Ravish Kumar denies deepfake allegations by Dainik Bhaskar journalist over fighter pilot inquiry
New Delhi: A controversy has erupted on social media following accusations made by Mukesh Kaushik, a journalist with Dainik Bhaskar, against journalist Ravish Kumar. Kaushik alleged that Kumar and other YouTubers were questioning the whereabouts of Squadron Leader Shivangi Singh, a Rafale fighter pilot, after "Operation Sindoor" on May 7th, 2025.
Mukesh Kaushik shared his claims on Facebook, along with a screenshot of a Dainik Bhaskar article dated June 8th, 2025. The article reported that the Indian Air Force had dismissed Pakistani claims regarding the pilot and confirmed that Squadron Leader Singh remains on active duty. The report also mentioned that some Indian YouTubers, particularly in her hometown of Banaras, had raised concerns about her visibility.
Ravish Kumar strongly refuted these allegations through a post on X. He asserted that he had never raised any questions about Squadron Leader Shivangi Singh and that the video in question is a "deep fake." Kumar stated that he is not even familiar with the name and had previously clarified that he did not create any such video, labeling it as a manipulated fabrication.
Kumar criticised Mukesh Kaushik for propagating "fake news on fake news" by associating his name with the deceptive video. He implied that Kaushik should have been able to discern the deep fake and perhaps lacked awareness of Kumar's official online presence on YouTube and Twitter.
Ravish Kumar further accused Kaushik of falsely attributing the spread of misinformation to him. He suggested that Kaushik should examine the deep fake video more carefully and recommended he read a Washington Post report to understand the actions of certain media outlets.
दैनिक भास्कर के पत्रकार मुकेश कौशिक ने लिखा है कि मैंने स्क्वाड्रन लीडर शिवानी सिंह को लेकर सवाल उठाए हैं। मैं न तो इस नाम से परिचित हूँ और न सवाल उठाए हैं। किसी ने डीप फेक का इस्तेमाल कर मेरे नाम और चेहरे से वीडियो बनाया है। कल ही ट्वीट किया था कि मैंने शिवानी सिंह पर कोई वीडियो… pic.twitter.com/cAhrrUmCGs
— ravish kumar (@ravishndtv) June 9, 2025
Earlier, Ravish Kumar had also posted about the existence of deep fake videos using his image and voice, alerting his followers and YouTube to the issue.
ये डीप फेक है। मैंने ऐसा कोई वीडियो नहीं बनाया है। ऐसे कई वीडियो चैनल बन गए हैं जो मेरी आवाज़ और तस्वीर का इस्तेमाल करते हैं । @YouTube @YouTubeIndia https://t.co/oiGiIrg403
— ravish kumar (@ravishndtv) June 7, 2025
The exchange also drew reaction from other journalists, with Shyam Meera Singh expressing his opinion that Mukesh Kaushik's post reflected frustration with Ravish Kumar's popularity.
जो “लहजा और ताप” मुकेश कौशिक जी ने इस्तेमाल किया है उससे पता लगता है वे आपकी लोकप्रियता से कितने कुंठित हैं। मीडिया में ऐसे लोगों की कमी नहीं है जिन्हें नाली की मक्खियाँ भी छूने नहीं आतीं, मगर उनका दुख हिमालय पर्वत से बड़ा है।
— Shyam Meera Singh (@ShyamMeeraSingh) June 9, 2025
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
