#FactCheck - Viral Images of Indian Army Eating Near Border area Revealed as AI-Generated Fabrication
Executive Summary:
The viral social media posts circulating several photos of Indian Army soldiers eating their lunch in the extremely hot weather near the border area in Barmer/ Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, have been detected as AI generated and proven to be false. The images contain various faults such as missing shadows, distorted hand positioning and misrepresentation of the Indian flag and soldiers body features. The various AI generated tools were also used to validate the same. Before sharing any pictures in social media, it is necessary to validate the originality to avoid misinformation.




Claims:
The photographs of Indian Army soldiers having their lunch in extreme high temperatures at the border area near to the district of Barmer/Jaisalmer, Rajasthan have been circulated through social media.




Fact Check:
Upon the study of the given images, it can be observed that the images have a lot of similar anomalies that are usually found in any AI generated image. The abnormalities are lack of accuracy in the body features of the soldiers, the national flag with the wrong combination of colors, the unusual size of spoon, and the absence of Army soldiers’ shadows.




Additionally it is noticed that the flag on Indian soldiers’ shoulder appears wrong and it is not the traditional tricolor pattern. Another anomaly, soldiers with three arms, strengtheness the idea of the AI generated image.
Furthermore, we used the HIVE AI image detection tool and it was found that each photo was generated using an Artificial Intelligence algorithm.


We also checked with another AI Image detection tool named Isitai, it was also found to be AI-generated.


After thorough analysis, it was found that the claim made in each of the viral posts is misleading and fake, the recent viral images of Indian Army soldiers eating food on the border in the extremely hot afternoon of Badmer were generated using the AI Image creation tool.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the analysis of the viral photographs claiming to show Indian army soldiers having their lunch in scorching heat in Barmer, Rajasthan reveals many anomalies consistent with AI-generated images. The absence of shadows, distorted hand placement, irregular showing of the Indian flag, and the presence of an extra arm on a soldier, all point to the fact that the images are artificially created. Therefore, the claim that this image captures real-life events is debunked, emphasizing the importance of analyzing and fact-checking before sharing in the era of common widespread digital misinformation.
- Claim: The photo shows Indian army soldiers having their lunch in extreme heat near the border area in Barmer/Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
- Claimed on: X (formerly known as Twitter), Instagram, Facebook
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs

The digital ecosystem of India has experienced rapid growth, which has created numerous opportunities for economic development, better governance and increased social connections. The increasing use of digital technology has resulted in a higher incidence of cyber-enabled crimes, which include online fraud and cyber harassment, child exploitation and the spread of misinformation. The Government of India has established multiple initiatives to enhance a complete and unified framework that will help in combatting cybercrime more effectively. The latest updates presented to Parliament demonstrate how different institutional frameworks and legal provisions, capacity building efforts, and public awareness programs work together to handle new cyber threats.
A Coordinated Institutional Framework
The Indian system for investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes assigns responsibility to States and Union Territories, which operate their own Law Enforcement Agencies. The central government established the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to support these operations through its Ministry of Home Affairs.
The I4C functions as a central hub that allows various stakeholders in cybercrime prevention and investigation to share intelligence and build their operational capacities. The initiative establishes a cybersecurity system that will improve its organisational structure through better central and state agency collaboration.
The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP) serves as a primary project of this framework by providing online cyber incident reporting for citizens. The portal enables users to register complaints more efficiently while enhancing access to crime reporting, which particularly benefits victims of crimes against women and children. The system offers special channels which allow users to report Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material (CSEAM) and rape-related materials while providing options for anonymous reporting and case tracking. After a complaint is lodged, the appropriate state authorities initiate the process to investigate the matter and proceed with legal procedures.
Capacity Building and Cyber Forensics
The response to cybercrime requires both expert investigators and advanced forensic technology systems. The Cyber Crime Prevention against Women and Children (CCPWC) Scheme, which provides financial backing and technical training to states and union territories, was instituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs to address this requirement.
The scheme has authorised the release of ₹132.93 crore for developing cyber forensic facilities and investigative technologies. The funding has supported the establishment of cyber forensic-cum-training laboratories across multiple states and union territories. The total number of operational laboratories has reached 33 at this time.
The organisation has prioritised its training initiatives together with its infrastructure development projects. More than 24,600 law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and judicial officers have received training on cybercrime investigation, digital evidence handling, and forensic analysis. The capacity-building initiatives were designed to provide investigators and judicial authorities with essential skills needed to handle advanced cyber incidents.
International Cooperation for Child Protection
International cooperation is essential for addressing online child exploitation because these crimes utilise digital networks that connect multiple countries. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) established a partnership with the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) of the United States in 2019 through a Memorandum of Understanding, which aims to enhance regional collaboration in this field.
The partnership enables the sharing of tipline reports about online child exploitation, which Indian authorities use for their investigative work. Under the Information Technology Act provisions, NCRB has received official powers to issue removal notices to intermediaries because they oversee child sexual abuse material and other dangerous content.
Promoting Online Safety Awareness
Cybercrime prevention requires two essential elements, which are public knowledge and digital expertise. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has developed several resources to educate children, parents, teachers, and school administrators about online safety. The guidelines include Being Safe Online, together with school safety manuals that protect against cyberbullying and the 2024 updates, which provide new recommendations for cyberbullying prevention. The commission has established multiple conferences and training sessions throughout various states to educate both educators and school administrators about child protection regulations and school security measures, and cyber protection standards.
The digital responsibility programs educate communities about proper online conduct and teach them how to recognise and handle cybersecurity threats.
Legal Framework for Digital Safety
The Information Technology Act of 2000, together with the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules of 2021, (Updated as of 2026) serve as the core legal foundation through which India combats cybercrime. The laws establish penalties for online distribution of obscene and sexually explicit material while requiring digital intermediaries to block access to illegal content.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 contains additional legal provisions that deal with two types of offences that involve disseminating obscene material and spreading dangerous misinformation.
The regulatory framework requires intermediaries to eliminate illegal content within specified timeframes, while they must prevent their platforms from being used to conduct dangerous or unlawful activities.
Conclusion
India establishes its cybercrime response strategy through a multi-layered method that uses different institutional systems, technological systems, legal systems, and public education programs. Cyber threats develop through technological progress, yet authorities must establish effective cybersecurity, which depends on their ability to investigate, their systems for reporting incidents, and their dedication to maintaining proper online conduct.
India needs continuous cooperation among government bodies, police forces, technology companies, and community organisations to maintain secure and strong digital networks that provide equal access to all citizens.
References
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2238260®=3&lang=2
- https://www.policyedge.in/p/rajya-sabha-strengthening-indias-coordinated-response-to-cyber-crimes
%20(1).webp)
Digitisation in Agriculture
The traditional way of doing agriculture has undergone massive digitization in recent years, whereby several agricultural processes have been linked to the Internet. This globally prevalent transformation, driven by smart technology, encompasses the use of sensors, IoT devices, and data analytics to optimize and automate labour-intensive farming practices. Smart farmers in the country and abroad now leverage real-time data to monitor soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health, enabling precise resource management and improved yields. The integration of smart technology in agriculture not only enhances productivity but also promotes sustainable practices by reducing waste and conserving resources. As a result, the agricultural sector is becoming more efficient, resilient, and capable of meeting the growing global demand for food.
Digitisation of Food Supply Chains
There has also been an increase in the digitisation of food supply chains across the globe since it enables both suppliers and consumers to keep track of the stage of food processing from farm to table and ensures the authenticity of the food product. The latest generation of agricultural robots is being tested to minimise human intervention. It is thought that AI-run processes can mitigate labour shortage, improve warehousing and storage and make transportation more efficient by running continuous evaluations and adjusting the conditions real-time while increasing yield. The company Muddy Machines is currently trialling an autonomous asparagus-harvesting robot called Sprout that not only addresses labour shortages but also selectively harvests green asparagus, which traditionally requires careful picking. However, Chris Chavasse, co-founder of Muddy Machines, highlights that hackers and malicious actors could potentially hack into the robot's servers and prevent it from operating by driving it into a ditch or a hedge, thereby impending core crop activities like seeding and harvesting. Hacking agricultural pieces of machinery also implies damaging a farmer’s produce and in turn profitability for the season.
Case Study: Muddy Machines and Cybersecurity Risks
A cyber attack on digitised agricultural processes has a cascading impact on online food supply chains. Risks are non-exhaustive and spill over to poor protection of cargo in transit, increased manufacturing of counterfeit products, manipulation of data, poor warehousing facilities and product-specific fraud, amongst others. Additional impacts on suppliers are also seen, whereby suppliers have supplied the food products but fail to receive their payments. These cyber-threats may include malware(primarily ransomware) that accounts for 38% of attacks, Internet of Things (IoT) attacks that comprise 29%, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, SQL Injections, phishing attacks etc.
Prominent Cyber Attacks and Their Impacts
Ransomware attacks are the most popular form of cyber threats to food supply chains and may include malicious contaminations, deliberate damage and destruction of tangible assets (like infrastructure) or intangible assets (like reputation and brand). In 2017, NotPetya malware disrupted the world’s largest logistics giant Maersk and destroyed all end-user devices in more than 60 countries. Interestingly, NotPetya was also linked to the malfunction of freezers connected to control systems. The attack led to these control systems being compromised, resulting in freezer failures and potential spoilage of food, highlighting the vulnerability of industrial control systems to cyber threats.
Further Case Studies
NotPetya also impacted Mondelez, the maker of Oreos but disrupting its email systems, file access and logistics for weeks. Mondelez’s insurance claim was also denied since NotPetya malware was described as a “war-like” action, falling outside the purview of the insurance coverage. In April 2021, over the Easter weekend, Bakker Logistiek, a logistics company based in the Netherlands that offers air-conditioned warehousing and food transportation for Dutch supermarkets, experienced a ransomware attack. This incident disrupted their supply chain for several days, resulting in empty shelves at Albert Heijn supermarkets, particularly for products such as packed and grated cheese. Despite the severity of the attack, the company successfully restored their operations within a week by utilizing backups. JBS, one of the world’s biggest meat processing companies, also had to pay $11 million in ransom via Bitcoin to resolve a cyber attack in the same year, whereby computer networks at JBS were hacked, temporarily shutting down their operations and endangering consumer data. The disruption threatened food supplies and risked higher food prices for consumers. Additional cascading impacts also include low food security and hindrances in processing payments at retail stores.
Credible Threat Agents and Their Targets
Any cyber-attack is usually carried out by credible threat agents that can be classified as either internal or external threat agents. Internal threat agents may include contractors, visitors to business sites, former/current employees, and individuals who work for suppliers. External threat agents may include activists, cyber-criminals, terror cells etc. These threat agents target large organisations owing to their larger ransom-paying capacity, but may also target small companies due to their vulnerability and low experience, especially when such companies are migrating from analogous methods to digitised processes.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation warns that the food and agricultural systems are most vulnerable to cyber-security threats during critical planting and harvesting seasons. It noted an increase in cyber-attacks against six agricultural co-operatives in 2021, with ancillary core functions such as food supply and distribution being impacted. Resultantly, cyber-attacks may lead to a mass shortage of food not only meant for human consumption but also for animals.
Policy Recommendations
To safeguard against digital food supply chains, Food defence emerges as one of the top countermeasures to prevent and mitigate the effects of intentional incidents and threats to the food chain. While earlier, food defence vulnerability assessments focused on product adulteration and food fraud, including vulnerability assessments of agriculture technology now be more relevant.
Food supply organisations must prioritise regular backups of data using air-gapped and password-protected offline copies, and ensure critical data copies are not modifiable or deletable from the main system. For this, blockchain-based food supply chain solutions may be deployed, which are not only resilient to hacking, but also allow suppliers and even consumers to track produce. Companies like Ripe.io, Walmart Global Tech, Nestle and Wholechain deploy blockchain for food supply management since it provides overall process transparency, improves trust issues in the transactions, enables traceable and tamper-resistant records and allows accessibility and visibility of data provenance. Extensive recovery plans with multiple copies of essential data and servers in secure, physically separated locations, such as hard drives, storage devices, cloud or distributed ledgers should be adopted in addition to deploying operations plans for critical functions in case of system outages. For core processes which are not labour-intensive, including manual operation methods may be used to reduce digital dependence. Network segmentation, updates or patches for operating systems, software, and firmware are additional steps which can be taken to secure smart agricultural technologies.
References
- Muddy Machines website, Accessed 26 July 2024. https://www.muddymachines.com/
- “Meat giant JBS pays $11m in ransom to resolve cyber-attack”, BBC, 10 June 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57423008
- Marshall, Claire & Prior, Malcolm, “Cyber security: Global food supply chain at risk from malicious hackers.”, BBC, 20 May 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61336659
- “Ransomware Attacks on Agricultural Cooperatives Potentially Timed to Critical Seasons.”, Private Industry Notification, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 20 April https://www.ic3.gov/Media/News/2022/220420-2.pdf.
- Manning, Louise & Kowalska, Aleksandra. (2023). “The threat of ransomware in the food supply chain: a challenge for food defence”, Trends in Organized Crime. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-023-09516-y
- “NotPetya: the cyberattack that shook the world”, Economic Times, 5 March 2022. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/newsletters/ettech-unwrapped/notpetya-the-cyberattack-that-shook-the-world/articleshow/89997076.cms?from=mdr
- Abrams, Lawrence, “Dutch supermarkets run out of cheese after ransomware attack.”, Bleeping Computer, 12 April 2021. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dutch-supermarkets-run-out-of-cheese-after-ransomware-attack/
- Pandey, Shipra; Gunasekaran, Angappa; Kumar Singh, Rajesh & Kaushik, Anjali, “Cyber security risks in globalised supply chains: conceptual framework”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, January 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shipra-Pandey/publication/338668641_Cyber_security_risks_in_globalized_supply_chains_conceptual_framework/links/5e2678ae92851c89c9b5ac66/Cyber-security-risks-in-globalized-supply-chains-conceptual-framework.pdf
- Daley, Sam, “Blockchain for Food: 10 examples to know”, Builin, 22 March 2023 https://builtin.com/blockchain/food-safety-supply-chain

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:
- https://www.npr.org/2023/06/07/1180768459/how-to-identify-ai-generated-deepfake-images
- https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ai-image-misinformation-surged-google-research-finds-rcna154333
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy87076pdw3o
- https://newskarnataka.com/technology/government-releases-guide-to-help-citizens-identify-ai-generated-images/21052024/
- https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/04/11/1071104/ai-helping-historians-analyze-past/
- https://www.psypost.org/ai-models-struggle-with-expert-level-global-history-knowledge/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M65IYIWlqes&t=2597s
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/people-are-creating-records-of-fake-historical-events-using-ai/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/spain-impose-massive-fines-not-labelling-ai-generated-content-2025-03-11/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/sep/13/documentary-ai-guidelines?utm_source=chatgpt.com