Video shows illegal theme park structure in Indonesia being torn down, not mosque in India
"Hindutva Live from Devbhoomi..I salute the Uttarakhand government and Pushkar Singh," reads part of the Hindi-language caption, which refers to the northern Indian state -- home to several Hindu pilgrimage sites -- as the "Land of Gods".
The state -- led by Pushkar Singh Dhami from the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) -- saw incidents of sectarian clashes in February and October 2024 as the Muslim minority community tried to prevent several mosque demolitions (archived links here and here).
Image
Screenshot of the false post taken on March 20, 2025
The posts about a purported mosque demolition surfaced elsewhere on X and Facebook, shared by Hindu-nationalist accounts as Muslims around the world observed the holy month of Ramadan.
However, the structure is not a mosque and is located in an Indonesian theme park.
Illegal theme park structure
A Google reverse image search using keyframes from the clip found the same video posted on TikTok on March 8 (archived link). Its Indonesian-language captions state it shows demolitions at the Hibisc Fantasy Park in Puncak, a mountain pass in Indonesia's West Java province.
"This building is not a mosque, it was an Indian style building in a fantasy park," the caption continues in English.
Image
Screenshot comparison of the video shared in false posts (left) and the clip uploaded on TikTok (right).
A longer version of the same video was shared on Facebook on March 14, 2025, similarly stating it showed the dismantling of the tourist spot in Indonesia ().
Local news reports here and here said West Java Governor Dedi Mulyadi had ordered the demolition of unlicensed structures at the Hibisc Fantasy Park after flooding in early March killed three people (archived links here, here and here).
The development of the park had disrupted the natural forest cover in the area, contributing to the floods, the governor had said.
The structures seen in the circulating video correspond to those seen in images of the Indonesian theme park uploaded to Google Maps (archived link).
Image
Screenshot comparison of visuals from the clip shared in false posts (left) and an image of Hibisc Fantasy Puncak available on Google Maps (right), with similarities highlighted by AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AFP
3 hours ago
- AFP
Baseless claims ex-US envoy visited Bangladesh share forged document
An image appearing to show a list of passengers who used the VIP lounge of Dhaka's Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport was shared on Facebook in the early hours of August 6, 2025. The purported list is annotated to highlight the date -- August 5 -- and the name of former US diplomat Peter Haas next to a departing flight he is alleged to have taken. Haas served as the US ambassador to Bangladesh between January 2022 and July 2024. "Peter Haas was in Bangladesh until he departed on Emirates' flight EK-583 today, August 5, 2025 at 19:10," reads part of the image's Bengali-language caption. "But the National Citizens Party (NCP) has reported through various national media and social media that Peter Haas is in America. Such an extreme lie that reflects the terrible state of our media." The NCP is a comprising many of the students who spearheaded the uprising that Sheikh Hasina's government in August 2024 (archived here and here). Image Screenshot of the false Facebook post captured on August 10, 2025, with a red X added by AFP The image was also shared in similar Facebook and X posts, after a local television channel claimed four NCP leaders marking the first anniversary of the revolution to meet Haas at a hotel in Cox's Bazar on August 5 (archived here and here). The purported meeting and the NCP leaders' decision to was widely criticised, with some linking the supposed gathering as an indicator of US involvement in Hasina's ouster (archived link). But Haas was in Washington at the time of the alleged meeting, according to multiple sources. Golam Mortoza, press minister at Bangladesh's embassy in Washington, refuted the rumours in an August 5 statement on Facebook (archived link). "One of the two people who could be seen taking the photo, is Peter Haas, former US ambassador to Bangladesh," Mortoza said in a Bengali-language post. "He is still in the USA this morning (9am Washington time, 5 August 2025). The picture is from last Friday (August 1)." A representative for Excelerate Energy, a US firm where Haas is currently an adviser, separately told AFP he has not travelled to Bangladesh since April 2025. And Nasiruddin Patwari told Bangladeshi newspaper The Business Standard: "The news circulating in the media about us having a meeting with Peter Haas is a rumour and baseless" (archived link). Fabricated VIP list S M Ragib Samad, executive director of the airport in Dhaka, told AFP the supposed VIP list is "completely fake" (archived link). An analysis of the circulating image found several factual errors that indicate it has been forged. The purported list does not use the official Bengali name for the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh, using the word for "private" in place of "civil" (archived link). The document also bears the signature of a "Sharier Chowdhury" who is supposedly an assistant director looking after aviation security, but no such person is listed on the airport's list of officers (archived link). According to flight tracking website FlightAware, Emirates flight 583 bound for Dubai departed Dhaka on August 5 at 10:52 am -- not, as the false posts claimed, at 7:10 pm (archived link). Image Screenshot comparison of the falsely shared image (left) and the flight record on FlightAware (right), with the discrepancy in the departure time highlighted by AFP There are also discrepancies with other flights listed on the document. For example, FlyDubai flight 502 is listed as having departed at 7:20 pm but in fact left Dhaka at 8:15 am (archived link). The document also contains incorrectly spelled names, as well as incorrect job titles. Mohammad Mezbah Uddin Chowdhury, for example, is listed as a Ministry of Shipping officer even though he was transferred to another ministry on May 22, 2022 (archived link).
Fashion Network
a day ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
Fashion Network
a day ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
