#Fact Check: Viral Footage from Bangladesh Incorrectly Portrayed as Immigrant March for Violence in Assam.

Introduction

‍
In today’s digital era, warfare is being redefined. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently stated that “we are in the age of Grey Zone and hybrid warfare where cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and economic warfare have become tools to achieve politico-military aims without a single shot being fired.” The crippling cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections, and the ransomware strike on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States in 2021 all demonstrate how states are now using cyberspace to achieve strategic goals while carefully circumventing the threshold of open war.

Legal Complexities: Attribution, Response, and Accountability

‍

Grey zone warfare challenges the traditional notions of security and international conventions on peace due to inherent challenges such as :

• Attribution
  The first challenge in cyber warfare is determining who is responsible. Threat actors hide behind rented botnets, fake IP addresses, and servers scattered across the globe. Investigators can follow digital trails, but those trails often point to machines, not people. That makes attribution more of an educated guess than a certainty. A wrong guess could lead to misattribution of blame, which could beget a diplomatic crisis, or worse, a military one.
• Proportional Response
  Even if attribution is clear, designing a response can be a challenge. International law does give room for countermeasures if they are both ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. But defining these qualifiers can be a long-drawn, contested process. Effectively, governments employ softer measures such as protests or sanctions, tighten their cyber defences or, in extreme cases, strike back digitally.
• Accountability
  States can be held responsible for waging cyber attacks under the UN’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility. But these are non-binding and enforcement depends on collective pressure, which can be slow and inconsistent. In cyberspace, accountability often ends up being more symbolic than real, leaving plenty of room for repeat offences.

International and Indian Legal Frameworks

‍

Cyber law is a step behind cyber warfare since existing international frameworks are often inadequate. For example, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the closest thing we have to a rulebook for cyber conflict, is just a set of guidelines. It says that if a cyber operation can be tied to a state, even through hired hackers or proxies, then that state can be held responsible. But attribution is a major challenge. Similarly, the United Nations has tried to build order through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that promotes norms like “don’t attack. However, these norms are not binding, effectively leaving practice to diplomacy and trust.

India is susceptible to routine attacks from hostile actors, but does not yet have a dedicated cyber warfare law.  While Section 66F of the IT ACT, 2000, talks about cyber terrorism, and Section 75 lets Indian courts examine crimes committed abroad if they impact India,  grey-zone tactics like fake news campaigns, election meddling, and influence operations fall into a legal vacuum.

Way Forward

‍

• Strengthen International Cooperation
  Frameworks like the Tallinn Manual 2.0 can form the basis for future treaties. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries are essential to ensure accountability and cooperation in tackling grey zone activities.
• Develop Grey Zone Legislation
  India currently relies on the IT Act, 2000, but this law needs expansion to specifically cover grey zone tactics such as election interference, propaganda, and large-scale disinformation campaigns.
• Establish Active Monitoring Systems
  India must create robust early detection systems to identify grey zone operations in cyberspace. Agencies can coordinate with social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube, which are often exploited for propaganda and disinformation, to improve monitoring frameworks.
• Dedicated Theatre Commands for Cyber Operations
  Along with the existing Defence Cyber Agency, India should consider specialised theatre commands for grey zone and cyber warfare. This would optimise resources, enhance coordination, and ensure unified command in dealing with hybrid threats.

Conclusion

‍

Grey zone warfare in cyberspace is no longer an optional tactic used by threat actors but a routine activity. India lacks the early detection systems, robust infrastructure, and strong cyber laws to counter grey-zone warfare. To counter this, India needs sharper attribution tools for early detection and must actively push for stronger international rules in this global landscape. More importantly, instead of merely blaming without clear plans, India should focus on preparing for solid retaliation strategies. By doing so, India can also learn to use cyberspace strategically to achieve politico-military aims without firing a single shot.

References

‍

• Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Michael N. Schmitt)
• UN Document on International Law in Cyberspace (UN Digital Library)
• NATO Cyber Defence Policy
• Texas Law Review: State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions
• Deccan Herald: Defence Minister on Grey Zone Warfare
• VisionIAS: Grey Zone Warfare
• Sachin Tiwari, The Reality of Cyber Operations in the Grey Zone

‍

Introduction

When a tragedy strikes, moments are fragile, people are vulnerable, emotions run high, and every second is important. In such critical situations, information becomes as crucial as food, water, shelter, and medication. As soon as any information is received, it often leads to stampedes and chaos. Alongside the tragedy, whether natural or man-made, emerges another threat: misinformation. People, desperate for answers, cling to whatever they can find.

Tragedies can take many forms. These may include natural disasters, mass accidents, terrorist activities, or other emergencies. During the 2023 earthquakes in Turkey, misinformation spread on social media claiming that the Yarseli Dam had cracked and was about to burst. People believed it and began migrating from the area. Panic followed, and search and rescue teams stopped operations in that zone. Precious hours were lost. Later, it was confirmed to be a rumour. By then, the damage was already done.

Similarly, after the recent plane crash in Ahmedabad, India, numerous rumours and WhatsApp messages spread rapidly. One message claimed to contain the investigation report on the crash of Air India flight AI-171. It was later called out by PIB and declared fake.

These examples show how misinformation can take control of already painful moments. During emergencies, when emotions are intense and fear is widespread, false information spreads faster and hits harder. Some people share it unknowingly, while others do so to gain attention or push a certain agenda. But for those already in distress, the effect is often the same. It brings ore confusion, heightens anxiety, and adds to their suffering.

‍

Understanding Disasters and the Role of Media in Crisis

Disaster can be defined as a natural or human-caused situation that causes a transformation from a usual life of society into a crisis that is far beyond its existing response capacity. It can have minimal or maximum effects, from mere disruption in daily life practices to as adverse as inability to meet basic requirements of life like food, water and shelter. Hence, the disaster is not just a sudden event. It becomes a disaster when it overwhelms a community’s ability to cope with it. 

To cope with such situations, there is an organised approach called Disaster Management.  It includes preventive measures, minimising damages and helping communities recover. Earlier, public institutions like governments used to be the main actors in disaster management, but today, with every small entity having a role, academic institutions, media outlets and even ordinary people are involved. 

Communication is an important element in disaster management. It saves lives when done correctly. People who are vulnerable need to know what’s happening, what they should do and where to seek help.  It involves risk in today’s instantaneous communication. 

Research shows that the media often fails to focus on disaster preparedness. For example, studies found that during the 2019 Istanbul earthquake, the media focused more on dramatic scenes than on educating people. Similar trends were seen during the 2023 Turkey earthquakes. Rather than helping people prepare or stay calm, much of the media coverage amplified fear and sensationalised suffering. This shows a shift from preventive, helpful reporting to reactive, emotional storytelling. In doing so, the media sometimes fails in its duty to support resilience and worse, can become a channel for spreading misinformation during already traumatic events. However, fighting misinformation is not just someone’s liability. It is penalised in the official disaster management strategy. Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 mentions that "Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine."

‍

AI as a Tool in Countering Misinformation 

AI has emerged as a powerful mechanism to fight against misinformation. AI technologies like Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) are effective in spotting and classifying misinformation with up to 97% accuracy. AI flags unverified content, leading to a 24% decrease in shares and 7% drop in likes on platforms like TikTok.  Up to 95% fewer people view content on Facebook when fact-checking labels are used. Facebook AI also eliminates 86% of graphic violence, 96% of adult nudity, 98.5% of fake accounts and 99.5% of content related to terrorism. These tools help rebuild public trust in addition to limiting the dissemination of harmful content. In 2023, support for tech companies acting to combat misinformation rose to 65%, indicating a positive change in public expectations and awareness.

‍

How to Counter Misinformation

Experts should step up in such situations. Social media has allowed many so-called experts to spread fake information without any real knowledge, research, or qualification. In such conditions, real experts such as authorities, doctors, scientists, public health officials, researchers, etc., need to take charge. They can directly address the myths and false claims and stop misinformation before it spreads further and reduce confusion. 

Responsible journalism is crucial during crises. In times of panic, people look at the media for guidance. Hence, it is important to fact-check every detail before publishing. Reporting that is based on unclear tips, social media posts, or rumours can cause major harm by inciting mistrust, fear, or even dangerous behaviour. Cross-checking information, depending on reliable sources and promptly fixing errors are all components of responsible journalism. Protecting the public is more important than merely disseminating the news.

Focus on accuracy rather than speed. News spreads in a blink in today's world. Media outlets and influencers often come under pressure to publish it first.  But in tragic situations like natural disasters and disease outbreaks, rushing to come first is not as important as accuracy is, as a single piece of misinformation can spark mass-scale panic and can slow down emergency efforts and lead people to make rash decisions. Taking a little more time to check the facts ensures that the information being shared is helpful, not harmful. Accuracy may save numerous lives during tragedies. 

Misinformation spreads quickly it can only be prevented if people learn to critically evaluate what they hear and see. This entails being able to spot biased or deceptive headlines, cross-check claims and identify reliable sources.  Digital literacy is of utmost importance; it makes people less susceptible to fear-based rumours, conspiracy theories and hoaxes. 

Disaster preparedness programs should include awareness about the risks of spreading unverified information. Communities, schools and media platforms must educate people on how to respond responsibly during emergencies by staying calm, checking facts and sharing only credible updates. Spreading fake alerts or panic-inducing messages during a crisis is not only dangerous, but it can also have legal consequences. Public communication must focus on promoting trust, calm and clarity. When people understand the weight their words can carry during a crisis, they become part of the solution, not the problem.

References: 

1. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3556152 
2. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf 
3. https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/fake-whatsapp-message-air-india-crash-pib-fact-check-fcwmvuyc ‍
4. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf

Introduction

In the vast, cosmic-like expanse of international relations, a sphere marked by the gravitational pull of geopolitical interests, a singular issue has emerged, casting a long shadow over the fabric of Indo-Canadian diplomacy. It is a narrative spun from an intricate loom, interlacing the yarns of espionage and political machinations, shadowboxing with the transient, yet potent, specter of state-sanctioned violence. The recent controversy undulating across this geopolitical landscape owes its origins to the circulation of claims which the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) vehemently dismisses as a distorted tapestry of misinformation—a phantasmagoric fable divorced from reality. 

This maelstrom of contention orbits around the alleged existence of a 'secret memo', a document reportedly dispatched with stealth from the helm of the Indian government to its consulates peppered across the vast North American continent. This mysterious communique, assuming its spectral presence within the report, was described as a directive catalyzing a 'sophisticated crackdown scheme' against specific Sikh diaspora organizations. A proclamation that MEA has repudiated with adamantine certainty, branding the report as a meticulously fabricated fiction.

THE MEA Stance 

The official statement from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) emerged as a paragon of clarity cutting through the dense fog of accusations, 'We strongly assert that such reports are fake and emphatically concocted. The referenced memo is non-existent. This narrative is a chapter in the protracted saga of a disinformation campaign aimed against India.' The outlet responsible for airing this contentious story, as per the Indian authorities, has a historical penchant for circulating narratives aligned with the interests of rival intelligence agencies, particularly those associated with Pakistani strategic circles—a claim infusing yet another complex layer to the situation at hand.

The report that catapulted itself onto the stage with the force of an untamed tempest insists the 'secret memo' was decked with several names—all belonging to individuals under the hawk-like gaze of Indian intelligence. 

The Plague of Disinformation

The profoundly intricate confluence of diplomacy is one that commands grace, poise, and an acute sense of balance—nations effortlessly tip-toeing around sensitivities, proffering reciprocity and an equitable stance within the grand ballroom of international affairs. Hence, when S. Jaishankar, India's Minister of External Affairs, found himself fielding inquiries on the perceived inconsistent treatment afforded to Canada compared to the US—despite similar claims emanating from both—his response was the embodiment of diplomatic discretion: 'As far as Canada is concerned, there was a glaring absence of specific evidence or inputs provided to us. The robust question of equitable treatment between two nations, where only one has furnished substantive input and the other has not, is naturally unmerited.'

The articulation from the Ministry's spokesperson, Arindam Bagchi, further solidified India's stance. He calls into question the credibility of The Intercept—the publication that initially disseminated the report—accusing it of acting as a vessel for 'invented narratives' propagated under the auspices of Pakistani intelligence interests.

Conclusion 

In the grand theater of international politics, the distinction between reality and deception is frequently obscured by the heavy drapes of secrecy and diplomatic guile. The persistent denial by the Indian government of any 'secret memo' serves as a critical reminder of the blurred lines between narrative and counter-narrative in the global concert of power and persuasion. As observant spectators within the arena of world politics, we are endowed with the unenviable task of untangling the convoluted web of claims and counterclaims, hoping to uncover the enduring truths that linger therein. In this domain of authentic and imaginary tales, the only unwavering certainty is the persistent rhythm of diplomatic interplay and the subtle shadows it casts upon the international stage. The Ministry of External Affairs fact-checked a claim on the secret memo, rubbishing it as fake and fabricated. The government has said there is a deliberate disinformation campaign that has been on against India. 

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mea-denies-report-it-issued-secret-memo-on-nijjar-to-missions/articleshow/105884217.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-denies-secret-memo-against-nijjar-report-peddled-by-pak-intelligence-101702229753576.html