#FactCheck - Manipulated Image Alleging Disrespect Towards PM Circulates Online
Executive Summary:
A manipulated image showing someone making an offensive gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is circulating on social media. However, the original photo does not display any such behavior towards the Prime Minister. The CyberPeace Research Team conducted an analysis and found that the genuine image was published in a Hindustan Times article in May 2019, where no rude gesture was visible. A comparison of the viral and authentic images clearly shows the manipulation. Moreover, The Hitavada also published the same image in 2019. Further investigation revealed that ABPLive also had the image.
Claims:
A picture showing an individual making a derogatory gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely shared across social media platforms.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the news, we immediately ran a reverse search of the image and found an article by Hindustan Times, where a similar photo was posted but there was no sign of such obscene gestures shown towards PM Modi.
ABP Live and The Hitavada also have the same image published on their website in May 2019.
Comparing both the viral photo and the photo found on official news websites, we found that almost everything resembles each other except the derogatory sign claimed in the viral image.
With this, we have found that someone took the original image, published in May 2019, and edited it with a disrespectful hand gesture, and which has recently gone viral across social media and has no connection with reality.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a manipulated picture circulating online showing someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been debunked by the Cyberpeace Research team. The viral image is just an edited version of the original image published in 2019. This demonstrates the need for all social media users to check/ verify the information and facts before sharing, to prevent the spread of fake content. Hence the viral image is fake and Misleading.
- Claim: A picture shows someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi
- Claimed on: X, Instagram
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
In the labyrinthine corridors of the digital age, where information zips across the globe with the ferocity of a tempest, the truth often finds itself ensnared in a web of deception. It is within this intricate tapestry of reality and falsehood that we find ourselves examining two distinct yet equally compelling cases of misinformation, each a testament to the pervasive challenges that beset our interconnected world.
Case 1: The Deceptive Video: Originating in Malaysia, Misattributed to Indian Railway Development
A misleading video claiming to showcase Indian railway construction has been debunked as footage from Malaysia's East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). Fact-checking efforts by India TV traced the video's origin to Malaysia, revealing deceptive captions in Tamil and Hindi. The video was initially posted on Twitter on January 9, 2024, announcing the commencement of track-laying for Malaysia's East Coast Railway. Further investigation reveals the ECRL as a joint venture between Malaysia and China, involving the laying of tracks along the east coast, challenging assertions of Indian railway development. The ECRL's track-laying initiative, initiated in December 2023, is part of China's Belt and Road initiative, covering 665 kilometers across states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, and Selangor, with a completion target set for 2025.
The video in question, a digital chameleon, had its origins not in the bustling landscapes of India but within the verdant bounds of Malaysia. Specifically, it was a scene captured from the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, a monumental joint venture between Malaysia and China, unfurling across 665 kilometers of Malaysian terrain. This ambitious endeavor, part of the grand Belt and Road initiative, is a testament to the collaborative spirit that defines our era, with tracks stretching from Kelantan to Selangor, and a completion horizon set for the year 2025.
The unveiling of this grand project was graced by none other than Malaysia’s King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, in Pahang, underscoring the strategic alliance with China and the infrastructural significance of the ECRL. Yet, despite the clarity of its origins, the video found itself cloaked in a narrative of Indian development, a falsehood that spread like wildfire across the digital savannah.
Through the meticulous application of keyframe analysis and reverse image searches, the truth was laid bare. Reports from reputable sources such as the Associated Press and the Global Times, featuring the very same machinery, corroborated the video's true lineage. This revelation not only highlighted the ECRL's geopolitical import but also served as a clarion call for the critical role of fact-checking in an era where misinformation proliferates with reckless abandon.
Case 2: Kerala's Incident: Investigating Fake Narratives
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has registered 53 cases related to spreading fake narratives on social media to incite communal sentiments following the blasts at a Christian religious gathering in October 2023. Vijayan said cases have been registered against online news portals, editors, and Malayalam television channels. The state police chief has issued directions to monitor social media to stop fake news spread and take appropriate actions.
In a different corner of the world, the serene backdrop of Kerala was shattered by an event that would ripple through the fabric of its society. The Kalamassery blast, a tragic occurrence at a Christian religious gathering, claimed the lives of eight individuals and left over fifty wounded. In the wake of this calamity, a man named Dominic Martin surrendered, claiming responsibility for the heinous act.
Yet, as the investigation unfolded, a different kind of violence emerged—one that was waged not with explosives but with words. A barrage of fake narratives began to circulate through social media, igniting communal tensions and distorting the narrative of the incident. The Kerala Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, informed the Assembly that 53 cases had been registered across the state, targeting individuals and entities that had fanned the flames of discord through their digital utterances.
The Kerala police, vigilant guardians of truth, embarked on a digital crusade to quell the spread of these communally instigative messages. With a particular concentration of cases in Malappuram district, the authorities worked tirelessly to dismantle the network of fake profiles that propagated religious hatred. Social media platforms were directed to assist in this endeavor, revealing the IP addresses of the culprits and enabling the cyber cell divisions to take decisive action.
In the aftermath of the blasts, the Chief Minister and the state police chief ordered special instructions to monitor social media platforms for content that could spark communal uproar. Cyber patrolling became the order of the day, as a 20-member probe team was constituted to deeply investigate the incident.
Conclusion
These two cases, disparate in their nature and geography, converge on a singular point: the fragility of truth in the digital age. They highlight the imperative for vigilance and the pursuit of accuracy in a world where misinformation can spread like wildfire. As we navigate this intricate cyberscape, it is imperative to be mindful of the power of fact-checking and the importance of media literacy, for they are the light that guides us through the fog of falsehoods to the shores of veracity.
These narratives are not merely stories of deception thwarted; they are a call to action, a reminder of our collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity of our shared reality. Let us, therefore, remain steadfast in our quest for the truth, for it is only through such diligence that we can hope to preserve the sanctity of our discourse and the cohesion of our societies.
References:
- https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-misleading-video-claims-malaysian-rail-project-indian-truth-ecrl-india-railway-development-pm-modi-2024-01-29-914282
- https://sahilonline.org/kalamasserry-blast-53-cases-registered-across-kerala-for-spreading-fake-news
A news graphic bearing the Navbharat Times logo is being widely circulated on social media. The graphic claims that religious preacher Devkinandan Thakur made an extremely offensive and casteist remark targeting the ‘Shudra’ community. Social media users are sharing the graphic and claiming that the statement was actually made by Devkinandan Thakur. Cyber Peace Foundation’s research and verification found that the claim being shared online is misleading. Our research found that the viral news graphic is completely fake and that Devkinandan Thakur did not make any such casteist statement.
Claim
A viral news graphic claims that Devkinandan Thakur made a derogatory and caste-based statement about Shudras.On 17 January 2026, an Instagram user shared the viral graphic with the caption, “This is probably the formula of Ram Rajya.”The text on the graphic reads: “People of Shudra castes reproduce through sexual intercourse, whereas Brahmins give birth to children after marriage through the power of their mantras, without intercourse.” The graphic also carries Devkinandan Thakur’s photograph and identifies him as a ‘Kathavachak’ (religious storyteller).
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we first searched for relevant keywords on Google. However, no credible or verified media reports were found supporting the claim. In the next stage of verification, we found a post published by NBT Hindi News (Navbharat Times) on X (formerly Twitter) on 17 January 2026, in which the organisation explicitly debunked the viral graphic. Navbharat Times clarified that the graphic circulating online was fake and also shared the original and authentic post related to the news.
Further research led us to Devkinandan Thakur’s official Facebook account, where he posted a clarification on 17 January 2026. In his post, he stated that anti-social elements are creating fake ‘Sanatani’ profiles and spreading false news, misusing the names of reputed media houses and platforms to mislead and divide people. He described the viral content as part of a deliberate conspiracy and fake agenda aimed at weakening unity. He also warned that AI-generated fake videos and fabricated statements are increasingly being used to create confusion, mistrust and division.
Devkinandan Thakur urged people not to believe or share any post, news or video without verification, and advised checking information through official websites, verified social media accounts or trusted sources.
Conclusion
The viral news graphic attributing a casteist statement to Devkinandan Thakur is completely fake.Devkinandan Thakur did not make the alleged remark, and the graphic circulating with the Navbharat Times logo is fabricated.
When your digital identity becomes raw material for someone else’s imagination, who really owns your face?
On July 7, 2026, Meta launched Muse Image, the first standalone image-generation model developed by Meta Superintelligence Labs under Alexandr Wang. Positioned as a competitor to OpenAI’s GPT Images 2.0 and Google’s Nano Banana 2, the launch highlights Meta’s growing ambitions in the generative AI race. Yet beneath the technical advancements lies a far more consequential question than what AI can create, but about who gets to decide what it creates with?
That ambition of generative AI comes with a cost, and one of Muse Image's most controversial design choices is its integration with Instagram, which allows public profiles to become creative references for AI-generated images. Users can tag public Instagram accounts in prompts and generate AI images inspired by that person’s publicly available content. Meta presents this as a new form of personalization and creativity. However, critics argue that the feature transforms years of personal photographs into a massive library of AI-ready human identities, where non-action automatically becomes permission. The concern is not just that AI can generate realistic images. The concern is that consent itself is being manipulated in a way.
The opt-out system most users never asked for
Muse Image operates through Meta AI’s integration with Instagram. A user can reference a public Instagram profile in a prompt, allowing the system to generate images influenced by that person’s existing content and likeness. Under the default arrangement, the person whose profile is being referenced may not necessarily approve the generation beforehand.
Meta does provide users with controls to restrict this functionality. The setting exists under Instagram’s “Sharing and reuse” options, where users can disable permissions related to the use of their posts and reels with Meta’s AI features. But the larger issue is the direction in which responsibility flows. Instead of requiring active permission before someone’s likeness becomes available for AI-generated content, the burden is placed on individuals to discover the feature, understand the implications, locate the setting, and disable it. In a digital environment where users already navigate endless privacy menus, cookie banners, and terms of service agreements, expecting meaningful awareness from billions of people becomes unrealistic. Consent that depends on finding the exit door is very different from consent that begins with a choice.
A guide for opting-out
One way of opting out is to have a private account. As verified, Meta does not encroach on private accounts as of now for image-generation.
But if you have a public account, here are the steps that can be followed to secure yourself from Meta’s Muse automatic consent:
On your profile, tap the menu bar which is on the top right (≡), you will enter into ‘setting and activity’, after that you will see an option of ‘sharing and refuse’ and then disable the options under it, namely- Allow people to reuse your content on Instagram and with AI features at Meta. Notably, the changes made will be only for your future content not the already existing content on your public profile.
Why “public” does not mean “available for anything”
The debate around Muse Image highlights a deeper misunderstanding at the center of modern digital platforms: the difference between visibility and reuse. When someone makes an Instagram account public, they are generally making a decision about the audience. They are allowing others to view their photos, discover their profile, or engage with their content. That decision was never traditionally understood as permission for their face, appearance, personal moments, or identity markers to become reusable components in AI-generated media. A photograph posted online has context. It represents a specific moment, purpose, relationship, or expression. Generative AI changes that equation because it separates identity from context. A person’s likeness can be extracted from its original context and placed into entirely new situations created by someone else. Muse Image does not just expand who can see your content. It expands what can be done with it. That distinction is what scales the problem for every public user on the app. The privacy implications become significantly larger because of Instagram’s global reach. With billions of users worldwide, even a small percentage of affected public accounts represents an enormous number of people. Many public profiles do not belong to celebrities, influencers, or creators who intentionally operate as public brands. They belong to students, professionals, small businesses, artists, photographers, and everyday users who simply chose visibility within a social network.
For years, platforms encouraged people to share more, build audiences, and maintain a public digital presence. Now, the meaning of that public presence is changing after the fact. The question becomes: should a decision made years ago to share photos socially automatically extend into permission for generative AI systems built years later?
There is also a catch while opting out. Changing these settings only protects your content from being used in future AI generations, it does not undo anything that has already happened. Any AI images previously created using your public profile will remain unaffected. Essentially, the opt-out works as a shield for what comes next, not a reset button for what has already been created.
A familiar pattern in the AI era
Muse Image reflects a broader pattern emerging across the technology industry. New AI capabilities are introduced at massive scale, participation becomes the default, and individual control arrives afterward through settings that many users may never find. The same debates that once surrounded targeted advertising, data collection, and algorithmic profiling are now moving into a far more personal territory, the human identity itself. Faces are not ordinary data points. Unlike a username, password, or preference setting, a person cannot simply replace their appearance once it has been widely replicated.
Technical solutions such as AI watermarking and content labels may help identify generated material, but they address authenticity after creation. They do not answer the question of whether the generation should have happened in the first place.
Innovation cannot replace consent
The technological progress behind Muse Image is significant. Better image generation, improved text rendering, and more personalized creative tools represent genuine advances in artificial intelligence. But capability alone cannot determine acceptability. The future of AI will not only depend on how realistic images become, how powerful models become, or how quickly companies can deploy new features. It will also depend on whether people feel they have meaningful control over their own digital identities. Muse Image is therefore more than another AI product launch. It represents a defining question for the next phase of the internet: Will our online presence remain something we control, or will it become something others can generate?
