#FactCheck - Viral Image of Broken Mahatma Gandhi Statue Is Not from Bangladesh
An image showing a damaged statue of Mahatma Gandhi, broken into two pieces, is being widely shared on social media. The image shows Gandhi’s statue with its head separated from the body, prompting strong reactions online.
Social media users are claiming that the incident occurred in Bangladesh, alleging that Mahatma Gandhi’s statue was deliberately vandalised there. The image is being described as a recent incident and is being circulated across platforms with provocative and inflammatory captions.
Cyber Peace Foundation’s research and verification found that the claim being shared online is misleading. Our rsearch revealed that the viral image is not from Bangladesh. The image is actually from Chakulia in Uttar Dinajpur district of West Bengal, India
Claim:
Social media users claim that Mahatma Gandhi’s statue was vandalised in Bangladesh, and that the viral image shows a recent incident from the country.One Facebook user shared the video on 19 January 2026, making derogatory remarks and falsely linking the incident to Bangladesh. The post has since been widely shared on social media platforms. (Archived links and screenshots are available.)
Fact Check:
Our research revealed that the viral image is not from Bangladesh. The image is actually from Chakulia in Uttar Dinajpur district of West Bengal, India. To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens on key frames from the viral video. This led us to a report published by ABP Live Bangla on 16 January 2026, which featured the same visuals. Link and screenshot
According to ABP Live Bangla, the statue of Mahatma Gandhi was damaged during a protest in Chakulia. The statue’s head was found separated from the body. While a portion of the broken statue remained at the site on Thursday night, it was reported missing by Friday morning. The report further stated that extensive damage was observed at BDO Office No. 2 in Golpokhar. Gandhi’s statue, located at the entrance of the administrative building, was found broken, and ashes were discovered near the premises. Government staff were seen clearing scattered debris from the site.
The incident reportedly occurred during a SIR (Special Intensive Revision) hearing at the BDO office, which was disrupted due to vandalism. In connection with the violence and damage to government property, 21 people have been arrested so far. In the next stage of verification, we found the same footage in a 16 January 2026 report by local Bengali news channel K TV, which also showed clear visuals of the damaged Mahatma Gandhi statue. Link and screenshot.
Conclusion:
The viral image of Mahatma Gandhi’s broken statue does not depict an incident from Bangladesh. The image is from Chakulia in West Bengal’s Uttar Dinajpur district, where the statue was damaged during a protest.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A social media account on X (formerly Twitter) named @MEABharat is being circulated as the official account of India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). Many users are sharing posts from the account, believing it to be an authentic government handle and treating the information published there as official communication. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that @MEABharat is not an official X account of the Ministry of External Affairs. The Ministry has publicly clarified that it has no association with the account and stated that it is impersonating the Ministry, misleading the public, and undermining public interest.
Claim
Social media users are claiming that @MEABharat is the official X account of India's Ministry of External Affairs and that the information posted on the account is officially issued by the Ministry.
https://x.com/MEAFactCheck/status/2076650791453270332
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we conducted a keyword-based search on Google. During the research, we found an official clarification posted by the Ministry of External Affairs' fact-check handle, @MEAFactCheck. In its post, the Ministry clearly stated that the @MEABharat account has no connection whatsoever with the Ministry of External Affairs. It further clarified that the account is impersonating the Ministry, misleading the public, and undermining public interest. The Ministry also advised users to exercise caution and rely only on its verified official social media accounts and website for authentic information.
https://x.com/MEAFactCheck/status/2076650791453270332
As part of our research, we also examined the Ministry's official X account, @MEAIndia, which carries the verified blue badge. The account regularly publishes official statements, diplomatic updates, press briefings, and other communications related to India's foreign policy. It also serves as the official spokesperson's handle for the Ministry of External Affairs.
https://x.com/MEAIndia
Conclusion
Our research found that @MEABharat is not the official X account of India's Ministry of External Affairs. The Ministry itself has publicly clarified that the account is fake, has no affiliation with the government, and is impersonating the Ministry to mislead the public. Therefore, the claim that @MEABharat is the official MEA handle is misleading. Users should rely only on the Ministry's verified accounts, including @MEAIndia and @MEAFactCheck, for authentic government information.
Executive Summary:
A post on X (formerly Twitter) featuring an image that has been widely shared with misleading captions, claiming to show men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar, India. This post has sparked both fascination and skepticism on social media. However, our investigation has revealed that the image is misleading. It is not a recent photograph; rather, it is a photo of an incident from 2011. Always verify claims before sharing.
Claims:
An image purporting to depict men riding an elephant next to a tiger in Bihar has gone viral, implying that this astonishing event truly took place.
Fact Check:
After investigation of the viral image using Reverse Image Search shows that it comes from an older video. The footage shows a tiger that was shot after it became a man-eater by forest guard. The tiger killed six people and caused panic in local villages in the Ramnagar division of Uttarakhand in January, 2011.
Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
Conclusion:
The claim that men rode an elephant alongside a tiger in Bihar is false. The photo presented as recent actually originates from the past and does not depict a current event. Social media users should exercise caution and verify sensational claims before sharing them.
- Claim: The video shows people casually interacting with a tiger in Bihar
- Claimed On:Instagram and X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Forensic Reality Check
A screenshot shows what appeared on a screen. It does not automatically prove who created the content, whether it was altered, or what happened outside the frame.
Introduction
In today's period of time ,we observe that a screenshot seems like evidence. A screenshot can feel like proof. The screenshot comes with a name, a timestamp, a profile picture and a message all neatly placed inside an app we know well. In cases involving fraud, harassment, workplace conflicts or cybercrime individuals often send a screenshot first to the police, a company or a lawyer. This makes sense. When something troubling shows up on a phone or computer taking a screenshot feels like the thing to do. The screenshot captures the moment like a photo.
There is another side to evidence. A screenshot only shows what was on the screen at that moment. The screenshot does not tell us where the content came from. The screenshot does not show who had control of the account. The screenshot does not say if the image was edited. The screenshot does not reveal what happened before or after the screenshot was taken. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 recognizes records. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam also sets out rules for proving them. That means the real question is not just "Is this screenshot real?" The bigger question is, "Can we explain and verify the story behind it?”
A screenshot is evidence - but not automatically the whole story
Think of a common situation. A person receives a screenshot of a chat in which someone appears to demand money and threaten to publish private documents. The image looks genuine. Yet an investigator would still ask: Was the message actually sent? From which account or device? Does the date and time match the service records? Is the conversation complete?
Those questions do not make the screenshot useless. They make the investigation stronger.
Digital information can be copied, compressed, cropped, forwarded, or edited with little visible sign. NIST describes digital evidence as information of probative value stored or transmitted in binary form and emphasises preservation because digital files are easy to change. [3][4] The forensic mindset is simple: ask whether an image’s origin, context and integrity can be explained.
What makes a screenshot more reliable?
A stronger evidence package normally answers five practical questions:
• Source - Where did the image come from: a phone, laptop, messaging application, email client, cloud account, or another person?
• Context - Does it preserve the relevant username, number, URL, date, time, surrounding messages, and sequence?
• Integrity - Has the original file been retained, and can later changes be detected?
• Corroboration - Do other records support the same event, such as device artifacts, email headers, transaction data, or witness accounts?
• Chain of custody - Who collected it, when, how was it transferred, and where was it stored?
Hashing helps with integrity. A cryptographic hash acts like a digital fingerprint for a file. If the file changes, its hash value changes. NIST recommends hashing digital images and other evidence objects and securely preserving the resulting hash values. [4][5] A hash does not prove the content is truthful; it helps show that the file examined is the file that was preserved.
The Indian legal angle: admissibility is not the same as authenticity
India’s current evidence framework is equally important. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 61 says an electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic, subject to the Act. Section 62 directs that electronic records are proved in accordance with Section 63. [1]
Section 63 sets out conditions for admissibility and, where it applies, requires a certificate to accompany the electronic record when submitted for admission. The Schedule includes device details and fields for the relevant hash value and algorithm. [2]
There is an important practical nuance: not every screenshot automatically requires the same proof route. Treatment can depend on what is produced, how it was obtained, and how it is tendered. Investigators should preserve the underlying source wherever lawfully possible rather than treat a screenshot as a self-proving substitute for the original record.
In Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10 March 2026, the Supreme Court considered call detail records rather than screenshots and held, in that case, that the certificate requirement under Section 63 was mandatory for the electronic record relied upon there. [6] The broader lesson is that digital evidence must be presented through the legal proof framework that applies to it.
REALISTIC EXAMPLE A screenshot arrives. The investigation starts.
Consider a realistic cyber-fraud complaint. A victim receives a screenshot showing what appears to be a message from a senior company executive asking an employee to transfer money urgently. The safest response is not to decide immediately whether it “looks genuine.” The investigator can preserve the original image, record its source, calculate a hash, and look for supporting material: the actual chat or email, device data, account identifiers, timestamps, transaction records, or login history.
Suppose the screenshot says 3:14 p.m., but the underlying account record shows the message was never sent. That contradiction becomes an investigative lead. If the screenshot matches the original device data and independent records, its evidentiary value becomes stronger.
The human side matters too. A victim should not be criticised for taking a screenshot. In many incidents, it is the quickest way to show another person what happened. The forensic response is simply to go one step further: preserve first, verify next, interpret last.
A small checklist can prevent a big evidentiary problem
The bigger lesson
Screenshots are valuable because they can preserve a moment that may later disappear: a threat, a suspicious payment instruction, a spoofed webpage, or a social-media post. But a convincing image is not the same thing as a complete digital record.
Good digital forensics connects the artifact to a source, a timeline, a method of collection, and independent facts. NIST’s work on digital evidence emphasises preservation, controlled handling, and awareness of the limits of forensic conclusions. [3][4] Confidence should follow the evidence, not replace it.
Conclusion
So, can a screenshot be evidence? The important question is whether the screenshot can be verified, put into context and backed up by evidence when the case needs it. For citizens the practical advice is clear: keep the screenshot, do not delete the screenshot, keep the screenshot and do not rely only on a forwarded copy. Preserving the source device or original platform record were lawful and possible.
For investigators and organisations, the standard is higher. Record the source and collection details preserve the screenshot, calculate and document hashes, maintain chain of custody and seek corroboration. A screenshot can open the door to an investigation. Good forensic practice is what helps establish what happened on the side of that door.
References
[1] India Code, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 61-62; commencement from 1 July 2024. Source
[2] India Code, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 63 and Schedule - certificate for electronic records, including device particulars and hash value fields. Source
[3] NIST, Digital Evidence, overview of digital evidence and forensic challenges. Source
[4] NIST, Digital Evidence Preservation: Considerations for Evidence Handlers, NISTIR 8387, 2022. Source
[5] NIST / OSAC Lexicon, “Hash, Hash Value,” 2025. Source
[6] Supreme Court of India, Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2026 INSC 217, judgment dated 10 March 2026. Source
[7] NIST, ANSI/ASTM E3016-18 Standard Guide for Establishing Confidence in Digital and Multimedia Evidence Forensic Results by Error Mitigation Analysis. Source
