#FactCheck: Viral video claims BSF personnel thrashing a person selling Bangladesh National Flag in West Bengal

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral social media claim alleges that India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Anil Chauhan, praised Pakistan’s Army as superior during “Operation Sindoor.” Fact-checking confirms the claim is false. The original video, available on The Hindu’s official channel, shows General Chauhan inaugurating Ran-Samwad 2025 in Mhow, Madhya Pradesh. At the 1:22:12 mark, the genuine segment appears, proving the viral clip was altered. Additionally, analysis using Hiya AI Audio identified voice manipulation, flagging the segment as a deepfake with an authenticity score of 1/100. The fabricated statement was: “never mess with Pakistan because their army appears to be far more superior.” Thus, the viral video is doctored and misleading.

Claim:

‍

A viral claim is being shared on social media (archived link) falsely claiming that India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Anil Chauhan described Pakistan’s Army as superior and more advanced during Operation Sindoor. 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

After performing a reverse image search we found a full clip on the official channel of The Hindu in which  Chief of Defence Staff Anil Chauhan inaugurated ‘Ran-Samwad’ 2025 in Mhow, Madhya Pradesh. 

‍

‍

In the clip on the time stamp of 1:22:12 we can see the actual part of the video segment which was manipulated in the viral video. 

Also, by using Hiya AI Audio tool we got to know that the voice was manipulated in the specific segment of the video. The result shows Deepfake with an authenticity score 1/100, the result also shows the statement which is deepfake which was “ was to never mess with Pakistan because their army appears to be far more superior”. 

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral video attributing remarks to CDS General Anil Chauhan about Pakistan’s Army being “superior” is fabricated. The original footage from The Hindu confirms no such statement was made, while forensic analysis using Hiya AI Audio detected clear voice manipulation, identifying the clip as a deepfake with minimal authenticity. Hence, the claim is baseless, misleading, and an attempt to spread disinformation.

• Claim: AI Generated audio of CDS admitting that the Pakistan Army is superior to the Indian Army. 
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

In an exciting milestone achieved by CyberPeace, an ICANN APRALO At-Large organization, in collaboration with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), has successfully deployed and made operational an L-root server instance in Ranchi, Jharkhand. This initiative marks a significant step toward enhancing the resilience, speed, and security of internet connectivity in eastern India.

Understanding the DNS hierarchy – Starting from Root

Internet users access online information through different domain names and interactions with any web browser takes place through IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. Domain Name System (DNS) functions as the internet's equivalent of Yellow Pages or the phonebook of cyberspace. When a person uses a domain name like www.cyberpeace.org to access a website, their browser communicates with the internet protocol, and DNS converts the domain name to the corresponding IP address so that web browsers may load the web pages. The function of a DNS is to convert domain names to Internet Protocol addresses. It enables the respective browsers to load the resources from the Internet.

When a user types a domain name into your browser, a DNS query works behind the scenes to find the website’s IP address. First, your device asks a DNS resolver—often provided by your ISP or a third-party service—for the address. The resolver checks its cache for a match, and if none is found, it queries a root server to locate the top-level domain (TLD) server (like .com or .org). The resolver then asks the TLD server for the Authoritative nameserver responsible for the particular domain, which provides the specific IP address. Finally, the resolver sends this address back to your device, enabling it to connect to the website’s server and load the page. The entire process happens in milliseconds, ensuring seamless browsing.

Special focus on Root Server:

A root server is a name server that directly answers queries for records in the root zone and redirects requests for more specific domains to the appropriate top-level domain (TLD) servers. Root servers are an integral part of this system, acting as the first step in resolving a domain name into its corresponding IP address. They provide the initial direction needed to locate the authoritative servers for any domain.

The DNS root zone is served by 13 unique IP addresses, supported by hundreds of redundant root servers distributed worldwide connected through Anycast Routing to manage requests efficiently. As of January 8, 2025, the global root server system consists of 1921 instances operated by 12 independent root server operators. These servers ensure the smooth functioning of the internet by managing the backbone of DNS queries.

Type of Root Server Instances:

Well, in this regard,  there are two types of root server instances that can be found– Global instance and Local instance. 

Global root server instances are the primary root servers distributed strategically around the world. Local instances, on the other hand, are replicas of these global servers deployed in specific regions to handle local DNS traffic more efficiently. In each operator's list of sites, some instances are marked as global (globe icon) and some are marked as local (flag icon). The difference is in how widely available that instance will be, because of how routing for that instance is done. Recall that the routes for an instance are announced by BGP, the inter-domain routing protocol.

For global instances, the route advertisement is permitted to spread throughout the Internet, i.e., any router on the Internet could know the path to that instance. Of course, for a particular source, the route to that instance may not be the optimal route, so some other instance could be chosen as the destination.

With a local instance, however, the route advertisement is limited to only nearby networks. For example, the instance may be visible to just one ISP, or to ISPs that connect at a particular exchange point. Sources from farther away will not be able to see and query that local instance.

Deployment in Ranchi - The Journey & Significance:

CyberPeace in Collaboration with ICANN has successfully deployed an L-root server instance in Ranchi, marking a significant milestone in enhancing regional Internet infrastructure. This deployment, part of a global network of root servers, ensures faster and more reliable DNS query resolution for the region, reducing latency and enhancing cybersecurity. 

‍
The Journey of deploying the L-Root instance in Collaboration with ICANN followed the steps-
‍

• Signing the Agreement: Finalized the L-SINGLE Hosting Agreement with ICANN to formalize the partnership.
• Procuring the Hardware: Acquired the required hardware appliance to meet technical standards for hosting the L-root server.
• Setup and Installation: Configured and installed the appliance to prepare it for seamless operation.
• Joining the Anycast Network: Integrated the server into ICANN's global Anycast network using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) for efficient DNS traffic management.

The deployment of the L-root server in Ranchi marks a significant boost to the region’s digital ecosystem. It accelerates DNS query resolution, reducing latency and enhancing internet speed and reliability for users.

This instance strengthens cyber defenses by mitigating Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) risks and managing local traffic efficiently. It also underscores Eastern India’s advanced digital infrastructure, aligning with initiatives like Digital India to meet evolving digital demands.

By handling local queries, the L-root server eases the load on global servers, contributing to a more stable and resilient global internet.

CyberPeace’s Commitment to a Secure and resilient Cyberspace

As an organization dedicated to promoting peace, security and resilience in cyberspace, CyberPeace views this collaboration with ICANN as a significant achievement in its mission. By strengthening the internet’s backbone in eastern India, this deployment underscores our commitment to enabling a secure, accessible, and resilient digital ecosystem. 

Way forward and Roadmap for Strengthening India’s DNS Infrastructure:

The successful deployment of the L-root instance in Ranchi is a stepping stone toward bolstering India's digital ecosystem. CyberPeace aims to promote awareness about DNS infrastructure through workshops and seminars, emphasizing its critical role in a resilient digital future.

With plans to deploy more such root server instances across India, the focus is on expanding local DNS infrastructure to enhance efficiency and security. Collaborative efforts with government agencies, ISPs, and tech organizations will drive this vision forward. A robust monitoring framework will ensure optimal performance and long-term sustainability of these initiatives.

Conclusion

The deployment of the L-root server instance in Eastern India represents a monumental step toward strengthening the region’s digital foundation. As Ranchi joins the network of cities hosting root server instances, the benefits will extend not only to the local community but also to the global internet ecosystem. With this milestone, CyberPeace reaffirms its commitment to driving innovation and resilience in cyberspace, paving the way for a more connected and secure future.

‍

Introduction

A policy, no matter how artfully conceived, is like a timeless idiom, its truth self-evident, its purpose undeniable, standing in silent witness before those it vows to protect, yet trapped in the stillness of inaction, where every moment of delay erodes the very justice it was meant to serve. This is the case of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which holds in its promise a resolution to all the issues related to data protection and a protection framework at par with GDPR and Global Best Practices. While debates on its substantive efficacy are inevitable, its execution has emerged as a site of acute contention. The roll-out and the decision-making have been making headlines since late July on various fronts. The government is being questioned by industry stakeholders, media and independent analysts on certain grounds, be it “slow policy execution”, “centralisation of power” or “arbitrary amendments”. The act is now entrenched in a never-ending dilemma of competing interests under the DPDP Act.

The change to the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, made possible by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, has become a focal point of debate. This amendment is viewed by some as an attack on weakening the hard-won transparency architecture of Indian democracy by substituting an absolute exemption for personal information for the “public interest override” in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

The Lag Ledger: Tracking the Delays in DPDP Enforcement 

As per a news report of July 28, 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Communications Technology has expressed its concern over the delayed implementation and has urged the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that data privacy is adequately ensured in the nation. In the report submitted to the Lok Sabha on July 24, the committee reviewed the government’s reaction to the previous recommendations and concluded that MeitY had only been able to hold nine consultations and twenty awareness workshops about the Draft DPDP Rules, 2025. In addition, four brainstorming sessions with academic specialists were conducted to examine the needs for research and development. The ministry acknowledges that this is a specialised field that urgently needs industrial involvement. Another news report dated 30th July, 2025, of a day-long consultation held where representatives from civil society groups, campaigns, social movements, senior lawyers, retired judges, journalists, and lawmakers participated on the contentious and chilling effects of the Draft Rules that were notified in January this year. The organisers said in a press statement the DPDP Act may have a negative impact on the freedom of the press and people’s right to information and the activists, journalists, attorneys, political parties, groups and organisations “who collect, analyse, and disseminate critical information as they become ‘data fiduciaries’ under the law.” 

The DPDP Act has thus been caught up in an uncomfortable paradox: praised as a significant legislative achievement for India’s digital future, but caught in a transitional phase between enactment and enforcement, where every day not only postpones protection but also feeds worries about the dwindling amount of room for accountability and transparency. 

The Muzzling Effect: Diluting Whistleblower Protections

The DPDP framework raises a number of subtle but significant issues, one of which is the possibility that it would weaken safeguards for whistleblowers. Critics argue that the Act runs the risk of trapping journalists, activists, and public interest actors who handle sensitive material while exposing wrongdoing because it expands the definition of “personal data” and places strict compliance requirements on “data fiduciaries.”One of the most important checks on state overreach may be silenced if those who speak truth to power are subject to legal retaliation in the absence of clear exclusions of robust public-interest protections.

Noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan has criticised the law for failing to protect whistleblowers, warning that “If someone exposes corruption and names officials, they could now be prosecuted for violating the DPDP Act.”

Consent Management under the DPDP Act

In June 2025, the National e-Governance Division (NeGD) under MeitY released a Business Requirement Document (BRD) for developing consent management systems under the DPDP Act, 2023. The document supports the idea of “Consent Manager”, which acts as a single point of contact between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries. This idea is fundamental to the Act, which is now being operationalised with the help of MeitY’s “Code for Consent: The DPDP Innovation Challenge.” The government has established a collaborative ecosystem to construct consent management systems (CMS) that can serve as a single, standardised interface between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries by choosing six distinct entities, such as Jio Platforms, IDfy, and Zoop. Such a framework could enable people to have meaningful control over their personal data, lessen consent fatigue, and move India’s consent architecture closer to international standards if it is implemented precisely and transparently. 

There is no debate to the importance of this development however, there are various concerns associated with this advancement that must be considered. Although effective, a centralised consent management system may end up being a single point of failure in terms of political overreach and technical cybersecurity flaws. Concerns are raised over the concentration of power over the framing, seeking, and recording of consent when big corporate entities like Jio are chosen as key innovators. Critics contend that the organisations responsible for generating revenue from user data should not be given the responsibility for designing the gatekeeping systems. Furthermore, the CMS can create opaque channels for data access, compromising user autonomy and whistleblower protections, in the absence of strong safeguards, transparency mechanisms and independent oversight. 

Conclusion

Despite being hailed as a turning point in India’s digital governance, the DPDP Act is still stuck in a delayed and unequal transition from promise to reality. Its goals are indisputable, but so are the conundrum it poses to accountability, openness, and civil liberties. Every delay increases public mistrust, and every safeguard that remains unsolved. The true test of a policy intended to safeguard the digital rights of millions lies not in how it was drafted, but in the integrity, pace, and transparency with which it is to be implemented. In the digital age, the true cost of delay is measured not in time, but in trust. CyberPeace calls for transparent, inclusive, and timely execution that balances innovation with the protection of digital rights.

References

• https://www.storyboard18.com/how-it-works/parliamentary-committee-raises-concern-with-meity-over-dpdp-act-implementation-lag-77105.htm 
• https://thewire.in/law/excessive-centralisation-of-power-lawyers-activists-journalists-mps-express-fear-on-dpdp-act
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-jio-idfy-meity-consent-management-systems-dpdpa/ ‍
• https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/centre-refuses-to-amend-dpdp-act-to-protect-journalists-whistleblowers-and-rti-activists