#FactCheck - Viral Photo of Modi and Rahul Gandhi in Parliament Found to Be AI-Generated

Executive Summary

‍

As India concluded its 77th Republic Day celebrations on January 26, 2026, with grandeur and patriotic enthusiasm along the iconic Kartavya Path, a video began circulating on social media claiming to show Indian security personnel failing to perform motorcycle stunts during the ceremonial parade. The short clip allegedly depicts soldiers attempting high-risk, synchronised motorcycle manoeuvres, only to lose balance and fall off their bikes. The visuals were widely shared online with mocking captions, suggesting incompetence during a nationally televised event. However, an research  by the CyberPeace found that the video is not authentic and was digitally generated using artificial intelligence.

‍

Claim

‍

A Pakistan-based X user, Sadaf Baloch (@sadafzbaloch), shared the video on January 27, claiming it showed Indian security personnel failing to execute motorcycle stunts during the Republic Day parade held on January 26, 2026. While sharing the clip, the user wrote:“Every time the Indian Army tries a tactical stunt, it looks less like combat training and more like a low-budget circus trailer filmed in one take.”The post was widely circulated with similar narratives questioning the professionalism of Indian forces.

Here is the link and archive link to the post, along with a screenshot.

• https://archive.ph/4D44E
• https://x.com/sadafzbaloch/status/2016134757625802978?s=20 

‍

‍

To verify the authenticity of the viral video, the Desk conducted a detailed frame-by-frame analysis. During the examination, a watermark linked to ‘Sora’—an AI text-to-video generation model was detected at the 00:05 timestamp. The presence of this watermark strongly indicated that the video was artificially generated and not recorded during a real-world event.

Fact Check:

‍

‍

Further visual scrutiny revealed several inconsistencies commonly associated with AI-generated content. The background appeared unnatural and lacked realistic depth, while the movements and reactions of the security personnel looked mechanically exaggerated and inconsistent with real physics. Facial expressions and body motions during the alleged falls also appeared unrealistic. To strengthen the verification, the Desk analysed the clip using Sightengine, an AI-detection tool. The results showed a 98 per cent probability that the video contained AI-generated or deepfake elements.

Below is a screenshot of the result.

‍

As part of the research , the Desk also conducted a customised keyword search and reviewed official coverage of the Republic Day parade. A full-length video broadcast by DD News on its official YouTube channel was examined. The footage showed joint CRPF and SSB motorcycle teams performing traditional daredevil stunts without any mishap. No incident resembling the viral claim was found in the official broadcast or in any credible media reports.

Here is the video link and a screenshot.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4UuslE5Hg&t=8882s 

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The CyberPeace research  confirms that the viral video purportedly showing Indian security personnel failing to perform motorcycle stunts during the 77th Republic Day parade is AI-generated. The clip has been falsely circulated online as genuine content with the intent to mislead viewers and spread misinformation.

‍

Executive Summary

‍
A video of former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan is going viral on social media. The video is being shared with the claim that, referring to the losses suffered by India during Operation Sindoor, he said, “Even if we lose four aircraft or 40 aircraft, India will still remain a larger economy. What matters is your ability to recover from the losses. Whatever losses we suffered, we can recover much faster than Pakistan.” A research done by the Research Wing of the CyberPeace examined the claims made in the video and compared them with General Anil Chauhan’s original remarks at the event.The research found that the viral video’s audio has been digitally manipulated. The alleged statement heard in the viral clip does not appear in the original footage.

‍

Claim:

A Pakistani user on social media platform X shared the viral video with the caption: “BREAKING: Former Indian Chief of Defence Staff revealed details about the losses suffered during Operation Sindoor, saying, ‘Whatever losses we suffered are not important. What matters is that we can recover quickly.’”

The link to the post and a screenshot are provided below.

https://x.com/InsiderWB/status/2092559622225940952 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

Upon closely examining the viral video, we noticed the ANI logo. We then conducted a reverse image search of keyframes from the viral clip. During the search, we found the original video published by ANI, in which General Chauhan discusses the relationship between political objectives and military strategy.

https://x.com/ANI/status/2092217553355743409 

‍

‍

He said, “Politics and war are inseparable.” He further explained that a nation’s political interests are paramount, while the armed forces are one of several instruments used to safeguard those interests. General Chauhan also discussed the role of military leadership in presenting various options to the political leadership, as well as the importance of peacetime preparedness and training. He also spoke about training, contingency planning, and the need to balance military risks with political objectives. Notably, the statement attributed to him in the viral video,“Whatever losses we suffered are not important. What matters is that we can recover quickly” — does not appear anywhere in the original video. Additionally, the audio used in the viral video was also analysed using Resemble AI. The tool’s analysis identified the audio as AI-generated, indicating that the audio in the viral clip had been manipulated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The research found that General Chauhan’s voice in the viral video has been digitally manipulated. The alleged statement heard in the viral clip does not appear in the original video.

‍

Introduction:  The Internet’s Foundational Ideal of Openness

The Internet was built as a decentralised network to foster open communication and global collaboration. Unlike traditional media or state infrastructure, no single government, company, or institution controls the Internet. Instead, it has historically been governed by a consensus of the multiple communities, like universities, independent researchers, and engineers, who were involved in building it. This bottom-up, cooperative approach was the foundation of Internet governance and ensured that the Internet remained open, interoperable, and accessible to all. As the Internet began to influence every aspect of life, including commerce, culture, education, and politics, it required a more organised governance model.  This compelled the rise of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model in the early 2000s. 

The Rise of Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Representatives from governments, civil society, technical experts, and the private sector congregated at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. Per this Agenda, internet governance was defined as “… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Internet issues are cross-cutting across technical, political, economic, and social domains, and no one actor can manage them alone. Thus, stakeholders with varying interests are meant to come together to give direction to issues in the digital environment, like data privacy, child safety, cybersecurity,  freedom of expression, and more, while upholding human rights. 

Internet Governance in Practice: A History of Power Shifts

While the idea of democratizing Internet governance is a noble one, the Tunis Agenda has been criticised for reflecting geopolitical asymmetries and relegating the roles of technical communities and civil society to the sidelines.  Throughout the history of the internet, certain players have wielded more power in shaping how it is managed. Accordingly, internet governance can be said to have undergone three broad phases.

In the first phase,  the Internet was managed primarily by technical experts in universities and private companies, which contributed to building and scaling it up.  The standards and protocols set during this phase are in use today and make the Internet function the way it does. This was the time when the Internet was a transformative invention and optimistically hailed as the harbinger of a utopian society, especially in the USA, where it was invented. 

In the second phase, the ideal of multistakeholderism was promoted, in which all those who benefit from the Internet work together to create processes that will govern it democratically. This model also aims to reduce the Internet’s vulnerability to unilateral decision-making, an ideal that has been under threat because this phase has seen the growth of Big Tech. What started as platforms enabling access to information, free speech, and creativity has turned into a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, cybercrime, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and privacy concerns. The rise of generative AI only compounds these challenges. Tech giants like Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have amassed vast financial capital, technological monopoly, and user datasets. This gives them unprecedented influence not only over communications but also culture, society, and technology governance. 

The anxieties surrounding Big Tech have fed into the third phase, with increasing calls for government regulation and digital nationalism. Governments worldwide are scrambling to regulate AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity, often through processes that lack transparency. An example is India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which was passed without parliamentary debate. Governments are also pressuring platforms to take down content through opaque takedown orders. Laws like the UK’s  Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, are criticised for giving the government the power to indirectly mandate encryption backdoors, compromising the strength of end-to-end encryption systems. Further, the internet itself is fragmenting into the “splinternet” amid rising geopolitical tensions, in the form of Russia’s “sovereign internet” or through China’s Great Firewall. 

Conclusion

While multistakeholderism is an ideal, Internet governance is a playground of contesting power relations in practice. As governments assert digital sovereignty and Big Tech consolidates influence, the space for meaningful participation of other stakeholders has been negligible. Consultation processes have often been symbolic. The principles of openness, inclusivity, and networked decision-making are once again at risk of being sidelined in favour of nationalism or profit. The promise of a decentralised, rights-respecting, and interoperable internet will only be fulfilled if we recommit to the spirit of Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance, not just its structure. Efficient internet governance requires that the multiple stakeholders be empowered to carry out their roles, not just talk about them. 

‍

References

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/can-the-internet-be-governed 
• https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-PolicyBrief-InternetGovernance-20151030-nb.pdf 
• https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf\
• https://nrs.help/post/internet-governance-and-its-importance/
• https://daidac.thecjid.org/how-data-power-is-skewing-internet-governance-to-big-tech-companies-and-ai-tech-guys/ 

‍