#FactCheck - Fake Quote Attributed To Manoj Tiwari On Rupee-Dollar Value Goes Viral Online
Executive Summary
A postcard featuring BJP leader Manoj Tiwari is being widely shared on social media with a purported statement attributed to him. The viral postcard claims that Tiwari suggested that if people stopped using the ₹1 coin and treated ₹2 as ₹1, the value of the dollar would automatically come down to ₹45. Users are sharing the post claiming that the BJP leader made the bizarre suggestion to strengthen the Indian rupee against the US dollar.
However, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false. Manoj Tiwari never made any such statement regarding the rupee and the dollar. The BJP MP himself has dismissed the viral claim as fake.
Claim
TMC leader Kirti Azad shared the viral postcard on X and wrote, “As received on X, forwarded as it is. India is truly blessed with such brilliant minds.”
https://x.com/KirtiAzaad/status/2055905987115233473?s=20
Fact Check
A keyword search on Google did not yield any credible media reports suggesting that Manoj Tiwari had made such a statement. No reliable source was found to support the viral claim. Further research led to a clarification posted on Manoj Tiwari’s official Facebook page. In the video statement, Tiwari categorically denied making any such remark about the rupee and the dollar. He stated that the viral claim being circulated in his name was completely fake.
Manoj Tiwari’s clarification video on Facebook
Conclusion
The viral claim is false. Manoj Tiwari never made any statement suggesting that stopping the use of ₹1 and treating ₹2 as ₹1 would strengthen the rupee against the dollar. He has himself denied the claim and called it fake.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
Recently, our team encountered a post on X (formerly Twitter) pretending Chandra Arya, a Member of Parliament of Canada is speaking in Kannada and this video surfaced after he filed his nomination for the much-coveted position of Prime Minister of Canada. The video has taken the internet by storm and is being discussed as much as words can be. In this report, we shall consider the legitimacy of the above claim by examining the content of the video, timing and verifying information from reliable sources.
Claim:
The viral video claims Chandra Arya spoke Kannada after filing his nomination for the Canadian Prime Minister position in 2025, after the resignation of Justin Trudeau.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the video, we performed a reverse image search of the key frames extracted from the video, we found that the video has no connection to any nominations for the Canadian Prime Minister position.Instead, we found that it was an old video of his speech in the Canadian Parliament in 2022. Simultaneously, an old post from the X (Twitter) handle of Mr. Arya’s account was posted at 12:19 AM, May 20, 2022, which clarifies that the speech has no link with the PM Candidature post in the Canadian Parliament.
Further our research led us to a YouTube video posted on a verified channel of Hindustan Times dated 20th May 2022 with a caption -
“India-born Canadian MP Chandra Arya is winning hearts online after a video of his speech at the Canadian Parliament in Kannada went viral. Arya delivered a speech in his mother tongue - Kannada. Arya, who represents the electoral district of Nepean, Ontario, in the House of Commons, the lower house of Canada, tweeted a video of his address, saying Kannada is a beautiful language spoken by about five crore people. He said that this is the first time when Kannada is spoken in any Parliament outside India. Netizens including politicians have lauded Arya for the video.”
Conclusion:
The viral video claiming that Chandra Arya spoke in Kannada after filing his nomination for the Canadian Prime Minister position in 2025 is completely false. The video, dated May 2022, shows Chandra Arya delivering an address in Kannada in the Canadian Parliament, unrelated to any political nominations or events concerning the Prime Minister's post. This incident highlights the need for thorough fact-checking and verifying information from credible sources before sharing.
- Claim: Misleading Claim About Chandra Arya’s PM Candidacy
- Claimed on: X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Social media has become far more than a tool of communication, engagement and entertainment. It shapes politics, community identity, and even shapes agendas. When misused, the consequences can be grave: communal disharmony, riots, false rumours, harassment or worse. Emphasising the need for digital Atmanirbhar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently urged India’s youth to develop the country’s own social media platforms, like Facebook, Instagram and X, to ensure that the nation’s technological ecosystems remain secure and independent, reinforcing digital autonomy. This growing influence of platforms has sharpened the tussle between government regulation, the independence of social media companies, and the protection of freedom of expression in most countries.
Why Government Regulation Is Especially Needed
While self-regulation has its advantages, ‘real-world harms’ show why state oversight cannot be optional:
- Incitement to violence and communal unrest: Misinformation and hate speech can inflame tensions. In Manipur (May 2023), false posts, including unverified sexual-violence claims, spread online, worsening clashes. Authorities shut down mobile internet on 3 May 2023 to curb “disinformation and false rumours,” showing how quickly harmful content can escalate and why enforceable moderation rules matter.
- Fake news and misinformation: False content about health, elections or individuals spreads far faster than corrections. During COVID-19, an “infodemic” of fake cures, conspiracy theories and religious discrimination went viral on WhatsApp and Facebook, starting with false claims that the virus came from eating bats. The WHO warned of serious knock-on effects, and a Reuters Institute study found that although such claims by public figures were fewer, they gained the highest engagement, showing why self-regulation alone often fails to stop it.
Nepal’s Example:
Nepal provides a clear example of the tension between government regulation and the self-regulation tussle of social media. In 2023, the government issued rules requiring all social media platforms, whether local or foreign, to register with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, appoint a local contact person, and comply with Nepali law. By 2025, major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube had not met the registration deadline. In response, the Nepal Telecommunications Authority began blocking unregistered platforms until they complied. While journalists, civil-rights groups and Gen Z criticised the move as potentially limiting free speech and exposing corruption against the government. The government argued it was necessary to stop harmful content and misinformation. The case shows that without enforceable obligations, self-regulation can leave platforms unaccountable, but it must also balance with protecting free speech.
Self-Regulation: Strengths and Challenges
Most social-media companies prefer to self-regulate. They write community rules, trust & safety guidelines, and give users ways to flag harmful posts, and lean on a mix of staff, outside boards and AI filters to handle content that crosses the line. The big advantage here is speed: when something dangerous appears, a platform can react within minutes, far quicker than a court or lawmaker. Because they know their systems inside out, from user habits to algorithmic quirks, they can adapt fast.
But there’s a downside. These platforms thrive on engagement, hence sensational or hateful posts often keep people scrolling longer. That means the very content that makes money can also be the content that most needs moderating , a built-in conflict of interest.
Government Regulation: Strengths and Risks
Public rules make platforms answerable. Laws can require illegal content to be removed, force transparency and protect user rights. They can also stop serious harms such as fake news that might spark violence, and they often feel more legitimate when made through open, democratic processes.
Yet regulation can lag behind technology. Vague or heavy-handed rules may be misused to silence critics or curb free speech. Global enforcement is messy, and compliance can be costly for smaller firms.
Practical Implications & Hybrid Governance
For users, regulation brings clearer rights and safer spaces, but it must be carefully drafted to protect legitimate speech. For platforms, self-regulation gives flexibility but less certainty; government rules provide a level playing field but add compliance costs. For governments, regulation helps protect public safety, reduce communal disharmony, and fight misinformation, but it requires transparency and safeguards to avoid misuse.
Hybrid Approach
A combined model of self-regulation plus government regulation is likely to be most effective. Laws should establish baseline obligations: registration, local grievance officers, timely removal of illegal content, and transparency reporting. Platforms should retain flexibility in how they implement these obligations and innovate with tools for user safety. Independent audits, civil society oversight, and simple user appeals can help keep both governments and platforms accountable.
Conclusion
Social media has great power. It can bring people together, but it can also spread false stories, deepen divides and even stir violence. Acting on their own, platforms can move fast and try new ideas, but that alone rarely stops harmful content. Good government rules can fill the gap by holding companies to account and protecting people’s rights.
The best way forward is to mix both approaches, clear laws, outside checks, open reporting, easy complaint systems and support for local platforms, so the digital space stays safer and more trustworthy.
References
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/need-desi-social-media-platforms-to-secure-digital-sovereignty-pm/articleshow/123327780.cms#
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66255989
- https://nepallawsunshine.com/social-media-registration-in-nepal/ https://www.newsonair.gov.in/nepal-bans-26-unregistered-social-media-sites-including-facebook-whatsapp-instagram/
- https://hbr.org/2021/01/social-media-companies-should-self-regulate-now
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/social-media-regulation-in-india
Executive Summary
A collage of two images circulating on social media is falsely claiming that the street vendor who served jhalmuri to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during an election campaign in Jhargram was actually a personnel from the Special Protection Group (SPG). Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false and misleading, indicating that it is being shared as part of election-related misinformation. The vendor and the SPG personnel seen in the viral collage are two different individuals.
Claim
An X (formerly Twitter) user, “@Jeetuburdak,” shared the viral collage on April 21, 2026, with the caption: “Another scam! The jhalmuri seller turned out to be an SPG commando.” The post quickly gained traction online.
Fact Check
A close examination of the two images used in the collage shows clear visual differences between the individuals. The person seen in SPG uniform does not match the street vendor who served food to the prime minister. Reverse image searches were conducted using multiple tools to trace the origin of the images. While no verifiable source was found linking the SPG personnel’s image to the vendor, several credible reports and videos featured the actual jhalmuri seller from the campaign event.
- https://x.com/ANI/status/2045859146508177911?s=20
- https://news24online.com/cities/kolkata/who-is-the-man-that-served-jhalmuri-to-pm-modi-know-his-daily-income-and-what-he-talked-about-with-pm/811123/
According to media reports, the prime minister briefly stopped at a roadside stall during the campaign in Jhargram and interacted with the vendor while enjoying jhalmuri. The vendor was later interviewed by multiple outlets, further confirming his identity as a local seller. Additionally, technical facial comparison analysis using online tools also indicated that the two individuals in the viral collage are not the same person.
Conclusion
The claim that the jhalmuri vendor was an SPG commando is false and misleading. The viral collage shows two different individuals, and there is no evidence to support the allegation.
