#FactCheck -Viral video falsely linked to Operation Sindoor and India–Pakistan conflict claims
Executive Summary
A video from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Norway is being widely shared on social media with the false claim that he avoided a question related to alleged Indian aircraft losses during the India–Pakistan conflict and “Operation Sindoor”. However, a fact-check by CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false.The video shows a recent incident from 18 May in Oslo during a joint press appearance between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.
The clip being circulated online shows journalist Helle Lyng asking PM Modi a question, but there is no reference to any India–Pakistan conflict or aircraft losses in her question.
Claim:
A post shared on X (formerly Twitter) on 19 May 2026 claims: “Fear of questions on historic defeat in Operation Sindoor and Pakistan’s great victory in Marka e Haq: Modi flees in Norway without taking journalists’ questions.”
The post, along with archived links and screenshots, has been circulated to support the misleading narrative.
Fact Check
A review of journalist Helle Lyng’s official social media account shows the original video posted by her on 18 May. In the video, she can be heard asking:
“Prime Minister Modi, why don’t you take some questions from the freest press in the world?” In her caption, she stated that she did not expect PM Modi to take her question and highlighted press freedom rankings, noting Norway’s position at the top and India’s at 157th. She also emphasized that questioning cooperating governments is part of journalistic responsibility.
Further verification of the full press event published on the official Government of Norway portal shows no question related to alleged downed aircraft or military losses.
Additional reporting by Al Jazeera also confirms that a Norwegian journalist questioned PM Modi in Oslo about why he does not engage in open media briefings.
Conclusion:
The video is being shared with a misleading claim. It is a recent clip from 18 May in Oslo, and the journalist’s question was about press freedom—not about Operation Sindoor or any India–Pakistan conflict-related aircraft losses.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media linking it to a Muharram procession in India. The video shows a person engulfed in flames, with users claiming that an individual was deliberately set on fire during a Muharram procession in India. Several social media users are circulating the clip with communal claims. CyberPeace Research Wing research found that the viral claim is misleading. The video does not show any incident of a person being deliberately burned during a Muharram procession. In reality, it is from Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, where a performer sustained burn injuries while performing stunts during a Muharram procession.
Claim:
On X (formerly Twitter), a user posted the viral video on 3 June 2026, claiming: “Not Bangladesh, this is India where a person is being burned alive during a Muharram procession.” The post link, archive link, and screenshots are provided below. https://x.com/singh_kikki/status/2070753631167541586 , https://archive.ph/vP3bZ
Fact Check:
For verification, we extracted multiple keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the search, we found the same video published on the Public app on 27 June 2026. According to the report, the incident took place on Malviya Road in Deoria city, Uttar Pradesh, during a Muharram procession, where a member of the 5-Star Club akhara, Saddam (24), a resident of Bans Deoria, suffered burn injuries while performing stunts involving fire. The report further stated that members of the akhara immediately rescued him and arranged first aid. Police confirmed that his condition is stable and that the incident was accidental. No other untoward incident was reported, and all Muharram processions were conducted peacefully. A statement by Circle Officer (City), Sanjay Kumar Reddy, was also included in the report. https://public.app/video/sp_zh7dywam0a2pb
In our subsequent research, we found a report published on Dainik Bhaskar's website with the same claim. A link and screenshot of the post are provided below. https://www.bhaskar.com/amp/local/uttar-pradesh/deoria/news/deoria-youth-burns-muharram-procession-stunt-138296624.html
Finally, we also found an official post from the Deoria Police X handle confirming the incident. The police stated that a performer from the 5-Star Club akhara was injured while performing stunts on Malviya Road and was immediately given first aid. His condition is stable, and no other incident occurred. https://x.com/DeoriaPolice/status/2070521290864377982
Conclusion:
The research clearly found that the viral video does not show a person being deliberately burned during a Muharram procession. The footage is from Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, where a performer was accidentally injured during a fire stunt.
Introduction
In today’s digital world, data has emerged as the new currency that influences global politics, markets, and societies. Companies, governments, and tech behemoths aim to control data because it accords them influence and power. However, a fundamental challenge brought about by this increased reliance on data is how to strike a balance between privacy protection and innovation and utility.
In recognition of these dangers, more than 200 Nobel laureates, scientists, and world leaders have recently signed the Global Call for AI Red Lines. Governments are urged by this initiative to create legally binding international regulations on artificial intelligence by 2026. Its goal is to stop AI from going beyond moral and security bounds, particularly in areas like political manipulation, mass surveillance, cyberattacks, and dangers to democratic institutions.
One way to address the threat to privacy is through pseudonymization, which makes it possible to use data valuable for research and innovation by substituting personal identifiers for artificial ones. Pseudonymization thus directly advances the AI Red Lines initiative's mission of facilitating technological advancement while lowering the risks of data misuse and privacy violations.
The Red Lines of AI: Why do they matter?
The Global Call for AI Red Lines initiative represents a collective attempt to impose precaution before catastrophe, which was done with the objective of recognising the Red Lines in the use of AI tools. Thus, anything that unites the risks of using AI is due to the absence of global safeguards. Some of these Red Lines can be understood as;
- Cybersecurity breaches in the form of exposure of financial and personal data due to AI-driven hacking and surveillance.
- Occurrence of privacy invasions due to endless tracking.
- Generative AI can also help to create realistic fake content, undermining the trust of public discourses, leading to misinformation.
- Algorithmic amplification of polarising content can also threaten civic stability, leading to a demographic disruption.
Legal Frameworks and Regulatory Landscape
The regulations of Artificial Intelligence stand fragmented across jurisdictions, leaving significant loopholes aside. Some of the frameworks already provide partial guidance. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act 2024 bans “unacceptable” AI practices, whereas the US-China Agreement also ensures that nuclear weapons remain under human, not machine-controlled. The UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions urging safe and ethical AI usage, with a binding and elusive global treaty.
On the front of data protection, the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) of EU offers a clear definition of Pseudonymisation under Article 4(5). It also describes a process where personal data is altered in a way that it cannot be attributed to an individual without additional information, which must be stored securely and separately. Importantly, pseudonymised data still qualifies as “personal data” under GDPR. However, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) 2023 adopts a similar stance. It does not explicitly define pseudonymisation in broad terms, such as “personal data” by including potentially reversible identifiers. According to Section 8(4) of the Act, companies are meant to adopt appropriate technical or organisational measures. International bodies and conventions like the OECD Principles on AI or the Council of Europe Convention 108+ emphasize accountability, transparency, and data minimisation. Collectively, these instruments point towards pseudonymization as a best practice, though interpretations of its scope differ.
Strategies for Corporate Implementation
For a company, pseudonymisation is not just about compliance, it is also a practical solution that offers measurable benefits. By pseudonymising data, businesses can get benefits, such as;
- Enhancing Privacy protection by masking identifiers like names or IDs by reducing the impact of data breaches.
- Preserving Data Utility, unlike having a full anonymisation, pseudonymisation also retains patterns that are essential for analytical innovation.
- Facilitating data sharing can allow organizations to collaborate with their partners and researchers while maintaining proper trust.
According to these benefits, competitive advantages get translated to clauses where customers find it more likely to trust organizations that prioritise data protection, while pseudonymisation further enables the firms to engage in cross-border collaboration without violating local data laws.
Balancing Privacy Rights and Data Utility
Balancing is a central dilemma; on one side lies the case of necessity over data utility, where companies, researchers and governments rely on large datasets to enhance the scale of AI innovation. On the other hand lies the question of the right to privacy, which is a non-negotiable principle protected under the international human rights law.
Pseudonymisation offers a practical compromise by enabling the use of sensitive data while reducing the privacy risks. Taking examples of different domains, such as healthcare, it allows the researchers to work with patient information without exposing identities, whereas in finance, it supports fraud detection without revealing the customer details.
Conclusion
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has led to the outpacing of regulations, raising urgent questions related to safety, fairness and accountability. The global call for recognising the AI red lines is a bold step that looks in the direction of setting universal boundaries. Yet, alongside the remaining global treaties, practical safeguards are also needed. Pseudonymisation exemplifies such a safeguard, which is legally recognised under the GDPR and increasingly relevant in India’s DPDP Act. It balances the twin imperatives of privacy, protection, and data utility. For organizations, adopting pseudonymisation is not only about ensuring regulatory compliance, rather, it is also about building trust, ensuring resilience, and aligning with the broader ethical responsibilities in this digital age. As the future of AI is debatable, the guiding principles also need to be clear. By embedding techniques for preserving privacy, like pseudonymisation, into AI systems, we can take a significant step towards developing a sustainable, ethical and innovation-driven digital ecosystem.
References
https://www.techaheadcorp.com/blog/shadow-ai-the-risks-of-unregulated-ai-usage-in-enterprises/
https://planetmainframe.com/2024/11/the-risks-of-unregulated-ai-what-to-know/
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/dangers-unregulated-artificial-intelligence
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/06/02/the-15-biggest-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/
Introduction
The trajectory of India's digital economy is growing at an unprecedented rate, and so is India's cybercrime ecosystem. Parliamentary data tabled before the Rajya Sabha in May 2024 by the MHA suggests an overwhelming 900% growth in cybercrime complaints from 2021 to '25, while annual losses crossed 22,800 crore in 2024. The structural issues like the low victim restitution rate, the lack of forensic infrastructure, issues of jurisdiction related to offshore fraud factories targeting Indian citizens, and the huge disparity in awareness levels amongst India's youngest online citizens continue to exist. This brief brings out the clear trends in cybercrime, the role of institutional mechanisms in its prevention and response, failure points, and recommends appropriate policy interventions from the perspective of CyberPeace.
The Data Imperative
Since its operationalisation in 2019 by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), the NCRP serves as India's most significant institutional apparatus for cybercrime reporting and response. Data placed before the Rajya Sabha by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 30 July 2025 show that, with almost no exception, complaints of cybercrime have increased far more quickly than most traditional indicators of public safety. Between 2021 and June 2025, the NCRP received 6.59 million complaints, evidence of both a sustained and escalating expansion of India's cyber threat profile. Complaints per year more than quadrupled from 4.52 lakh in 2021 to 19.18 lakh in 2024 (324% over the period); by 2025, the NCRP had received 28.15 lakh complaints, a 523 percent rise compared with the 2021 baseline:
Clearly, cyber-enabled crime is no longer an occasional crisis but a systemic governance issue requiring consistent regulation and institution-building.
The financial fallout has also accelerated dramatically. Figures indicate that reported financial losses due to cybercrime jumped from 2,290 crore in 2022 to 22,812 crore in 2024 a 895% leap in two years:
Though response mechanisms such as the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) successfully blocked or recovered close to 8,690 crore as of January 2026, victims appear to get back only about 2.18 percent of the losses they report.
In most areas, reporting and response have expanded greatly, but both the rate and scale of cyber-enabled financial fraud continue to outstrip India's remediation and law enforcement capacity.
Threat Typology of India’s Fraud Ecosystem
The nature of cyber crime in India has evolved from an opportunistic volume-based activity to a layered transnational criminal environment. I4C intelligence as tabled in Parliament reveals investment scams as the biggest threat: they accounted for 76% of the financial fraud lost in 2025 (although only 35% of complaints were filed, thus, a very high value per case was lost).
Digital arrest frauds, which tap on citizens' unawareness that "digital arrest" is not permissible under Indian law, rose from 39,925 cases (91 crore) in 2022 to 123,672 cases (1,935crore) in 2024.
The fast rise in the number of incidents as well as in the volume of fraud clearly points out that digital arrest fraud has moved away from the phase of novel scam typology to a formidable cyber-extortion landscape. The main orchestrators of investment, trading, dating, and digital arrest scams targeting Indian citizens were recently identified by the I4C CEO Rajesh Kumar as transnational criminal scam networks in Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos. Hence, this issue does not only fall within the domain of domestic law enforcement but constitutes a transnational cybercrime requiring parallel financial intelligence, diplomatic initiative, platform responsibility, and international investigative collaboration.
Geographic Concentration
Maharashtra and UP register the highest volumes in total complaints at 3.03 lakh and 3.01 lakh, owing to them being the financial capital and most populous state, respectively. Karnataka, Gujarat, Delhi, WB, Telangana, TN, Rajasthan, and Haryana register above 1 lakh complaints each. However, the critical information that is being missed is that while complaint rate growth is the fastest in Tier 2 and 3 geographies (Haryana leads per-capita complaint rate with 381/100k people in 2023; Telangana (261); Uttarakhand (243)), this signifies rural digital growth as a risk multiplier.
Institutional Architecture: Mechanisms and Performances
India's institutional response to cybercrime, led by the Ministry of Home Affairs' Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), is one of the world's largest real-time fraud detection and prevention ecosystems. The backbone of this is the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS), which has onboarded over 700 banks, payment service providers, e-commerce portals, digital wallets, and, since the Standard Operating Procedure was issued on 2nd January 2026, virtual asset service providers and crypto exchanges. This interconnected network allows for prompt freezing of funds and timely fraud intervention during the 'golden hour' of a cybercrime report.
Institutional capacity is robust, with approximately 8,690 crore saved via the CFCFRMS since its inception for over 24.65 lakh complaints. The national cybercrime helpline (1930) receives close to 10,000 calls daily, while the Suspect Registry has enabled the rejection of 9,519 crore via the detection of 23.05 lakh suspect entities and 27.37 lakh mule accounts. In parallel, the CyTrain platform has expanded training by registering 151,081 police and judicial officers and issuing 142,025 certificates. Cyberforensic labs in all 33 States and Union Territories have received central assistance totalling 132.93 crore, and data-driven interstate crime analytics and offender linkages through the Samanvaya and Pratibimb platforms have led to 21,857 arrests.
Ecosystem Gaps
Through I4C, CFCFRMS, CyTrain, and the establishment of forensic infrastructure in states, India’s cybercrime ecosystem has greatly grown. But due to the rapid proliferation of cybercrime, systemic shortcomings are revealed regarding the restoration of victims, investigation, forensic capacity, cross-border enforcement, awareness, and stakeholder coordination:
- Victim Restitution Deficit: Although the total of ₹ 8,690 crore frozen has increased, the refund for victim compensation is limited to only ₹ 167 crore (2.18%) due to lengthy restoration processes relying on court orders.
- Forensic Capacity Limitations: 2 national, state-level, unevenly equipped cyber forensic labs can’t match the needs of over 10 million cybercrime complaints per year.
- Low conviction rate: The investigations of cybercrimes suffer from evidence collection and criminal proceedings, leading to limited conviction rates.
- Cross-border enforcement challenges: Many of the investment and digital arrest scams, in fact, are originating from Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos, rendering the cybercrime response mechanisms of India helpless.
- Lack of Awareness: First-time digital users are quite prone to online scams and fraud, and many of the victims continue not reporting due to social stigma and lack of confidence.
- Partial Stakeholder Integration: Banks and small financial institutions, small companies, and emerging virtual asset providers not yet on board allow the money to slip through without being tracked.
CyberPeace Insights: Strategic Way Forward
India has already built a relatively mature response structure for cybercrime with I4C, CFCFRMS, and CyTrain and is coordinating the financial sector on it. The way ahead lies in outcome-oriented improvements and not just in the ability to report and intercept more. Here are the priority interventions that address the most important institutional shortcomings identified in the current ecosystem:
- Fast-track victim restoration: Introduce time-bound victim restoration mechanisms for low-value incidents through simplified processes and mandate national-level roll-out of successful Lok Adalat-based settlement mechanisms.
- District-level cyber forensics: Establish cyber forensic support units at the district level and enhance access to mobile, cloud, and blockchain forensic capabilities.
- AI-powered fraud prevention: Mandate deep-fake and voice-clone detection mechanisms across all financial institutions and telecom networks; embed predictive risk analytics into transaction screening frameworks.
- Cyber Suraksha Gram initiative: Increase digital fraud awareness across all common service centres, Jan Dhan enrollment schemes, and rural banking channels, and tackle the awareness asymmetry.
- Regional cybercrime coordination: Establish real-time, operational intelligence-sharing mechanisms with Southeast Asian economies, which have become home to large scam networks preying on Indian citizens.
- Specialised cyber prosecution ecosystem: Develop exclusive cyber courts, standardise digital evidence procedures, and broaden the scope of CyTrain to include the development of specialised cadres of investigators and prosecutors capable of handling increasingly complex cybercrime cases.
Conclusion
The 22,812 crore lost due to cybercrime in 2024 was more than a mere figure; it signifies a serious concern regarding citizen trust, economic security, and digital inclusion. Though India's institutional response to cybercrime is one of the largest, with an operational I4C and a CFCFRMS functioning in real time, the victim compensation and prosecution mechanism falls short. It's time for implementation: faster recovery of resources, increased enforcement, a larger scale of awareness, and finally, translating the institutional innovations into concrete justice for victims nationwide.
References
- https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/270/AU1341_tmaxdx.pdf?source=pqars
- https://www.mha.gov.in/MHA1/Par2017/pdfs/par2025-pdfs/LS02122025/452.pdf
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2244504®=3&lang=2
- https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/oct/doc2025107659501.pdf
- https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-india-cybercrime-500-percent-increase-2021-2024/
- https://theprint.in/india/cybercrime-saw-24-spike-in-2025-indians-lost-rs-22495-crore-mainly-in-investment-scams/2859930/
