This Is Not New Delhi: How Chinese Influencers Are Using Dhaka to Tarnish India's Image

An investigation by Bangladesh's Prothom Alo has uncovered a troubling practice: Chinese content creators filming poor neighbourhoods in Dhaka while telling audiences they are watching life in India's capital. The deception raises serious questions about how India's image is being manipulated online.

Imagine watching a livestream from what appears to be a poor neighbourhood in New Delhi. The streets are narrow, houses have tin roofs, drains run beside crowded homes, and people are going about their daily lives. The person holding the camera tells you that this is how Indians live. They describe the neighbourhood as dirty and backward, make insulting remarks about local habits, and present everything as an authentic glimpse of India's capital.

There is just one problem. The camera is not in New Delhi. It is in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

This is not a hypothetical example of online misinformation. It is what an investigation by Bangladesh's leading newspaper, Prothom Alo, uncovered in early November 2026. Chinese nationals have been livestreaming from low-income neighbourhoods in Dhaka's Uttara and Tekpara areas, with some presenting the footage to Chinese viewers as scenes from India.

The investigation, based on visits to the neighbourhoods and an examination of Chinese-language broadcasts, offers a striking example of how easily a country's image can be manipulated. No sophisticated artificial intelligence, doctored footage or elaborate digital editing is required. Sometimes, all it takes is a camera, a misleading location and a narrator willing to invent the story.

What Prothom Alo Found in Dhaka

The Bangladeshi newspaper reported that Chinese nationals had been filming in Uttara's Sector 12 and the adjoining Tekpara neighbourhood for months. Residents estimated that more than 150 Chinese nationals were involved, although the newspaper could not independently establish the total number.

The streamers reportedly carried two mobile phones, using one to broadcast and the other to display information. Their activities continued for long hours, often from morning until night. Several local women had been hired to guide them through the neighbourhoods.

But what were they telling their audiences?

Prothom Alo translated portions of the broadcasts and checked the translations with four Bangladeshis familiar with Chinese. What emerged was revealing.

On November 1, a Chinese woman identifying herself as Mianmian, from Sichuan province, stood near a canal in Uttara and introduced the surrounding neighbourhood as New Delhi. She then criticised the condition of the houses, sanitation and local law and order, presenting the area as an example of Indian living conditions.

Another streamer, identified as Wang Wei, filmed people drinking tea at roadside stalls in Tekpara. Instead of describing what was actually happening, he made degrading claims about the tea, including that it contained cow urine and contaminated water.

The choice of such remarks matters. They do more than describe poverty. They draw on stereotypes that can make Indians appear unhygienic or culturally backward to an audience unfamiliar with the reality on the ground.

Some female streamers reportedly went further, claiming that they were married in India and living there with their families. Such personal stories could make the false location seem more convincing.

The result was a manufactured picture of everyday Indian life, constructed using real people and real streets in another country.

When a Real Video Becomes a False Story

This case illustrates a particularly deceptive form of misinformation.

We often associate fake news with edited photographs, artificial intelligence or completely invented incidents. But misleading content can also be built from entirely genuine footage. The houses are real. The people are real. The streets and shops are real. What is false is the story attached to them.

A viewer in China watching these streams may have little reason to question the location. The broadcaster appears to be walking through a neighbourhood, speaking spontaneously and interacting with local surroundings. The livestream format itself creates an impression of authenticity.

Yet a simple change of location transforms the meaning of everything shown.

A narrow street in Dhaka becomes evidence of India's supposed backwardness. The living conditions of Bangladeshi residents are presented as those of Indians. A tea stall becomes an opportunity to ridicule Indian customs.

This is not ordinary criticism of India's poverty or development challenges. India has genuine problems involving urban housing, sanitation and inequality, and those deserve honest reporting. But showing one country while claiming it is another is not journalism or fair commentary. It is misrepresentation.

It also harms Bangladesh. The people being filmed become unwilling characters in a story about another country, while their own identities and circumstances are erased.

Why Were These Neighbourhoods Chosen?

One of the most troubling questions is why the streamers repeatedly selected densely populated, low-income areas.

According to Prothom Alo, a Bangladeshi guide named Ritu Akhter said that she earned Tk 700–800 a day assisting the Chinese nationals. She explained that the creators were particularly interested in poorer neighbourhoods and earned money from videos posted on Chinese platforms, including WeChat and Douyin.

A Chinese national identified as Fangyou told the newspaper that the livestreams were connected to product promotion. However, he declined to explain why the group had selected that particular area or why filming continued for such extended periods.

Product promotion may explain part of the business model, but it does not explain why some broadcasters falsely identified Bangladesh as India or added insulting commentary about Indian society.

The repeated use of the same kind of setting also deserves attention. Rather than showing the full diversity of Dhaka, the broadcasts focused on neighbourhoods where poverty and poor sanitation were visually prominent. Those conditions provided material for a negative portrayal of India.

The broader purpose of the activity remains unverified. The investigation did not establish who, if anyone, directed the streamers or whether a government agency was involved. But the documented false descriptions are serious enough to warrant scrutiny without making assumptions about sponsorship.

The People Behind the Camera Are Not the Only Victims

There is another disturbing aspect of the story.

Residents told Prothom Alo that some streamers entered homes without permission and continued recording even when people objected. Some residents alleged that cameras were taken into bathrooms. Families complained that their private lives were being exposed to unknown audiences, often without understanding what the Chinese-speaking visitors were saying.

This turns the issue into more than a dispute over India's reputation. It raises questions about the dignity and privacy of Bangladeshi citizens.

People living in difficult economic circumstances should not become attractions for foreign content creators. They have the same right to privacy and respect as anyone else.

The newspaper also reported that local police knew about the filming but had limited understanding of its purpose. The officer-in-charge of Uttara West Police Station said senior authorities had been informed.

The investigation therefore raises two connected concerns: the misuse of Bangladeshi communities as online content and the misuse of that content to spread false impressions of India.

Neither should be ignored.

China's Online Narrative Problem

China's domestic digital platforms reach enormous audiences, and content that becomes popular on those platforms can influence perceptions of other countries.

That makes the false identification of Dhaka as New Delhi especially concerning. Viewers who cannot independently recognise the neighbourhood may accept the streamer's account as a firsthand description of Indian society.

The format is particularly effective because the misinformation does not arrive as a formal political statement. It comes disguised as casual travel content, local observation or product promotion.

A viewer may not remember the name of the streamer or the specific location. What may remain is a simple impression: this is what India looks like.

That is how misleading everyday content can become a powerful source of prejudice.

The issue should not be reduced to the nationality of every Chinese tourist or content creator. The concern is the conduct documented in these particular broadcasts. Falsely identifying the location and making degrading claims about the people shown are actions that can be assessed on their own merits.

The Best Counter-Narrative Came From Bangladesh

Perhaps the most important aspect of this episode is who brought the problem into public view.

It was not an Indian government statement or an anonymous social-media accusation. It was an investigation by a Bangladeshi newspaper.

Prothom Alo reporters visited the locations, spoke to residents, approached the foreign creators and examined the language used in the broadcasts. Their reporting supplied the missing context that viewers in China were not receiving.

That is what effective counter-misinformation work should look like.

The response should begin with evidence: identify the actual filming location, preserve the original broadcasts, compare the claims with what is visible and establish who published the material. Chinese platforms should be pressed to correct misleading location claims, while Bangladeshi authorities should examine complaints about unauthorised filming and privacy violations.

India, meanwhile, should resist the temptation to answer misinformation with exaggerated counterclaims. The strongest response is the simplest: show where the footage was actually recorded and explain how its meaning was changed.

This episode offers a larger lesson about the digital age. A country can be misrepresented without a single image being digitally altered. A truthful recording becomes deceptive the moment its location, context or meaning is deliberately changed.

In the case exposed by Prothom Alo, real streets in Bangladesh were used to construct a misleading portrait of India.

The camera showed Dhaka. The audience was told it was Delhi. And that one falsehood changed the entire story.