#FactCheck-Deepfake Video Falsely Shows DRDO Chief Claiming ‘Agni-6 Was Washed with Cow Urine’
Executive Summary
A video of Dr. Samir V. Kamat, Chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is going viral on social media. In the clip, he appears to claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi instructed scientists to wash the Agni-6 missile with cow urine, and later use a mixture of cow dung and urine to prevent rusting. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the video is a deepfake, created by manipulating original footage using AI tools. It was also shared by an account previously known for posting anti-India misinformation and is reportedly banned in India.
Claim
An X user named “Lovely” shared the video on May 1, 2026, alleging that Indian scientists were using cow urine and dung in missile development under government direction. The post used derogatory language and criticized India’s scientific community.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords on Google but found no credible media reports supporting such statements by the DRDO chief. We then extracted keyframes from the viral clip and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video posted by ANI on April 30, 2026. The footage is from the National Security Summit 2.0, where Dr. Kamat spoke about India’s missile development programs.
In the authentic video, Dr. Kamat discusses short-range ballistic missiles like ‘Pralay’, and advancements in hypersonic glide and cruise missile technologies, including scramjet propulsion. There is no mention of cow urine, cow dung, or any such practices.
Further analysis using AI detection tool Aurigin indicated an 88% probability that the viral video was AI-generated or manipulated.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video is fake and AI-manipulated. Dr. Samir V. Kamat never made any statement about washing missiles with cow urine. The clip is a deepfake created to spread misinformation and mislead viewers.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In the hyperconnected world, cyber incidents can no longer be treated as sporadic disruptions; such incidents have become an everyday occurrence. The attack landscape today is very consequential and shows significant multiplication in its frequency, with ransomware attacks incapacitating a health system, phishing attacks hitting a financial institution, or state-sponsored attacks on critical infrastructures. Towards counteracting such threats, traditional ways alone are not enough, they gravely rely on manual research and human intellect. Attackers exercise speed, scale, and stealth, and defenders are always four steps behind. With such a widening gap, it is deemed necessary to facilitate incident response and crisis management with the intervention of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) for faster detection, context-driven decision-making, and collaborative response beyond human capabilities.
Incident Response and Crisis Management
Incident response is the structured way in which organisations deal with responding to detecting, segregating, and recovering from security incidents. Crisis management takes this even further, dealing not only with the technical fallout of a breach but also its business, reputation, and regulatory implications. Echelon used to depend on manual teams of people sorting through logs, cross-correlating alarms, and generating responses, a paradigm effective for small numbers but quickly inadequate in today's threat climate. Today's opponents attack at machine speed, employing automation to launch attacks. Under such circumstances, responding with slow, manual methods means delay and draconian consequences. The AI and automation introduction is a paradigm change that allows organisations to equate the pace and precision with which attackers initiate attacks in responding to incidents.
How Automation Reinvents Response
Cybercrime automation liberates cybercrime analysts from boring and repetitive tasks that consume time. An analyst manually detects potential threats from a list of hundreds each day, while automated systems sift through noise and focus only on genuine threats. Malware can automatically cause infected computers to be disconnected from the network to avoid spreading or may automatically have its suspicious account permissions removed without human intervention. The security orchestration systems move further by introducing playbooks, predefined steps describing how incidents of a certain type (e.g., phishing attempts or malware infections) should be handled. This ensures fast containment while ensuring consistency and minimising human error amid the urgency of dealing with thousands of alerts.
Automation takes care of threat detection, prioritisation, and containment, allowing human analysts to refocus on more complex decision-making. Instead of drowning in the sea of trivial alerts, security teams can now devote their efforts to more strategic areas: threat hunting and longer-term resilience. Automation is a strong tool of defence, cutting response times down from hours to minutes.
The Intelligence Layer: AI in Action
If automation provides speed, then AI is what allows the brain to be intelligent and flexible. Working with old and fixed-rule systems, AI-enabled solutions learn from experiences, adapt to changes in threats, and discover hidden patterns of which human analysts themselves would be unaware. For instance, machine learning algorithms identify normal behaviour on a corporate network and raise alerts on any anomalies that could indicate an insider attack or an advanced persistent threat. Similarly, AI systems sift through global threat intelligence to predict likely attack vectors so organisations can have their vulnerabilities fixed before they are exploited.
AI also boosts forensic analysis. Instead of searching forever for clues, analysts let AI-driven systems trace back to the origin of an event, identify vulnerabilities exploited by attackers, and flag systems that are still under attack. During a crisis, AI is a decision support that predicts outcomes of different scenarios and recommends the best response. In response to a ransomware attack, for example, based on context, AI might advise separating a single network segment or restoring from backup or alerting law enforcement.
Real-World Applications and Case Studies
Already, this mitigation has been provided in the form of real-world applications of automation and AI. Consider, for example, IBM Watson for Cybersecurity, which has been applied in analysing unstructured threat intelligence and providing analysts with actionable results in minutes, rather than days. Like this, systems driven by AI in DARPA's Cyber Grand Challenge demonstrated the ability to automatically identify an instant vulnerability, patch it, and reveal the potential of a self-healing system. AI-powered fraud detection systems stop suspicious transactions in the middle of their execution and work all night to prevent losses. What is common in all these examples is that automation and AI lessen human effort, increase accuracy, and in the event of a cyberattack, buy precious time.
Challenges and Limitations
While promising, the technology is still not fully mature. The quality of an AI system is highly dependent on the training data provided; poor training can generate false positives that drown teams or worse false negatives that allow attackers to proceed unabated. Attackers have also started targeting AI itself by poisoning datasets or designing malware that does not get detected. Aside from risks that are more technical, the operational and financial costs involved in implementing advanced AI-based systems present expensive threats to any company. Organisations will have to make expenditures not only on technology but also for the training of staff to best utilise these tools. There are some ethical and privacy issues to consider as well because systems may be processing sensitive personal data, so global data protection laws such as the GDPR or India's DPDP Act could come into conflict.
Creating a Human-AI Collaboration
The future is not going to be one of substitution by machines but of creating human-AI synergy. Automation can do the drudgery, AI can provide smarts, and human professionals can use judgment, imagination, and ethical decisions. One would want to build AI-fuelled Security Operations Centres where technology and human experts work in tandem. Continuous training must be provided to AI models to reduce false alarms and make them most resistant against adversarial attacks. Regular conduct of crisis drills that combine AI tools and human teams can ensure preparedness for real-time events. Likewise, it is worth integrating ethical AI guidelines into security frameworks to ensure a stronger defence while respecting privacy and regulatory compliance.
Conclusion
Cyber-attacks are an eventuality in this modern time, but the actual impact need not be so harsh. The organisations can maintain the programmatic method of integrating automation and AI into incident response and crisis management so that the response against the very threat can be shifted from reactive firefighting to proactive resilience. Automation gives speed and efficiency while AI gives intelligence and foresight, hence putting the defenders on par and possibly exceeding the speed and sophistication of the attackers. But an utmost system without human inquisitiveness, ethical reasoning, and strategic foresight would remain imperfect. The best defence is in that human-machine relationship symbiotic system wherein automation and AI take care of how fast and how many cyber threats come in, whereas human intellect ensures that every response is aligned with larger organizational goals. This synergy is where cybersecurity resiliency will reside in the future-the defenders won't just be reacting to emergencies but will rather be driving the way.
References
- https://www.sisainfosec.com/blogs/incident-response-automation/
- https://stratpilot.ai/role-of-ai-in-crisis-management-and-its-critical-importance/
- https://www.juvare.com/integrating-artificial-intelligence-into-crisis-management/
- https://www.motadata.com/blog/role-of-automation-in-incident-management/
Executive Summary
A digitally manipulated image of World Bank President Ajay Banga has been circulating on social media, falsely portraying him as holding a Khalistani flag. The image was shared by a Pakistan-based X (formerly Twitter) user, who also incorrectly identified Banga as the President of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), thereby fuelling misleading speculation that he supports the Khalistani movement against India.
The Claim
On February 5, an X user with the handle @syedAnas0101010 posted an image allegedly showing Ajay Banga holding a Khalistani flag. The user misidentified him as the IMF President and captioned the post, “IMF president sending signals to INDIA.” The post quickly gained traction, amplifying false narratives and political speculation. Here is the link and archive link to the post, along with a screenshot:
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the image, the CyberPeace Fact Check Desk conducted a detailed research . The image was first subjected to a reverse image search using Google Lens, which led to a Reuters news report published on June 13, 2023. The original photograph, captured by Reuters photojournalist Jonathan Ernst, showed Ajay Banga arriving at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C., on June 2, 2023, marking his first day in office. In the authentic image, Banga is seen holding a coffee cup, not a flag.
Further analysis confirmed that the viral image had been digitally altered to replace the coffee cup with a Khalistani flag, thereby misrepresenting the context and intent of the original photograph. Here is the link to the report, along with a screenshot.
To strengthen the findings, the altered image was also analysed using the Hive Moderation AI detection tool. The tool’s assessment indicated a high likelihood that the image contained AI-generated or manipulated elements, reinforcing the conclusion that the image was not genuine. Below is a screenshot of the result.
Conclusion
The viral image claiming to show World Bank President Ajay Banga holding a Khalistani flag is fake. The photograph was digitally manipulated to spread misinformation and provoke political speculation. In reality, the original Reuters image from June 2023 shows Banga holding a coffee cup during his arrival at the World Bank headquarters. The claim that he supports the Khalistani movement is false and misleading.
Introduction
In an era expounded by rapid communications and live coverage of global affairs, users often encounter misinformation continuously, and it has emerged as a huge challenge. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, believed to be true, and shared without any intention to deceive. On the other hand, disinformation refers to false information that is intended to mislead, especially with set propaganda. It steadily affects all aspects of life and can even lead to a profound impact on geopolitics, international relations, wars, etc. When modern media announces “breaking news,” it captures attention and keeps viewers engaged. In the rush for television rating points, information may be circulated without proper fact-checking. This urgency can result in the spread of unverified claims and the elevation of irrelevant details, while truly important issues are overlooked. Such practices can distort public understanding and impact strategic political decisions.
Misinformation and Fake News in Recent History
The phenomenon of misinformation is not limited to isolated incidents but has become a recurring feature of political events around the globe. This business has increasingly become visible in recent political history, where it has not only sensationalised the general public but also affected international relations and democratic outcomes. For example, during Slovakia’s elections in 2023, the country experienced a major surge of online misinformation. Over 365,000 misleading posts were posted on social media platforms, majorly influencing public opinion and leading to challenges for voters. A lot of this content was amplified by political leaders. The media's rush to deliver content sometimes makes it easier for false narratives to dominate the public sphere, shaping voter opinions and undermining informed political discourse.
Current Geopolitical Interference by Misinformation
In the recent Hamas-Israel conflict, manipulated images and unverified reports complicated diplomacy. Such campaigns distort facts, complicate humanitarian responses, and escalate conflicts. This growing trend shows how misinformation now acts as a weapon of war, exploiting media urgency and undermining international stability.
Indo–Pak Conflict Exaggeration
The India-Pakistan conflict is a long-dragged and complex issue in South Asia. It has been continuously dragged from traditional to contemporary media. But in recent tensions and war situations media raised serious concerns about misinformation. Live media coverage can sometimes mislead the public with speculative information. The live coverage continuously addressed it as breaking news and escalated excitement and fear, distorting the reality on the ground. Moreover, the real-time reporting of sensitive military activities like mock drills, blackouts, troop movements, air strikes, etc., interfered with strategic operations. Such reporting may lead to obstructing decision-making processes and placing operational missions at risk. Later Defence Ministry called it out in one of their X posts. Such media-driven exaggeration causes mass hysteria, and eventually, emotional and patriotic sentiments are evoked.
Legal and Political Recommendations
The intersection of media urgency and national security may have serious geopolitical repercussions if not managed with legal and ethical restrictions. International Frameworks like UNESCO‘s Guidelines for regulating Digital Platforms, 2023, and the Digital Services Act, 2022, regulate and govern digital platforms.
Despite the existence of international and national guidelines, there remains an urgent need to strengthen cyber laws by imposing strict penalties and compensation mechanisms for the dissemination of unverified information. Media outlets must also refrain from indiscriminately labelling every report as “breaking news.” Since the modern media deals in digital data, the protection of strategic state movements should be regulated with checks and balances.
Ethical considerations should be maintained during the publication or streaming of any information. Media should have self-regulations to fact-check and publish only authorised and double-verified information.
Given the borderless nature of the internet and the rapid, global spread of misinformation, international cooperation is imperative. Addressing the challenges posed by cross-border mis/disinformation requires a shared understanding and coordinated response among states at the global level.
References
- https://pam.int/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EN-Background-paper-on-disinformation-and-fake-news-Jan-2024.pdf
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3172349
- https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/04/draft2_guidelines_for_regulating_digital_platforms_en.pdf
- https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en
