#FactCheck-Protest Video from Nagrota Falsely Linked to Opposition Against Indian Army

A video circulating on social media claims that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was forcibly thrown out of a pub by its owner. The clip has been widely shared by users, many of whom are drawing political comparisons and questioning democratic norms. However, research conducted by Cyber Peace Foundation has found that the viral claim is misleading. Our research reveals that the video dates back to 2021, a time when Keir Starmer was not the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but the leader of the opposition Labour Party.

Claim

‍

On January 12, 2026, a video was shared on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) with the claim that British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was asked to leave a pub by its owner. The post suggests that the pub owner was unhappy with Starmer’s performance and contrasts the incident with how political dissent is allegedly handled in India. The viral video, approximately 32 seconds long, shows a man angrily confronting Keir Starmer in English, stating that he had supported the Labour Party all his life but was disappointed with Starmer’s leadership. The man is then heard asking Starmer to leave the pub.

‍

Links to the viral post and its archived version were reviewed as part of the research.

• https://x.com/ashokdanoda/status/2010712226144150013 
• https://archive.ph/bqkUj 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a Google reverse image search. During this process, we found the same video posted on an X account on April 19, 2021.The visuals in the 2021 post matched the viral video exactly, clearly indicating that the footage is not recent.The original post described the incident as an event involving Labour Party leader Keir Starmer during his visit to the Raven pub in Bath, and included a warning about strong language used by the pub owner, Rod Humphries. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot:

• https://x.com/StephenSumner15/status/1384118300154634251/ 

‍

‍

Further keyword searches led us to a report published by NBC News on April 19, 2021. According to the report, Keir Starmer, then the leader of the UK’s opposition Labour Party, was confronted and asked to leave a pub in the city of Bath. The pub owner reportedly accused Starmer of failing to oppose COVID-19 lockdown measures strongly enough at a time when strict restrictions were in place across the UK.

• https://www.nbcnews.com/video/anti-lockdown-pub-landlord-screams-at-u-k-labour-party-leader-to-get-out-of-his-pub-110466117702

‍

We also verified who held the office of British Prime Minister in 2021. Official UK government records confirm that Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister at that time, while Keir Starmer served as the Leader of the Opposition.

• https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers 

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research confirms that the viral video is old and misleadingly presented. The footage is from 2021, when Keir Starmer was not the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but the opposition Labour Party leader. Sharing the video with the claim that it shows a current British Prime Minister being thrown out of a pub is factually incorrect.

‍

A war in the twenty-first century does not start when the first bullet or missile is fired. It begins much earlier, covertly, and without any official announcement. Cyberspace is this new battlefield. States now use a variety of ransomware, malicious codes, and disinformation campaigns to undermine their enemies' capabilities before launching an offensive. These pre-conflict cyber operations are now the primary frontline of contemporary hybrid warfare, which is changing how conflicts are fought and conducted.

‍

The Birth of a Digital Battlefield

‍

Hybrid Warfare is a blend of conventional military force with nonmilitary tactics like economic coercion, disinformation, and cyberattacks that have evolved rapidly in recent decades. Hybrid methods of warfare are nothing new, as the scale and sophistication of cyber operations in modern conflicts are unprecedented. Russia’s actions in Ukraine demonstrated the capability of digital tools to paralyse the critical systems before its heavy munitions could be deployed for combat operations. Within days of the 2022 invasions, Ukraine faced massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks targeting banks, government websites, and energy infrastructures. The digital frontlines have softened the physical defences long before the conventional warfare began. 

According to the FP Analytics’ “Digital Front Lines” Project, cyber operations are no longer an auxiliary tactic but a core component of hybrid warfare, blurring the boundary between peace and war. They enable states to exert pressure, gather intelligence, and disrupt adversaries, often without being attributed or held accountable. 

‍

Cyber Operations: The modern Prelude to War

‍

The use of digital technologies for surveillance, information network disruption, or critical infrastructure destruction is known as cyber operations. They are especially useful instruments for pre-conflict manipulation because of their ambiguity and stealth. Cyberattacks, in contrast to conventional military strikes, can accomplish strategic goals while providing plausible deniability.
Coordinated cyberattacks that spread misinformation and damaged public confidence disrupted government communication systems prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. These sorts of incidents highlight the integrated nature of cyber and kinetic operations, where digital assaults often serve as the initial phases of modern wars.

‍

The Expanding Spectrum of Actors or Threat 

‍

Cyberspace has democratized warfare, which once required an army, can now be initiated by a handful of skilled programmers with access to the right tools. The cyber landscape of the present times features a wide spectrum of threat actors, which can be understood as; 

• State actors like intelligence or military agencies conduct cyber operations as part of official foreign policy. 
• Cybercriminals pursue financial gains, often overlapping with political motives. 
• Terrorist groups use cyberspace to spread propaganda for coordinated attacks. 
• Cyber mercenaries being hired by both the state and nonstate clients can blur the ethical and legal boundaries. 

‍

This diversity can complicate the attribution by determining that anyone who is actively working behind conducting cyberattacks can be notoriously difficult, allowing the states to hide behind “plausible deniability.” This ‘Gray Zone’ of conflict below the threshold of a declared war, above mere diplomacy, has become the preferred arena for modern power struggles. 

‍

Civilian Involvement and Ethical Dilemmas

‍

Unlike traditional warfare, where the cyber domain entangles civilians as both participants and targets. Much of the nation’s critical infrastructure, which includes energy grids, hospitals, transportation, and communication systems, is owned and operated by private entities. As a result, the civilian industries and experts are becoming central to both cyber defence and offence. 

During the Russia–Ukraine War, the volunteer hackers from around the world were many of whom are being coordinated through the app Telegram, which is termed as ‘IT Army of Ukraine’, are known for conducting digital strikes on Russian networks. Conversely, the Russia-affiliated hacker groups like Conti had vowed to retaliate against any nations that supported Ukraine. 

This civilian participation raises profound legal and moral questions, over a private company’s role in defending their networks of becoming a combatant, or the impact of retaliatory cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure war crimes. International law has yet to provide a clear answer, which can leave dangerous gaps in the governance to counter cybercrimes. 

‍

Susceptibility of Contemporary Society to Cyber Warfare

‍
Cyberwarfare can impact an entire global digital ecosystem due to its interconnectedness. Power grids, hospitals, air traffic systems, and even automation devices can be compromised. While the NotPetya ransomware, which was cloaked as ransomware, caused billions of losses and caused worldwide economic damage from shipping companies to pharmaceutical companies, the WannaCry ransomware attacks in 2017 paralysed hospitals throughout the UK's National Health Service.

When taken as a whole, these incidents have also shown that cyberattacks are no longer limited to espionage situations and can have real-world consequences comparable to those of conventional warfare. The consequences of cyberattacks could increase dramatically as our dependence on technology increases. Because these effects are profoundly psychological in nature and seek to sow fear, mistrust, and social disintegration, they are not merely technical or economic in nature.

‍

The Future: Permanent Cyber Frontlines

‍

Technological developments have made cyberspace a permanent theatre of conflict, joining the land, sea, air, and space. Countries are currently making significant investments in cyber capabilities for deterrence as well as defence. According to security experts like Eriksson and Giacomello, societies are now inherently fragile due to our increasing reliance on information technologies.

Cyber operations in this context are about strategic dominance in a globalised world, not just digital espionage. Who controls the networks and algorithms that run contemporary civilisation will determine the future of war, not just who controls the skies or the seas. As per the new reality, before the drop of the first bomb, a silent war in cyberspace will already be underway.     

‍

References

‍

• https://digitalfrontlines.io/2023/05/25/the-evolution-of-cyber-operations-in-armed-conflict/
• https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/9d74149e-fb9a-402f-aa65-a90445ad7603/content
• https://cybersecurityguide.org/resources/cyberwarfare/
• https://re.public.polimi.it/retrieve/e0c31c0b-ce6c-4599-e053-1705fe0aef77/21%20Century%20Cyber%20Warfare.pdf

Digital vulnerabilities like cyber-attacks and data breaches proliferate rapidly in the hyper-connected world that is created today. These vulnerabilities can compromise sensitive data like personal information, financial data, and intellectual property and can potentially threaten businesses of all sizes and in all sectors. Hence, it has become important to inform all stakeholders about any breach or attack to ensure they can be well-prepared for the consequences of such an incident.  

The non-reporting of reporting can result in heavy fines in many parts of the world. Data breaches caused by malicious acts are crimes and need proper investigation. Organisations may face significant penalties for failing to report the event. Failing to report data breach incidents can result in huge financial setbacks and legal complications. To understand why transparency is vital and understanding the regulatory framework that governs data breaches is the first step. 

The Current Indian Regulatory Framework on Data Breach Disclosure

A data breach essentially, is the unauthorised processing or accidental disclosure of personal data, which may occur through its acquisition, sharing, use, alteration, destruction, or loss of access. Such incidents can compromise the affected data’s confidentiality, integrity, or availability. In India, the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 are the primary legislation that tackles cybercrimes like data breaches. 

• Under the DPDP Act, neither materiality thresholds nor express timelines have been prescribed for the reporting requirement. Data Fiduciaries are required to report incidents of personal data breach, regardless of their sensitivity or impact on the Data Principal. 
• The IT (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and Manner of Performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013, the IT (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011, along with the Cyber Security Directions, under section 70B(6) of the IT Act, 2000, relating to information security practices, procedure, prevention, response and reporting of cyber incidents for Safe & Trusted Internet prescribed in 2022 impose mandatory notification requirements on service providers, intermediaries, data centres and corporate entities, upon the occurrence of certain cybersecurity incidents. 
• These laws and regulations obligate companies to report any breach and any incident to regulators such as the CERT-In and the Data Protection Board.

The Consequences of Non-Disclosure

A non-disclosure of a data breach has a manifold of consequences. They are as follows:

• Legal and financial penalties are the immediate consequence of a data breach in India. The DPDP Act prescribes a fine of up to Rs 250 Crore from the affected parties, along with suits of a civil nature and regulatory scrutiny. Non-compliance can also attract action from CERT-In, leading to more reputational damage.
• In the long term, failure to disclose data breaches can erode customer trust as they are less likely to engage with a brand that is deemed unreliable. Investor confidence may potentially waver due to concerns about governance and security, leading to stock price drops or reduced funding opportunities. Brand reputation can be significantly tarnished, and companies may struggle with retaining and attracting customers and employees. This can affect long-term profitability and growth.
• Companies such as BigBasket and Jio in 2020 and Haldiram in 2022 have suffered from data breaches recently. Poor transparency and delay in disclosures led to significant reputational damage, legal scrutiny, and regulatory actions for the companies.

Measures for Improvement: Building Corporate Reputation via Transparency

Transparency is critical when disclosing data breaches. It enhances trust and loyalty for a company when the priority is data privacy for stakeholders. Ensuring transparency mitigates backlash. It demonstrates a company’s willingness to cooperate with authorities. A farsighted approach instils confidence in all stakeholders in showcasing a company's resilience and commitment to governance. These measures can be further improved upon by:

• Offering actionable steps for companies to establish robust data breach policies, including regular audits, prompt notifications, and clear communication strategies. 
• Highlighting the importance of cooperation with regulatory bodies and how to ensure compliance with the DPDP Act and other relevant laws. 
• Sharing best public communications practices post-breach to manage reputational and legal risks.

Conclusion

Maintaining transparency when a data breach happens is more than a legal obligation. It is a good strategy to retain a corporate reputation. Companies can mitigate the potential risks (legal, financial and reputational) by informing stakeholders and cooperating with regulatory bodies proactively. In an era where digital vulnerabilities are ever-present, clear communication and compliance with data protection laws such as the DPDP Act build trust, enhance corporate governance, and secure long-term business success. Proactive measures, including audits, breach policies, and effective public communication, are critical in reinforcing resilience and fostering stakeholder confidence in the face of cyber threats.

References

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.cert-in.org.in/PDF/CERT-In_Directions_70B_28.04.2022.pdf 
• https://chawdamrunal.medium.com/the-dark-side-of-covering-up-data-breaches-why-transparency-is-crucial-fe9ed10aac27 
• https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=breach-notification&c=IN