Dhaka Was Not Delhi: How Chinese Livestreamers Manufacturing a False Image of India

Imagine switching on a livestream and being told that you are watching the streets of New Delhi. The presenter walks through narrow lanes, shows modest homes, roadside tea stalls and people going about their daily lives. The commentary repeatedly describes the surroundings as dirty, unhygienic and underdeveloped.

There is just one problem. The location is not New Delhi. It is Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. A recent investigation by Bangladesh’s newspaper Prothom Alo has brought attention to a group of Chinese nationals who have reportedly been livestreaming from low-income neighbourhoods in Dhaka while presenting the footage to viewers as scenes from India.

What makes the incident particularly concerning is not simply the portrayal of economically disadvantaged communities. It is the alleged misrepresentation of their geographical identity, accompanied by commentary that creates a negative impression of Indian society.

At a time when information increasingly travels across borders through social media, the incident raises a question that goes beyond a few livestreams: how easily can digital content be used to manufacture a misleading perception of another country?

And as November 12 approaches, another question deserves attention. While cameras are being used to portray selected neighbourhoods of India to foreign audiences, how much freedom do independent journalists have to document the situation in China’s own Xinjiang region?

What happened in Dhaka?

The investigation by Prothom Alo, conducted through visits to Uttara and the adjoining Tekpara neighbourhood in Dhaka, described an unusual pattern of prolonged filming by Chinese nationals.

According to the newspaper, the activity had continued for months. People were reportedly seen carrying two smartphones, using one to livestream and the other for scripts or other purposes. Local residents estimated that more than 150 Chinese nationals had been involved in such filming. This figure, however, is a residents’ estimate rather than an independently established count.

The newspaper visited the neighbourhood on October 27 and November 3 and attempted to speak with 17 Chinese nationals. Most declined to answer questions.

One individual, identified as Fangyou, told the newspaper that they were livestreaming on the Chinese platform WeChat as part of product-promotion activities. A local guide also told the newspaper that some of the livestreamers used platforms such as Douyin and other Chinese-based services to publish their videos.

However, it was the content of some broadcasts that attracted particular attention.

According to Prothom Alo, portions of the Chinese-language commentary were translated using Google Translate and checked by four Bangladeshis familiar with the language. The newspaper reported that some livestreamers identified their filming location as New Delhi, despite recording in Dhaka.

In one broadcast, a Chinese woman identified as Mianmian reportedly introduced the location as New Delhi while making disparaging remarks about the homes and living conditions of residents.

Another livestreamer, identified as Wang Wei, allegedly made derogatory comments about tea being consumed at a roadside stall, describing it as cow urine tea and claiming it was made using dirty river water. These are not simply differences in how a neighbourhood is described. The allegation is that viewers were being shown footage from one country while being told it belonged to another.

The investigation also raised concerns about residents’ privacy. Some people told the newspaper that livestreamers had entered their homes without permission and recorded private spaces, including bathrooms.

For people living in these neighbourhoods, the issue was no longer just about being filmed. They had little idea where the footage was being broadcast, who was watching it or how their everyday lives were being presented to an international audience.

Importantly, the investigation did not establish who commissioned the broadcasts or whether the individuals were operating as part of a centrally coordinated campaign. The product-promotion explanation offered by one person also leaves questions unanswered about the misleading geographical descriptions.

India’s response: A question of credibility

The issue has also attracted an official response from New Delhi.

On November 10, 2026, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal addressed media reports about Chinese nationals allegedly portraying parts of Dhaka as New Delhi.

Calling such attempts to present a distorted picture of any country unfortunate, Jaiswal said that spreading false narratives undermines the credibility of those involved and those behind such activities. He also urged the concerned authorities to take appropriate action.

The statement is significant because the incident is not merely a matter of online creators producing questionable entertainment. It raises issues involving foreign nationals, misleading content, privacy and the international image of a neighbouring country.

However, the response should not stop at official statements.

There is a need for better verification of such content, cooperation between relevant authorities in Bangladesh and India, and greater awareness among social media audiences.

Platforms must also examine how location misrepresentation and potentially non-consensual recordings are handled.

November 12: A date that brings another side of the story into focus

The controversy comes just ahead of November 12, a date observed by several Uyghur organisations and diaspora groups as Independence Day.

The date has historical significance for the Uyghur community. It commemorates two short-lived republics established in the region:

• The Islamic Republic of East Turkestan, proclaimed in Kashgar on November 12, 1933.
• The Republic of East Turkestan, proclaimed in Ghulja on November 12, 1944.

These historical developments are remembered by Uyghur organisations as symbols of their distinct identity and aspirations for self-determination.

This date nevertheless provides an opportunity to examine a subject that often receives considerably less attention in mainstream international coverage: the rights, identity and freedom of the Uyghur population living in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

And the questions surrounding Xinjiang are not based solely on social media posts or statements made by political activists. They have been examined by international human rights institutions.

Also Read, Uyghur Genocide: The Cruel Face Of China

What does the United Nations say about Xinjiang?

Xinjiang, located in northwestern China, is home to a substantial Uyghur population. The Uyghurs are a predominantly Muslim, Turkic-speaking ethnic community with a distinct language, culture and historical identity.

For years, the Chinese government has defended its policies in the region as necessary measures to combat terrorism, separatism and religious extremism.

Beijing has also highlighted economic development, poverty alleviation and vocational education programmes as part of its efforts to maintain stability.

However, these policies have attracted serious international scrutiny.

On August 31, 2022, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) published its assessment of the human rights situation in Xinjiang.

The assessment examined evidence relating to arbitrary detention, restrictions on religious and cultural practices, surveillance, family separation and other alleged violations affecting Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim communities.

Its conclusion was particularly significant.

The UN stated that serious human rights violations had been committed in Xinjiang in the context of the Chinese government’s counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies.

It further concluded that the extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detention, alongside broader restrictions on fundamental rights, may constitute international crimes, particularly crimes against humanity.

The report also described allegations of torture, ill-treatment and sexual and gender-based violence in detention facilities as credible.

The significance of the assessment lies in the fact that it was not simply a political statement. It was based on a review of documentary evidence, government laws, policies, data and statements, alongside information from victims, witnesses, researchers and other organisations.

And the debate has not ended.

In an August 27, 2026 update, Human Rights Watch said that serious restrictions affecting Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims continued, citing arbitrary detention, imprisonment, mass surveillance, restrictions on communication and travel, and pressure on people living abroad.

The organisation also highlighted continuing concerns over forced labour in supply chains connected to Xinjiang. These findings make one thing clear: the situation in the region continues to deserve independent scrutiny.

The question China must answer: Can independent journalists freely investigate Xinjiang?

This is perhaps the most important connection between the Dhaka controversy and the November 12 commemoration.

When a content creator enters a neighbourhood in another country, points a camera towards its residents and broadcasts a particular interpretation of their lives, the public has a right to question the accuracy of that presentation.

But independent journalism requires more than the freedom to hold a camera.

It requires the ability to travel, speak privately with residents, verify official claims, investigate sensitive subjects and publish findings without intimidation.

This is precisely where serious concerns have been raised about the media environment inside China.

The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China (FCCC), in its 2025 Media Freedoms Report published in July 2026, described increasing pressure on foreign journalists.

Its survey of 89 international correspondents found that:

• 94 per cent said reporting conditions in China rarely or almost never met international standards.
• Nearly 64 per cent reported obstruction by police or other officials while reporting.
• 77 per cent said sources had declined interviews because they were not permitted to speak to foreign media.

These figures concern reporting conditions across China as a whole, not exclusively Xinjiang.

The situation is particularly difficult in the Uyghur region.

A May 2026 analysis by the Uyghur Human Rights Project, citing FCCC findings, reported that more than three-quarters of surveyed foreign journalists who travelled to East Turkistan in 2024 encountered serious obstacles while attempting to report there. The reported difficulties included surveillance by plainclothes police and the intimidation of potential interviewees.

Consider what this means for independent reporting.

A journalist may be able to visit a location, photograph its buildings and record official statements. But can that journalist freely approach an ordinary Uyghur family, ask about religious restrictions, investigate detention claims or speak to someone whose relatives have allegedly disappeared?

Can local residents speak openly without fearing consequences?

Can journalists independently verify what is happening beyond the locations and interviews presented to them by official authorities?

These are fundamental questions of press freedom.

Official tours, government-produced documentaries and carefully presented development projects can provide information about a region. But they cannot replace independent journalism.

A genuinely transparent media environment must allow uncomfortable questions to be asked, even when those questions concern the government itself.

The purpose of independent journalism is not to produce favourable or unfavourable images of a country. It is to establish what is happening through verification.

Information warfare is not always fought with weapons

For defence observers, the Dhaka incident also offers an opportunity to look at a less visible aspect of modern national security: the information environment.

Traditional military power is measured through aircraft, missiles, naval assets, troop strength and technological capabilities.

But national reputation and international perception are also important in modern geopolitics.

A country’s global image can influence tourism, investment, diplomatic relationships and the way foreign audiences understand its society.

Digital platforms have made it easier for individuals and organisations to distribute content internationally without depending on traditional broadcasters.

This creates opportunities for independent journalism, but it also creates vulnerabilities.

Misleading location descriptions, selective footage, emotionally charged commentary and repeated stereotypes can all influence how audiences perceive a country.

Such activities can become part of an information operation when they are deliberately coordinated to achieve a particular objective. However, establishing that requires evidence of coordination, intent and sponsorship.

Nevertheless, the incident demonstrates why digital verification has become an important component of national security.

Countries must increasingly be prepared to defend not only their physical borders but also the accuracy of information circulating about them.

One standard of truth, regardless of the country

If Chinese authorities want the international community to understand their policies in Xinjiang, they should welcome independent journalists, allow unrestricted interviews and provide meaningful transparency about the concerns raised by the United Nations.

The principle cannot change depending on whose international reputation is at stake.

A country cannot reasonably expect the world to accept its preferred portrayal while denying independent scrutiny of the realities behind that portrayal.

As November 12 approaches, the story of East Turkestan and the continuing concerns surrounding the Uyghur population deserve attention in their own right.

The debate is not about replacing one country’s propaganda with another’s. It is about ensuring that facts are not sacrificed for political convenience.

And perhaps the most important question for every government, media organisation and social media platform is a simple one:

If a country wants the world to see the truth about others, is it equally prepared to let the world see the truth about itself?