#FactCheck : Edited video falsely claims Dr. Vikas Divyakirti targeted Narendra Modi
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows Dr. Vikas Divyakirti speaking during a podcast, where he is heard saying, “Those who cannot even memorise and speak four sentences are considered the greatest in India.” Several users are sharing the clip claiming that the remark was aimed at Narendra Modi. However, a research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the viral clip has been edited and shared out of context. In the original video, Divyakirti made the remarks in reference to film stars, not the Prime Minister.
Claim
On Facebook, a user shared the viral clip with an English caption alleging that Divyakirti criticised Modi, saying he cannot speak without a teleprompter or scripted interviews and has built a false image of greatness.
Similarly, another user shared the video on X, suggesting that people who cannot speak without a teleprompter are still considered great in India, indirectly linking the remark to Modi.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video uploaded on the official YouTube channel of Raj Shamani.
At around the 3:55 mark, the same clip can be seen. During the conversation, Shamani asks whether building a larger-than-life perception actually benefits an individual. Responding to this, Dr. Vikas Divyakirti explains that film stars often have an exaggerated public image. He notes that many of the dialogues they are praised for are not written by them, but by others, and some even rely on teleprompters while speaking. He further adds that there are individuals who cannot even memorise and deliver four sentences or think independently, yet are regarded as great in India. He also mentions that many social media personalities use teleprompters, but audiences remain unaware and assume they possess exceptional knowledge.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video has been edited and shared out of context. Dr. Vikas Divyakirti was referring to film stars and social media personalities, not Narendra Modi.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The digital landscape of the nation has reached a critical point in its evolution. The rapid adoption of technologies such as cloud computing, mobile payment systems, artificial intelligence, and smart infrastructure has led to a high degree of integration between digital systems and governance, commercial activity, and everyday life. As dependence on these systems continues to grow, a wide range of cyber threats has emerged that are complex, multi-layered, and closely interconnected. By 2026, cyber security threats directed at India are expected to include an increasing number of targeted, well-organised, and strategic cyber attacks. These attacks are likely to focus on exploiting the trust placed in technology, institutions, automation, and the fast pace of technological change.
1. Social Engineering 2.0: Hyper-Personalised AI Phishing & Mobile Banking Malware
Cybercriminals have moved from generalised methods to hyper-targeted attacks through AI-based psychological manipulation. In addition to social media profiles, data breaches, and digital/tracking footprints, the latest types of cybercrimes expected in 2026 will involve AI-based analysis of this information to create and increase the use of hyper-targeted phishing emails.
Phishing emails are capable of impersonating banks, employers, and even family members, with all the same regionally or culturally relevant tone, language, and context as would be done if these persons were sending the emails in person.
With malicious applications disguised as legitimate service apps, cybercriminals have the ability to intercept and capture One-Time Passwords (OTPs), hijack user sessions, and steal money from user accounts in a matter of minutes.
These types of attempts or attacks are successful not only because of their technical sophistication, but because they take advantage of human trust at scale, giving them an almost limitless reach into the financial systems of people around the world through their computers and mobile devices.
2. Cloud and Supply Chain Vulnerabilities
As Indian organisations increasingly migrate to cloud infrastructure, cloud misconfigurations are emerging as a major cybersecurity risk. Weak identity controls, exposed storage, and improper access management can allow attackers to bypass traditional network defences. Alongside this, supply chain attacks are expected to intensify in 2026.
In supply chain attacks, cybercriminals compromise a trusted software vendor or service provider to infiltrate multiple downstream organisations. Even entities with strong internal security can be affected through third-party dependencies. For India’s startup ecosystem, government digital platforms, and IT service providers, this presents a systemic risk. Strengthening vendor risk management and visibility across digital supply chains will be essential.
3. Threats to IoT and Critical Infrastructure
By implementing smart cities, digital utilities, and connected public services, IoT has opened itself up to increased levels of operational technology (OT) through India’s initiative. However, there is currently a lack of adequate security in the form of strong authentication, encryption, and update methods available on many IoT devices. By the year 2026, attackers are going to be able to exploit these vulnerabilities much more than they already are.
Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure such as energy, transportation, healthcare, and telecom systems have far-reaching consequences that extend well beyond data loss; they directly affect the provision of essential services, can damage public safety, and raise concerns over national security. Effectively securing critical infrastructure needs to involve dedicated security solutions to deal with the specific needs of critical infrastructure, in contrast to conventional IT security.
4. Hidden File Vectors and Stealth Payload Delivery
SVG File Abuse in Stealth Attacks
Cybercriminals are continually searching for ways to bypass security filters, and hidden file vectors are emerging as a preferred tactic. One such method involves the abuse of SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) files. Although commonly perceived as harmless image files, SVGs can contain embedded scripts capable of executing malicious actions.
By 2026, SVG-based attacks are expected to be used in phishing emails, cloud file sharing, and messaging platforms. Because these files often bypass traditional antivirus and email security systems, they provide an effective stealth delivery mechanism. Indian organisations will need to rethink assumptions about “safe” file formats and strengthen deep content inspection capabilities.
5. Quantum-Era Cyber Risks and “Harvest Now, Decrypt Later” Attacks
Although practical quantum computers are still emerging, quantum-era cyber risks are already a present-day concern. Adversaries are believed to be intercepting and storing encrypted data now with the intention of decrypting it in the future once quantum capabilities mature—a strategy known as “harvest now, decrypt later.” This poses serious long-term confidentiality risks.
Recognising this threat, the United States took early action during the Biden administration through National Security Memorandum 10, which directed federal agencies to prepare for the transition to quantum-resistant cryptography. For India, similar foresight is essential, as sensitive government communications, financial data, health records, and intellectual property could otherwise be exposed retrospectively. Preparing for quantum-safe cryptography will therefore become a strategic priority in the coming years.
6. AI Trust Manipulation and Model Exploitation
Poisoning the Well – Direct Attacks on AI Models
As artificial intelligence systems are increasingly used for decision-making—ranging from fraud detection and credit scoring to surveillance and cybersecurity—attackers are shifting focus from systems to models themselves. “Poisoning the well” refers to attacks that manipulate training data, feedback mechanisms, or input environments to distort AI outputs.
In the context of India's rapidly growing digital ecosystem, compromised AI models can result in biased decisions, false security alerts or denying legitimate services. The big problem with these types of attacks is they may occur without triggering conventional security measures. Transparency, integrity and continuous monitoring of AI systems will be key to creating and maintaining stakeholder confidence in the decision-making process of the automated systems.
Recommendations
Despite the increasing sophistication of malicious cyber actors, India is entering this phase with a growing level of preparedness and institutional capacity. The country has strengthened its cyber security posture through dedicated mechanisms and relevant agencies such as the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, which play a central role in coordination, threat response, and capacity building. At the same time, sustained collaboration among government bodies, non-governmental organisations, technology companies, and academic institutions has expanded cyber security awareness, skill development, and research. These collective efforts have improved detection capabilities, response readiness, and public resilience, placing India in a stronger position to manage emerging cyber threats and adapt to the evolving digital environment.
Conclusion
By 2026, complexity, intelligence, and strategic intent will increasingly define cyber threats to the digital ecosystem. Cyber criminals are expected to use advanced methods of attack, including artificial intelligence assisted social engineering and the exploitation of cloud supply chain risks. As these threats evolve, adversaries may also experiment with quantum computing techniques and the manipulation of AI models to create new ways of influencing and disrupting digital systems. In response, the focus of cybersecurity is shifting from merely preventing breaches to actively protecting and restoring digital trust. While technical controls remain essential, they must be complemented by strong cybersecurity governance, adherence to regulatory standards, and sustained user education. As India continues its digital transformation, this period presents a valuable opportunity to invest proactively in cybersecurity resilience, enabling the country to safeguard citizens, institutions, and national interests with confidence in an increasingly complex and dynamic digital future.
References
- https://www.seqrite.com/india-cyber-threat-report-2026/
- https://www.uscsinstitute.org/cybersecurity-insights/blog/ai-powered-phishing-detection-and-prevention-strategies-for-2026
- https://www.expresscomputer.in/guest-blogs/cloud-security-risks-that-should-guide-leadership-in-2026/130849/
- https://www.hakunamatatatech.com/our-resources/blog/top-iot-challenges
- https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Presentations/2024/u-s-government-s-transition-to-pqc/images-media/presman-govt-transition-pqc2024.pdf
- https://www.cyber.nj.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1721/214
Brief Overview of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies. The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.
The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.
In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions
- The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
- Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
- The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.
Application & Timeline of Act
The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:
- August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
- February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
- August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models.
- August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
- August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.
The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).
In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers.
CyberPeace Outlook
The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.
The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount.
At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.
References:
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
- https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
- https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
- https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide
.webp)
Introduction
Pagers were commonly utilized in the late 1990s and early 2000s, especially in fields that needed fast, reliable communication and swift alerts and information sharing. Pagers typically offer a broader coverage range, particularly in remote areas with limited cellular signals, which enhances their dependability. They are simple electronic devices with minimal features, making them easy to use and less prone to technical issues. The decline in their use has been caused by the rise of mobile phones and their extensive features, offering more advanced communication options like voice calls, text messages, and internet access. Despite this, pagers are still used in some specific industries.
A shocking incident occurred on 17th September 2014, where thousands of pager devices exploded within seconds across Lebanon in a synchronized attack, targeting the US-designated terror group Hezbollah. The explosions killed at least 9 and injured over 2,800 individuals in the country that has been caught up in the Israel-Palestine tensions in its backyard.
The Pager Bombs Incident
On Tuesday, 17th September 2024, hundreds of pagers carried by Hezbollah members in Lebanon exploded in an unprecedented attack, surpassing a series of covert assassinations and cyber-attacks in the region over recent years. The Iran-backed militant group claimed the wireless devices began to explode around 3:30 p.m., local time, in a targeted attack on Hezbollah operatives. The pagers that exploded were new and had been purchased by Hezbollah in recent months. Experts say the explosions underscore Hezbollah's vulnerability as its communication network was compromised to deadly effect. Several areas of the country were affected, particularly Beirut's southern suburbs, a populous area that is a known Hezbollah stronghold. At least 9 people were killed, including a child, and about 2,800 people were wounded, overwhelming Lebanese hospitals.
Second Wave of Attack
As per the most recent reports, the next day, following the pager bombing incident, a second wave of blasts hit Beirut and multiple parts of Lebanon. Certain wireless devices such as walkie-talkies, solar equipment, and car batteries exploded, resulting in at least 9 people killed and 300 injured, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. The attack is said to have embarrassed Hezbollah, incapacitated many of its members, and raised fears about a greater escalation of hostilities between the Iran-backed Lebanese armed group and Israel.
A New Kind of Threat - ‘Cyber-Physical’ Attacks
The incident raises serious concerns about physical tampering with daily-use electronic devices and the possibility of triggering a new age of warfare. This highlights the serious physical threat posed, wherein even devices such as smartwatches, earbuds, and pacemakers could be vulnerable to physical tampering if an attacker gains physical access to them. We are potentially looking at a new age of ‘cyber-physical’ threats where the boundaries between the digital and the physical are blurring rapidly. It raises questions about unauthorised access and manipulation targeting the physical security of such electronic devices. There is a cause for concern regarding the global supply chain across sectors, if even seemingly-innocuous devices can be weaponised to such devastating effect. Such kinds of attacks are capable of causing significant disruption and casualties, as demonstrated by pager bombings in Lebanon, which resulted in numerous deaths and injuries. It also raises questions on the regulatory mechanism and oversights checks at every stage of the electronic device lifecycle, from component manufacturing to the final assembly and shipment or supply. This is a grave issue because embedding explosives and doing malicious modifications by adversaries can turn such electronic devices into weapons.
CyberPeace Outlook
The pager bombing attack demonstrates a new era of threats in warfare tactics, revealing the advanced coordination and technical capabilities of adversaries where they have weaponised the daily use of electronic devices. They have targeted the hardware security of electronic devices, presenting a serious new threat to hardware security. The threat is grave, and has understandably raised widespread apprehension globally. Such kind of gross weaponisation of daily-use devices, specially in the conflict context, also triggers concerns about the violation of International Humanitarian Law principles. It also raises serious questions on the liabilities of companies, suppliers and manufacturers of such devices, who are subject to regulatory checks and ensuring the authenticity of their products.
The incident highlights the need for a more robust regulatory landscape, with stricter supply chain regulations as we adjust to the realities of a possible new era of weaponisation and conflict expression. CyberPeace recommends the incorporation of stringent tracking and vetting processes in product supply chains, along with the strengthening of international cooperation mechanisms to ensure compliance with protocols regarding the responsible use of technology. These will go a long way towards establishing peace in the global cyberspace and restore trust and safety with regards to everyday technologies.
References:
1. https://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-a-pager-9573113/
5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/18/hezbollah-pager-explosion-lebanon-israel-gold-apollo
