#FactCheck -Prayagraj Celebration Video Falsely Shared as BJP Victory Celebration in West Bengal

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/

‍

In recent months, conversations around the possible shortage of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a basic cooking fuel in Indian households, have quietly resurfaced across the country. From whispers in local markets to viral messages circulating on social media, concerns about LPG availability began to take hold in the public imagination. Though the immediacy of the situation has since faded, its echoes remain, reminding us how quickly uncertainty can spread. Like a ripple across still water, a single rumour can travel far, gathering force as it moves and blurring the line between perception and reality. 

Against this backdrop, in April 2026, reports began circulating about a potential LPG shortage. The Union Government moved quickly to counter what it identified as misinformation, emphasising that supply remained stable and urging citizens not to engage in panic buying.  A noticeable disconnect emerged between official communication and public perception. Across different regions, signs of anxiety-driven behaviour became evident. Instances of panic buying and hoarding increased, law enforcement agencies conducted raids to address such actions, and opportunistic thefts were reported, often exploiting widespread concern. These incidents highlight how misinformation, even when addressed promptly, can continue to shape public behaviour. 

It is worth noting that rising prices also played a role in shaping public response, as increases in LPG rates contributed to a sense of urgency among consumers. Therefore, the surge in panic buying cannot be attributed solely to misinformation, but rather to a combination of economic pressures and perceived scarcity.

‍

Misinformation Ecosystem - From Rumours to Behaviour
‍

The spread of misinformation is occurring at an unprecedented pace and is, in large part, driven by the viral nature of social media. Digital platforms not only enable the rapid dissemination of information but also allow it to be amplified in ways that would not be possible through traditional media outlets. Often, the drive for virality outweighs any concern for accuracy, meaning that many individuals who spread misinformation are motivated more by the pursuit of attention than by any ideological agenda. Recent arrests of individuals involved in spreading misinformation about LPG and petrol shortages, much of which went viral, suggest that misinformation today is frequently driven by the desire for visibility rather than ideological motives. The information being circulated has largely followed a similar pattern, focusing on fears of an LPG shortage, expectations of price increases, and concerns about supply disruptions. Even though this information has not been verified, it has triggered behavioural responses among individuals. In several areas, including parts of Uttar Pradesh and Goa, the spread of misinformation through social media has led to panic buying, despite official assurances that there would be sufficient LPG supply to meet demand. 

‍

The impact of panic buying, and its associated misinformation, has already been seen in multiple sectors; these increased demands have placed pressure on the distribution network, leading to disruptions in access, as well as being out of stock of certain products. In many cases, commercial users of products (especially restaurants) have experienced significant disruption, threatening their continued operations, and industry representatives have alerted others about the inconsistent supply of commercial cylinders; likewise, consumers (households) are beginning to switch to alternative products (e.g., induction cooking) as a reflection of the anticipatory mindset to address the uncertainty created through perceptions of Product Scarcity.
‍

‍

State Response: Managing Misinformation or Behaviour?
‍

‍

The government has taken a variety of approaches, from advisories and enforcement actions to communicating with citizens indirectly. For example, State Governments have been directed to combat misinformation, monitor supply chains and take action against hoarding and black market activity. There has been a significant increase in the level of large- scale enforcement activity, with over 3,700 raids carried out to crack down on hoarding and black marketing related to LPG, in addition to confiscating cylinders and issuing penalties to those who break the law. In addition, the authorities have also focused on maintaining regular communication with the public in order to reassure them about the supply of LPG and fuel stability.

‍

Geopolitical Context: Why Rumours Are Believable
‍

Understanding today’s panic requires an understanding of the global environment: i.e., due to the ongoing conflict in West Asia, the energy markets are unstable, and energy supply is uncertain not only in West Asia but across a large part of the world. Even if domestic supply remains stable, public perception is affected by global instability. A clear example of this can be seen in neighbouring countries to India; Pakistan has seen significant increases in the cost of fuel, implemented measures such as reducing the number of days individuals work each week, and has created public support mechanisms; Bangladesh has imposed restrictions on the use of energy, has shortened the number of hours individuals can operate businesses each day, and has restricted the total amount of energy used; Sri Lanka has begun to ration fuel, and to increase the price of petrol; and Nepal has reduced the numbers of days individuals may work each week, and has adjusted supply.

‍

All of these examples are not isolated instances, but are markers of a common regional environment. As we live in a global community that is connected in many ways, these developments will quickly affect public expectations everywhere. Therefore, for consumers in India, seeing evidence of rationing of fuel and shortages of fuel in neighbouring countries increases their belief that these types of problems could occur in their country.

‍

Critical Perspective: Between Panic and Precaution
‍

The LPG incident has brought about questions surrounding the nature of misinformation in terms of its definition & regulation. One of the main concerns is whether or not "misinformation" is being cast too widely. To be sure, false claims need to be addressed; however, not everything that is responded to publicly is based on untrue facts, as many times public responses are based on perceived risk via global and/or local incidents that occur. Perhaps the greatest challenge is the difficulty in differentiating precaution and panic. People’s memories of the COVID-19 pandemic are fresh in their minds and will serve to influence their behaviours moving onward, in that many people are stockpiling or preparing for uncertainty not out of irrational fear, but as an anticipatory response to their prior experiences.

‍

Conclusion
‍

The Indian LPG "crisis" is not so much a problem with actual supply chain breakdown as it is a result of how information and behaviour are connected through perception. This cohabitating environment of panic buying, law enforcement, and government assurance demonstrates an evident disconnect and gap between how governments present a narrative and how the public responds. While there is some role of misinformation within this discourse, the misinformation itself extends beyond any or all false claims about LPG supply and operates within a greater ecosystem of global uncertainty and personal experience.  As such, and because of this, perception becomes an incredibly strong force in itself that produces true economic consequences.

‍

Reference
‍

1. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2248640&utm_source&reg=3&lang=2 
2. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-lok-sabha-on-the-ongoing-conflict-in-west-asia/ 
3. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/iran-war-middle-east-conflict-why-the-lpg-crisis-is-forcing-migrants-to-quietly-leave-delhi-11313629 
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/thieves-steal-108-lpg-cylinders-from-godown-in-up/articleshow/130035518.cms 
5. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/arrested-rumours-lpg-petrol-shortage-police-chasing-views-10614193/ 
6. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/social-media-rumours-fuel-panic-buying-in-some-up-districts-situation-normal-in-lucknow-101774465353107.html 
7. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/fear-of-shortage-price-rise-fuels-panic-buying-across-goa/articleshow/129810144.cms 
8. https://www.news18.com/cities/new-delhi-news/online-rumours-offline-rush-panic-buying-sweeps-petrol-pumps-across-cities-whats-the-truth-ws-ln-9995684.html 
9. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/3700-raids-conducted-across-country-to-wipe-out-lpg-black-marketing-says-centre/articleshow/130025232.cms 
10. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/induction-stoves-fly-off-shelves-india-gas-shortage-fears-spark-panic-buying-2026-03-12/ 
11. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/restaurant-body-warns-of-closures-over-commercial-lpg-supply-concerns-writes-to-minister-11194418 
12. https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/fpj-dialogue-we-are-getting-only-1-cylinder-instead-of-10-says-ahar-president-vijay-shetty-on-mumbai-lpg-crisis 
13. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/fuel-cuts-wfh-and-more-how-indias-neighbours-are-dealing-with-global-energy-crisis-triggered-by-us-iran-war-101775397199941.html 
14. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-30/four-step-fuel-supply-plan-national-cabinet-fuel-crisis/106512706 ‍
15. https://tribune.net.ph/2026/04/07/philippines-scrambles-as-regional-oil-crisis-hits

Executive Summary

‍

A news graphic is being shared on social media claiming that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said,“Those who practice casteism and discrimination are the ones opposing UGC. If you do not indulge in caste-based discrimination, what is there to fear?” The CyberPeace’s research found the viral claim circulating on social media to be false. Our research  revealed that Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath never made such a statement. It was also established that the viral news graphic has been digitally edited.

‍

Claim

‍

On February 8, a user on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) shared a news graphic bearing the logo of Navbharat Times, attributing the above statement to CM Yogi Adityanath. The post and its archived version can be seen below, along with screenshots. (Links and screenshots provided)

‍

• https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=878765434968058&set=a.12586118025849 
• https://archive.ph/oCVbH 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the authenticity of the claim, we conducted a keyword-based search on Google. However, we did not find any credible or reliable media report supporting the viral statement. We further examined the official social media accounts of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, including his Facebook and Instagram handles. Our review found no post, speech, or statement resembling the claim made in the viral graphic.

Continuing the research , we examined the official social media accounts of Navbharat Times. During this process, we found the original graphic published on the Navbharat Times Facebook page on January 26, 2026. The caption of the original graphic read: “On the occasion of Republic Day 2026, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said, ‘No one is above the Constitution.’”

‍

This clearly differs from the claim made in the viral graphic, indicating that the latter was altered.

‍

• https://www.facebook.com/navbharattimes/posts/pfbid0vE6mdTyBwrr 

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research  confirms that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath did not make the statement being attributed to him on social media. The viral news graphic is digitally edited and misleading. The claim, therefore, is false.

‍