#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows PM Modi Praising Christianity

Introduction

‍

We live in a time where technological change is no longer slow or subtle. Robotics, automation, artificial intelligence, and digital systems are transforming the way we work, think, and even imagine the future. This is often celebrated as great progress. But a deeper question quietly waits behind the noise. Is every advancement truly an uplift when seen through the lens of scriptures, culture, and Indian philosophical thought? Are we creating for the good of humanity, or are we only chasing convenience and speed? And what kind of future are we actually preparing, not just for ourselves, but for those who will be born into this world shaped by these tools from the very beginning?

India has long been seen as a land that values balance, purity, and harmony with nature. Its rivers, mountains, forests, and traditions are not just geography or history, they are part of a civilizational way of thinking that connects life, duty, and responsibility. In this context, it becomes important to ask what the long-term cost of our technological appetite might be. Every invention has a footprint. Industries change landscapes. Energy demands reshape ecosystems. Convenience today often hides consequences that only appear years later. Progress, when measured only in speed and output, forgets to ask what it takes away in silence.

There is also a quieter change happening inside the human mind. As tools become smarter, humans begin to feel more powerful. The thought slowly shifts from “I can use this” to “I control this.” With artificial intelligence, the language becomes even bolder. We start hearing phrases like “we can create worlds, faces, voices, even minds.” But history have always warned us about ‘overreach’. Not because power is evil, but because pride blinds judgment. When ability grows faster than wisdom, imbalance follows. We can already see early signs of this in concerns about shrinking attention spans, weakening cognitive habits, and a growing dependence on systems that think for us before we learn to think for ourselves deeply.

None of this is an argument to reject innovation. The idea is not to blacklist technology or romanticise the past. The real question is about direction and responsibility. Advancements are not only for the comfort of the present generation. They shape the mental, moral, and emotional world of future generations who will grow up surrounded by these systems as something normal and unavoidable. What values will guide that world? What habits will it encourage? What will it quietly take away?

This is where the richness of Indian thought becomes relevant, not as nostalgia, but as guidance. Ideas of dharma, restraint, balance, and ethical action were never anti-progress. They were reminders that power without responsibility becomes dangerous, and that ability without humility leads to decline. In modern terms, we talk about safety by design, ethical innovation, and human-centred technology. In older language, we talked about duty, limits, and the consequences of unchecked desire. The words have changed, but the concern is the same.

Perhaps the real question is not whether we are becoming creators, but whether we remember that we are also caretakers. We do not bring existence out of nothing. We reshape what already exists. And in that reshaping, the line between wisdom and arrogance, between progress and pride, becomes the most important line of all. 

‍

The futuristic impact of AI, robotics, and technologies

‍

In every yuga, humans have extended the limits of what they can do. What changes is not the desire, but the form it takes. Our ancient history speak of extraordinary abilities, not as fantasies, but as reminders of how power tests character. Figures like Naradmuni (a prominent divine sage (Rishiraja) in Hinduism) are described as moving from one place to another in moments. Others gained immense strength, knowledge, or influence through years of discipline and tapasya. Ravana (Figure from Ramayana) himself was learned and powerful, far beyond ordinary human measure. Sanjaya (the charioteer and advisor of King Dhritarashtra in the Mahabharata) receives the gift of divya drishti and narrates the events of the battlefield without being physically present there, seeing and speaking across distance in a way that still feels remarkable even today.

In this yuga, that ancient search for power and reach has not disappeared, it has only changed its language, and today it speaks through robotics, artificial intelligence, and advanced technologies, making us ask whether we are truly creators or only very advanced arrangers of what already exists.

In this age, science and technology are attempting something similar in a different language. We may not travel like Naradmuni, but we send our voices, images, and thoughts across the world in seconds. We build machines that can see, listen, respond, and even imitate human thinking. Artificial intelligence and robotics promise comfort, speed, and efficiency, and in many ways, they truly improve human life. Yet the old question remains. Not just what can we do, but how far should we go, and at what cost.

When we primarily build for human convenience, we often fail to thoroughly examine the long-term consequences. The environmental impact of large-scale technology is already visible in the pressure on resources, the growth of waste, and the slow damage to air, water, and soil. Nature does not recover at the pace of human ambition. What feels like small compromises today can become heavy burdens for tomorrow.

There is also the impact on the human mind. As systems become more capable, humans risk becoming more dependent. When answers arrive instantly, patience weakens. When machines start deciding for us, the habit of deep thinking slowly fades. Over time, this can affect attention, memory, and judgment. Knowledge becomes easier to reach, but wisdom becomes harder to build. Just as in old stories, the danger is not in having power, but in losing clarity while using it.

Future generations will not encounter these technologies as new inventions. They will be born into them. What we treat today as tools, they will experience as the normal environment of life. This makes responsibility unavoidable. The real question is not only whether these systems work, but what kind of humans they will shape.

The purpose of this reflection is not to reject progress. It is to ask for balance. Building for human comfort is important, but building without studying long-term impact is risky. If this age has the power to create intelligent systems, it must also have the wisdom to protect the environment, care for future generations, and preserve the depth of the human mind. Otherwise, advancement becomes speed without direction, and power without responsibility.

‍

The Acceleration of the Technological Age

‍

The current era has reached a state where technological progress now occurs through instantaneous changes which transform our methods of working and decision-making and future planning. People often view robotics and automation and artificial intelligence as signs of progress yet a less audible inquiry persists through time which asks whether every technological advancement enhances human existence or whether we merely pursue efficient and easy solutions without thinking about their implications. Indian philosophical thought offers a useful lens here, one that does not reject progress but asks whether it aligns with balance, responsibility, and long-term harmony. The definition of intelligence according to this perspective extends beyond computational skills and pattern imitation because it requires people to achieve awareness and intent and their complete understanding. Current machines possess the ability to mimic human reasoning and produce language while they can replicate decision-making processes, but they lack both consciousness and personal experience. 

‍

Power, Responsibility, and Ethical Imbalance

‍

The development of new technological capabilities brings with it ethical responsibilities which every society must handle. Human beings must take on new ethical duties which match their increasing capabilities according to historical evidence. The current situation shows that people create new things at a speed which exceeds their ability to think about those innovations. Systems exist to enhance operational performance while they determine human actions and extend their power but they do not always evaluate their complete impact. Indian traditions emphasize dharma, the principle of balance and rightful action, which shows that power without ethical grounding creates destructive human force. The state of imbalance exists without showing its presence at all times. The process of imbalance development takes place through three channels: environmental degradation, social inequalities, and the gradual decline of human control.

The current society demonstrates this transformation through its existing results. The algorithms now determine our consumption choices and our methods of understanding everything around us. The system provides users with personalized comfort, but it also creates hidden patterns that determine their preferences. The process starts with decision assistance before it progresses to decision influence which eventually leads to decision conditioning. The concept of swatantrata as inner freedom becomes more complicated within such an environment. People stop making freedom choices when they find it easier to select between things that exist in their surroundings because they lose their ability to choose. People start to measure their work activities and personal identity through systems that use optimization techniques and digital validation systems, which leads to a decrease of space that exists for individuals to think and consider matters independently.

‍

Technology, Ecology, and Civilizational Values

‍

The environmental impact of technological demand exists together with social transformations. All systems need power while all infrastructure creates environmental effects and all products, we use contain unknown expenses which become apparent after many years. India's civilizational values maintain their dedication to nature because people see rivers and forests and ecosystems as essential parts of existence. Success in modern society measures output as the main achievement while actual value disappears through the evaluation process. The future requires us to create new things but we must also decide which things to keep intact.

The current situation requires progress to be defined differently because it needs to be measured through precise management instead of continuous rapid development. The question now extends beyond technological advancement to include the need for technologies to be operated through intelligent guidance. The increasing abilities of machines create a greater need for people to maintain their essential human characteristics. Human beings must actively maintain their capacity to make ethical decisions and understand their life's meaning and purpose. The future depends on two factors: the “innovations that will emerge and the values that will guide their development.”

‍

Conclusion

‍

It is high time we pause and honestly examine the path we are taking. The question is not whether technology should grow, but whether its overreach should be allowed to shape the future without restraint. We are building faster than ever, developing systems that touch every part of life. That makes it even more important to study their long-term impact, not only on markets or productivity, but on nature, on the human mind, and on the generations who will inherit this tech-driven world.

Progress should benefit those who come after us, not quietly weaken them. A future where people are born into pure convenience, surrounded by tools that think, decide, and act for them, may look comfortable, but comfort alone does not build strong, aware, or responsible human beings. Growth without effort and ease without discipline slowly takes away depth, resilience, and clarity. Technology should support human potential, not replace it.

This is why morality, ethics, and balance cannot be treated as optional ideas. They must guide innovation, not follow it. We do not need to overcreate. We need to create ‘wisely’. We need to build systems that remain under human control, not systems that slowly train humans to surrender their judgment, attention, and responsibility. Tools should remain tools. They should serve life, not define it.

Indian thought has always placed intention at the centre of action. Karma is not judged only by outcome, but by the spirit in which an act is performed. A tool in itself is neither pure nor impure. It becomes one or the other through the hand that uses it. This is a lens through which modern technology can also be examined. Artificial intelligence can help doctors read scans faster, help farmers predict weather patterns, and help students in remote areas access knowledge. At the same time, it can be used to watch, to sort, to exclude, and to reduce human beings to data points that fit neatly into a system. The difference lies not in the machine, but in the values of those who design and deploy it.

The purpose of this reflection is simple. We should build, but we should build with responsibility. We should innovate, but with awareness of consequences. True progress is not just about what is possible today. It is about what remains healthy, meaningful, and sustainable tomorrow. If this age can combine intelligence with humility, and power with restraint, then technology will not become a symbol of overreach. It will become a sign of maturity.

‍

Introduction

‍

In today’s hyper-connected world, information spreads faster than ever before. But while much attention is focused on public platforms like Facebook and Twitter, a different challenge lurks in the shadows: misinformation circulating on encrypted and closed-network platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram. Unlike open platforms where harmful content can be flagged in public, private groups operate behind a digital curtain. Here, falsehoods often spread unchecked, gaining legitimacy because they are shared by trusted contacts. This makes encrypted platforms a double-edged sword. It is essential for privacy and free expression, yet uniquely vulnerable to misuse.

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi rightly reminded,

‍

‍“Think 10 times before forwarding anything,” warning that even a “single fake news has the capability to snowball into a matter of national concern.”

‍

The Moderation Challenge with End-to-End Encryption

‍

Encrypted messaging platforms were built to protect personal communication. Yet, the same end-to-end encryption that shields users’ privacy also creates a blind spot for moderation. Authorities, researchers, and even the platforms themselves cannot view content circulating in private groups, making fact-checking nearly impossible.

Trust within closed groups makes the problem worse. When a message comes from family, friends, or community leaders, people tend to believe it without questioning and quickly pass it along. Features like large group chats, broadcast lists, and “forward to many” options further speed up its spread. Unlike open networks, there is no public scrutiny, no visible counter-narrative, and no opportunity for timely correction.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims about vaccines spread widely through WhatsApp groups, undermining public health campaigns. Even more alarming, WhatsApp rumors about child kidnappers and cow meat in India triggered mob lynchings, leading to the tragic loss of life.

Encrypted platforms, therefore, represent a unique challenge: they are designed to protect privacy, but, unintentionally, they also protect the spread of dangerous misinformation.

‍

Approaches to Curbing Misinformation on End-to-End Platforms

‍

• Regulatory: Governments worldwide are exploring ways to access encrypted data on messaging platforms, creating tensions between the right to user privacy and crime prevention. Approaches like traceability requirements on WhatsApp, data-sharing mandates for platforms in serious cases, and stronger obligations to act against harmful viral content are also being considered.
• Technological Interventions: Platforms like WhatsApp have introduced features such as “forwarded many times” labels and limits on mass forwarding. These tools can be expanded further by introducing AI-driven link-checking and warnings for suspicious content.

• Community-Based Interventions: Ultimately, no regulation or technology can succeed without public awareness. People need to be inoculated against misinformation through pre-bunking efforts and digital literacy campaigns. Fact-checking websites and tools also have to be taught.

‍

Best Practices for Netizens

‍

Experts recommend simple yet powerful habits that every user can adopt to protect themselves and others. By adopting these, ordinary users can become the first line of defence against misinformation in their own communities:

• Cross-Check Before Forwarding: Verify claims from trusted platforms & official sources.
• Beware of Sensational Content: Headlines that sound too shocking or dramatic probably need checking. Consult multiple sources for a piece of news. If only one platform/ channel is carrying sensational news, it is likely to be clickbait or outright false.
• Stick to Trusted News Sources: Verify news through national newspapers and expert commentary. Remember, not everything on the internet/television is true.
• Look Out for Manipulated Media: Now, with AI-generated deepfakes, it becomes more difficult to tell the difference between original and manipulated media. Check for edited images, cropped videos, or voice messages without source information. Always cross-verify any media received.
• Report Harmful Content: Report misinformation to the platform it is being circulated on and PIB’s Fact Check Unit.

‍

Conclusion

‍

In closed, unmonitored groups, platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram often become safe havens where people trust and forward messages from friends and family without question. Once misinformation takes root, it becomes extremely difficult to challenge or correct, and over time, such actions can snowball into serious social, economic and national concerns.

Preventing this is a matter of shared responsibility. Governments can frame balanced regulations, but individuals must also take initiative: pause, think, and verify before sharing. Ultimately, the right to privacy must be upheld, but with reasonable safeguards to ensure it is not misused at the cost of societal trust and safety.

‍

References

‍

• India WhatsApp ‘child kidnap’ rumours claim two more victims (BBC) The people trying to fight fake news in India (BBC)
• Press Information Bureau – PIB Fact Check
• Brookings Institution – Encryption and Misinformation Report (2021)
• Curtis, T. L., Touzel, M. P., Garneau, W., Gruaz, M., Pinder, M., Wang, L. W., Krishna, S., Cohen, L., Godbout, J.-F., Rabbany, R., & Pelrine, K. (2024). Veracity: An Open-Source AI Fact-Checking System. arXiv.
• NDTV – PM Modi cautions against fake news (2022)
• Times of India – Govt may insist on WhatsApp traceability (2019)
• Medianama – Telegram refused to share ISIS channel data (2019)

‍

Introduction:

This Op-ed sheds light on the perspectives of the US and China regarding cyber espionage. Additionally, it seeks to analyze China's response to the US accusation regarding cyber espionage.

What is Cyber espionage?

Cyber espionage or cyber spying is the act of obtaining personal, sensitive, or proprietary information from individuals without their knowledge or consent. In an increasingly transparent and technological society, the ability to control the private information an individual reveals on the Internet and the ability of others to access that information are a growing concern. This includes storage and retrieval of e-mail by third parties, social media, search engines, data mining, GPS tracking, the explosion of smartphone usage, and many other technology considerations. In the age of big data, there is a growing concern for privacy issues surrounding the storage and misuse of personal data and non-consensual mining of private information by companies, criminals, and governments. 

Cyber espionage aims for economic, political, and technological gain. Fox example Stuxnet (2010) cyber-attack by the US and its allies Israel against Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Three espionage tools were discovered connected to Stuxnet, such as Gauss, FLAME and DuQu, for stealing data such as passwords, screenshots, Bluetooth, Skype functions, etc.

Cyber espionage is one of the most significant and intriguing international challenges globally. Many nations and international bodies, such as the US and China, have created their definitions and have always struggled over cyber espionage norms.

The US Perspective

In 2009, US officials (along with other allied countries) mentioned that cyber espionage was acceptable if it safeguarded national security, although they condemned economically motivated cyber espionage. Even the Director of National Intelligence said in 2013 that foreign intelligence capabilities cannot steal foreign companies' trade secrets to benefit their firms. This stance is consistent with the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, particularly Section 1831, which prohibits economic espionage. This includes the theft of a trade secret that "will benefit any foreign government, foreign agent or foreign instrumentality. 

Second, the US advocates for cybersecurity market standards and strongly opposes transferring personal data extracted from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to cybercrime markets. Furthermore, China has been reported to sell OPM data on illicit markets. It became a grave concern for the US government when the Chinese government managed to acquire sensitive details of 22.1 million US government workers through cyber intrusions in 2014.

Third, Cyber-espionage is acceptable unless it’s utilized for Doxing, which involves disclosing personal information about someone online without their consent and using it as a tool for political influence operations. However, Western academics and scholars have endeavoured to distinguish between doxing and whistleblowing. They argue that whistleblowing, exemplified by events like the Snowden Leaks and Vault 7 disclosures, serves the interests of US citizens. In the US, being regarded as an open society, certain disclosures are not promoted but rather required by mandate.

Fourth, the US argues that there is no cyber espionage against critical infrastructure during peacetime. According to the US, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, nuclear, energy, defence, food, water, and so on. These sectors are considered essential to the US, and any disruption or harm would impact security, national public health and national economic security.

The US concern regarding China’s cyber espionage

According to James Lewis (a senior vice president at the Center for US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), the US faces losses between $ 20 billion and $30 billion annually due to China’s cyberespionage. The 2018 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 report highlighted instances, where the Chinese government and executives from Chinese companies engaged in clandestine cyber intrusions to obtaining commercially valuable information from the U.S. businesses, such as in 2018 where officials from China’s Ministry of State Security, stole trade from General Electric aviation and other aerospace companies.    

China's response to the US accusations of cyber espionage

China's perspective on cyber espionage is outlined by its 2014 anti-espionage law, which was revised in 2023. Article 1 of this legislation is formulated to prevent, halt, and punish espionage actions to maintain national security. Article 4 addresses the act of espionage and does not differentiate between state-sponsored cyber espionage for economic purposes and state-sponsored cyber espionage for national security purposes. However, China doesn't make a clear difference between government-to-government hacking (spying) and government-to-corporate sector hacking, unlike the US. This distinction is less apparent in China due to its strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. However, military spying is considered part of the national interest in the US, while corporate spying is considered a crime.

China asserts that the US has established cyber norms concerning cyber espionage to normalize public attribution as acceptable conduct. This is achieved by targeting China for cyber operations, imposing sanctions on accused Chinese individuals, and making political accusations, such as blaming China and Russia for meddling in US elections. Despite all this, Washington D.C has never taken responsibility for the infamous Flame and Stuxnet cyber operations, which were widely recognized as part of a broader collaborative initiative known as Operation Olympic Games between the US and Israel. Additionally, the US takes the lead in surveillance activities conducted against China, Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, and several French presidents. Surveillance programs such as Irritant Horn, Stellar Wind, Bvp47, the Hive, and PRISM are recognized as tools used by the US to monitor both allies and adversaries to maintain global hegemony.

China urges the US to cease its smear campaign associated with Volt Typhoon’s cyberattack for cyber espionage, citing the publication of a report titled “Volt Typhoon: A Conspiratorial Swindling Campaign Targets with U.S. Congress and Taxpayers Conducted by U.S. Intelligence Community” by China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre and the 360 Digital Security Group on 15 April. According to the report, 'Volt Typhoon' is a ransomware cyber criminal group self-identified as the 'Dark Power' and is not affiliated with any state or region. Multiple cybersecurity authorities in the US collaborated to fabricate this story just for more budgets from Congress. In the meantime, Microsoft and other U.S. cybersecurity firms are seeking more big contracts from US cybersecurity authorities. The reality behind “Volt Typhoon '' is a conspiratorial swindling campaign to achieve two objectives by amplifying the "China threat theory" and cheating money from the U.S. Congress and taxpayers.

Beijing condemned the US claims of cyber espionage without any solid evidence. China also blames the US for economic espionage by citing the European Parliament report that the National Security Agency (NSA) was also involved in assisting Boeing in beating Airbus for a multi-billion dollar contract. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also accused the US authorities of spying against the state-owned oil company “Petrobras” for economic reasons.

Conclusion

In 2015, the US and China marked a milestone as both President Xi Jinping and Barack Obama signed an agreement, committing that neither country's government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, or other confidential business information to grant competitive advantages to firms or commercial sectors. However, the China Cybersecurity Industry Alliance (CCIA) published a report titled 'US Threats and Sabotage to the Security and Development of Global Cyberspace' in 2024, highlighting the US escalating cyber-attack and espionage activities against China and other nations. Additionally, there has been a considerable increase in the volume and sophistication of Chinese hacking since 2016. According to a survey by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, out of 224 cyber espionage incidents reported since 2000, 69% occurred after Xi assumed office. Therefore, China and the US must address cybersecurity issues through dialogue and cooperation, utilizing bilateral and multilateral agreements.

‍