When users in other areas are subjected to widely different rates of safety and equity by the same international platforms, the concept of uniform digital norms would no longer be sustainable. Confidence in AI systems is lost not only locally but also on a global scale.

Way Forward

The UNDP report makes it clear that there is no inevitability of divergence. To avert it, however, it is necessary to consider AI governance as a development, rather than a technology problem.

The capacity to govern should be constructed and not presumed. This implies assisting countries in establishing regulatory systems, institutional capacity, and facilitating cross-border collaboration on standards. It can also imply considering some AI features as a public good, with common models and open standards that do not allow a few firms or states to become too powerful.

The UNDP articulates the problem in a simple manner: in the end, the world's people and not machines must decide on what technologies should be given priority and how to utilise them optimally.

Conclusion

AI inequality is often framed as an economic divergence story. But its implications run deeper. It reshapes who is protected, who is visible in data, and who has the power to challenge harmful outcomes. The risk is not just that some countries fall behind economically. It is that the global digital ecosystem fragments into zones of high trust and low trust, high protection and low protection. The choices made now will determine which path prevails. AI can reinforce existing divides or help bridge them. 

But that outcome will not be decided by the technology itself. It will be decided by how societies choose to distribute access, power, and responsibility in the systems they build.

References

1. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-12/undp-rbap-the-next-great-divergence_1.pdf
2. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/press-releases/ai-risks-sparking-new-era-divergence-development-gaps-between-countries-widen-undp-report-finds
3. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/blog/next-great-divergence-how-ai-could-split-world-again-if-we-dont-intervene
4. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/2/ai-threatens-to-widen-inequality-among-states-un
5. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/next-great-divergence
6. https://www.eco-business.com/press-releases/ai-risks-spark-new-era-of-divergence-as-development-gaps-widen-undp-report/

‍

Introduction

‍

In the contemporary information environment, misinformation has emerged as a subtle yet powerful force capable of shaping public perception, influencing behavior, and undermining institutional credibility. Unlike overt falsehoods, misinformation often gains traction because it appears authentic, familiar, and authoritative. The rapid circulation of content through digital platforms has intensified this challenge, allowing altered or misleading material to reach wide audiences before verification mechanisms can respond. When misinformation mimics official communication, its impact becomes especially concerning, as citizens tend to place implicit trust in documents that carry the appearance of state authority. This growing vulnerability of public information systems was illustrated by the calendar incident in Himachal Pradesh in January 2026. 

The calendar incident of Himachal Pradesh in January 2026 shows how a small lie can lead to large social and governance problems. A person whose identity is still unknown posted a modified version of the Government Calendar 2026, changing the official dates and resulting in public confusion and reputational damage to the Printing and Stationery Department. The incident may not appear very serious at first sight, but it indicates a deeper systemic issue. Misinformation is posing increasing dangers to public information ecosystems, especially when official documents are misrepresented and disseminated through digital platforms.

‍

Misinformation as a Governance Challenge

‍

Government calendars and official documents are necessary for public awareness and administrative coordination, and their manipulation impedes the credibility of institutions and the trustworthiness of governance. In Himachal Pradesh, modified dates might have led to confusion regarding public holidays, interference in school and administrative planning, and misinformation among the people. Such misinformation is a direct interference in the social contract that exists between the citizens and the State, where accurate information is the foundation of trust, compliance, and participation.

‍

Impact on Citizens: Confusion, Distrust, and Digital Fatigue

‍

For the general public, the dissemination of fake government information leads to a situation where people are confused and, at the same time, lose their trust in the government communication channels. If someone continuously gets to see the changed or misleading information misrepresented as credible, that person will find it hard to differentiate the truth from lies in the end.

‍

This results in:

‍

• Decision paralysis occurs when the public cannot make up their minds and either postpones or refrains from action due to the doubts they have
• Erosion of trust, not only in one department but also in the whole government communications  department
• Digital fatigue occurs when people stop following public information completely, since they think that all content can be unreliable

Misinformation in a digital society is not limited to one platform only. It spreads quickly through direct messaging apps, community groups, and social networks, thus creating greater confusion among people before the official clarifications can reach the same audience.

‍

Institutional Harm and Reputational Damage

‍

The intentional tampering with official documents is not only a violation of ethics but also a crime and an immoral act from a governance perspective. The Printing and Stationery Department noted that such practices tarnish the public image of government bodies, which are based on accuracy, neutrality, and trust.

When untrue material gets to be known as official content:

• Departments have to communicate reactively.
• Money and manpower that could have been used for the normal administrative work are now spent on the control of the situation.

The registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in this matter is an indication of the gradual shift in the perception of law enforcement agencies that misinformation is not a playful act but rather a technology-assisted crime with serious consequences.

‍

The Role of Verifiable Information and Trusted Sources

‍

Such occurrences stress the need for trustworthy information as well as confirmed sources to be at the centre of the digital era. It should be the responsibility of the authorities to lead the citizens to practice and ENABLING to depend on official websites, verified social media accounts, government portals, and press releases for authentication.

‍

Platform Responsibility and Digital Literacy

‍

The spread of misinformation poses a significant challenge for social media platforms, which frequently amplify highly engaging content. There are some ways that the social media networks can try to limit the damage, and these are: tagging of non-verified material, limiting the sharing and working with authorities in the area of fact-checking support. However, one more thing which is crucial here is ‘public knowledge’ about digital platforms, as even unintentional dissemination of fake “official” materials can lead to legal and social repercussions. The advice of the Himachal state government is a good thing, but constantly informing the public is still a requirement.

‍

Legal Accountability as a Deterrent

‍

The active participation of the Cyber Crime Cells unequivocally indicates that digital misinformation, especially involving government documents, will face severe consequences. The establishment of legal responsibility acts as a preventive measure and reiterates the notion that the right to speak one's mind does not cover the right to lie or undermine public institutions. Nonetheless, to have an effective enforcement, it has to be accompanied by preventive actions such as good communication, strong governance, and public trust-building. Consistent enforcement against digital misinformation can contribute to greater accountability within society. Digital Literacy programs should be conducted periodically for netizens and institutions.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The incident of the creation of fake calendars in Himachal Pradesh served as a signal for the authorities to adopt accurate communication strategies. The ratification of misinformation can be achieved only if there is shared participation of governments, digital platforms, citizens and civil societies. The main goal of all this is to maintain public trust and the dissemination of information in democratic processes.

‍

Introduction

Social media platforms serve as an ideal breeding ground for cybercrime. A new fraud called ‘WhatsApp Pink’ has emerged, promising new features and an improved UI. Several law enforcement and government agencies have already issued severe caution against the program, which is used to hack mobile phones and steal personal information.

What is a pink WhatsApp Scam?

WhatsApp is on a roll with new features, but the messaging app is also experiencing an increase in a new type of scam. The WhatsApp Pink scam, as it is known, is gaining steam. Police and government organisations in several states, including Mumbai, Kerala, and Karnataka, have warned about the scam. A North Region cybercrime wing tweet warned, “WHATSAPP PINK – A Red Alert for Android Users.” The government’s cybersecurity organisations have warned about the rise in pink WhatsApp scams.

Scammers and hackers target WhatsApp users with fake messages via the network in this scam. According to reports, the message contains a link directing users to download WhatsApp Pink, a bogus messaging program. According to sources, scammers are targeting many people with the promise that the next version will have a better interface and additional features.

The application also steals critical financial information such as OTP, bank account information, and contact information. When people open the link, harmful software is installed on their mobile phones, and scammers get access to the phones. The user may even lose access to their phone by downloading the app.

According to the advisory

The news about ‘New Pink Look WhatsApp with extra features’ recently circulating among WhatsApp users is a hoax that can lead to hacking of your mobile through malicious software.” It is uncommon for fraudsters to devise new tricks and methods to entice naive consumers into falling into their trap and committing cyber fraud. It is the users’ responsibility to be Aware, Alert, and Attentive to these types of frauds in order to be safe and secure in the digital world.”

The link that is present in the message, according to a notice from the police, is a phishing effort. By clicking the link, the user runs the risk of having their device compromised, which might allow scammers to steal their device information or use it without their permission.

Users run the possibility of suffering negative outcomes if they click the Pink WhatsApp link, as the Mumbai Police have warned. These dangers include financial loss, identity theft, spam attacks, unauthorised access to contact information and saved images, and even total loss of control over mobile devices.

Guidelines against the Scam

• If a user has installed the fake WhatsApp, the authorities have instructed that they uninstall it immediately by going into the mobile settings, selecting WhatsApp with the pink logo in Apps, and then uninstalling it.
• Users have been advised to exercise caution when clicking links from untrustworthy websites unless they have previously verified their legitimacy. Users are advised to only download and update software from reliable sites such as the official Google Play Store, the iOS App Store, and so on.
• individuals using the site have been told not to send any links or communications to other persons until they have received proper authentication or verification.
• To avoid misuse, users are advised not to disclose any personal or financial information, including passwords, login information, and credit or debit card information, to anybody online. Furthermore, in order to defend themselves against fraud attempts, users are encouraged to stay up to date on the most recent news and changes in order to be informed and careful about cybercriminal activities.

Why do Scammer target WhatsApp

WhatsApp is the world’s most popular messaging service; it can reach out to considerably more prospective victims than it could with another tool. A scammer’s victims are almost certainly using WhatsApp. If all their victims are in one app, the criminal can easily handle their activities.

Conclusion

WhatsApp users may reduce their chances of being victims of the pink WhatsApp scam significantly by following the guidelines issued by the advisory. WhatsApp has become the primary target for scams, as there is a large number of the population using WhatsApp so it will be easy for the Scammer to steal critical personal information and target another victim through WhatsApp. The pink WhatsApp Scam is exactly like it.