There are moments in public life when a single piece of content can set off a storm far bigger than the event it claims to show. This week, that moment came in the form of a video — widely shared, emotionally charged, and allegedly created with artificial intelligence — that touched one of the most sensitive subjects in India: the border with China. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju responded with characteristic bluntness, demanding that the Congress party apologise to the nation for what he described as a deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the Indian Army. The video, according to the Army’s own fact-check, was a fabrication. It took old military footage, attached invented remarks to a senior officer, and presented it as if it were a shocking admission that Chinese forces had taken control of Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh and that Indian soldiers had been denied supplies. Rijiju did not mince words. In a Hindi statement, he called the act “a betrayal” and said it was comparable to the nefarious actions of India’s enemies. He went further, accusing Congress of running a campaign that serves the interests of those hostile to the country. The demand for an apology was not just about one video; it was about the deeper danger of weaponising misinformation in matters of national security.
The video itself is a textbook case of how easily context can be stripped away and replaced with a false narrative. It purported to show Lieutenant General Girish Kalia making statements about Chinese forces taking control of Asaphila, Longju and Taksing Circle in Arunachal Pradesh, and claiming that Indian troops were being denied essential supplies. Those are serious allegations, the kind that could cause panic and distrust if believed. But the Indian Army’s official fact-check account stepped in quickly to clarify what was really happening. The footage was genuine, but it was not from the border with China. It was an authentic recording from October 27, 2023, when Kalia — then a Major General serving as General Officer Commanding of the Army’s 28 Infantry Division — addressed a press conference in Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir. That briefing was about infiltration attempts across the Line of Control and the security situation in that region. Kalia had spoken about security forces foiling ten infiltration attempts, eliminating 27 terrorists, and recovering warlike stores and narcotics. He said nothing about Chinese troop movements or denial of supplies. In other words, the video had been digitally altered to put entirely fabricated words into the mouth of a serving officer, using real footage from a completely different operation. The manipulation was not accidental. It was designed to create the false impression that the Army itself had admitted to a serious failure on the India-China border. The fact-check exposed the lie, but the damage of such misinformation is that it often lingers even after correction, especially when it feeds into existing anxieties.
The fake video did not emerge in a vacuum. It surfaced alongside separate allegations made by Bosiram Siram, the president of the Arunachal Pradesh Congress and a former Education Minister. Siram claimed that Chinese troops had advanced 40 to 50 kilometres into Indian territory in Upper Subansiri district. He spoke at a press conference in Pasighat on October 26, citing a Congress delegation’s visit to border areas from August 26 to 29. According to Siram, the delegation travelled from Itanagar to Nacho, Limeking and Taksing, where they interacted with local residents. He alleged that the People’s Liberation Army had disrupted daily life for people living in those remote areas. Residents, he said, faced restrictions on movement through traditional routes used for yak rearing, gathering forest produce, and hunting. He also claimed that face-offs between Indian and Chinese soldiers were continuing at several locations, including physical altercations involving sticks during the last week of July. Some videos shared on social media in this context were later pointed out to be from an older confrontation, not from any recent incident. The allegation itself has not been independently verified, and official assessments have not confirmed such a significant territorial advance. But the claim, whether true or not, has added another layer of tension to an already fraught situation. It is exactly the kind of story that can be easily amplified, especially in an election year, and it places the Army in the difficult position of having to respond to unverified assertions while maintaining operational secrecy.
Siram did not stop at the territorial claim. He also raised concerns about the welfare of Indian soldiers deployed in remote border posts. He alleged that soldiers faced logistical challenges, including limited mobile and internet connectivity, and difficulties accessing essential supplies. He called on the Centre and the Defence Ministry to improve border infrastructure, including all-weather roads, reliable communications, and better facilities for security personnel. These are not trivial issues. Anyone who has spent time in the high-altitude regions of Arunachal Pradesh knows how isolating and unforgiving the terrain can be. For soldiers stationed in places like Taksing or Limeking, the nearest town is days away, and weather can cut off entire areas for weeks. Siram also questioned the government’s response to complaints from local residents and demanded a transparent, high-level inquiry into the situation. He added that the Congress delegation had sought an appointment with Vice-President C. P. Radhakrishnan during his visit to Arunachal Pradesh but was not allowed to meet him. Whether that last detail is relevant or simply political grievance is hard to say, but it reflects the charged atmosphere in which these questions are being raised. The concerns about infrastructure and soldier welfare are legitimate and worth discussing on their own merits. But when they are bundled together with unverified claims of a massive Chinese advance, the effect is to create a narrative that may be more about political advantage than about the actual condition of the border.
The bigger issue here is the responsibility of political parties when they make or amplify claims about national security. Rijiju’s demand for an apology is not just a partisan jab. It speaks to a growing concern that misinformation is becoming a tool of political warfare, even on matters that affect the safety of the country and the morale of its armed forces. The Indian Army has a long tradition of staying out of politics, and its soldiers are trained to follow orders regardless of which government is in power. To use a fabricated video to suggest that the Army has failed its duty is not merely an attack on a political opponent; it is an attack on an institution that represents the nation’s sovereignty. When Rijiju says that Congress is running a campaign that serves the interests of those hostile to the country, he is making a strong accusation, but he is also highlighting a real dilemma: how do we have honest, vigorous debate about border security without spreading falsehoods that could be exploited by adversaries? The answer cannot be that national security issues are off-limits for discussion. That would be undemocratic. But it must be that claims are verified, that sources are credible, and that the integrity of the armed forces is not sacrificed for short-term political gain. The Congress party, for its part, has defended the right to raise questions about border management. But defending that right while circulating or endorsing content that is demonstrably fake is a different matter entirely. If a party spokesperson or leader shared the video without checking, that is negligence. If they shared it knowing it was false, that is worse.
In the end, the immediate questions are straightforward but the answers are not yet clear. What evidence supports the alleged Chinese advance of 40 to 50 kilometres? What do official assessments say about the actual conditions in Upper Subansiri district? And who created the fake video and set it loose into the public domain? The Army has done its part by fact-checking the video and explaining the original context. The government has done its part by denouncing the misinformation. But the deeper task remains for the public and for political leaders alike: to develop a habit of skepticism before sharing, and to hold accountable those who deliberately spread lies. Border security is too important to be treated as a backdrop for political theatre. The soldiers who stand guard in the freezing heights of Arunachal Pradesh deserve better than to have their service turned into a weapon in a domestic argument. They deserve a nation that can discuss difficult questions without losing its head, and a political class that can disagree without pretending that the uniform is a partisan symbol. The video was fake, the allegations are unverified, and the trust between the people and the Army must not be broken by those who see every issue as an opportunity for attack. The most human response, and the most patriotic one, is to demand the truth — not the convenient version of it, but the real thing. And in that pursuit, there is no room for fabricated footage, invented quotes, or the reckless use of artificial intelligence to blur the line between fact and fiction.