TL;DR: Every political YouTuber has a bias - the goal isn't finding "unbiased" creators but understanding each creator's lens. Left-leaning indicators: Consistent government criticism, social justice framing, minority rights focus. Right-leaning indicators: Hindu cultural emphasis, "anti-national" framing, government defense. Use our 5-point framework: (1) Topic selection patterns, (2) Framing analysis, (3) Source audit, (4) Omission check, (5) Emotional trigger count.
"Is Dhruv Rathee biased?"
This question generates over 50,000 monthly searches in India. Similar queries about Sham Sharma, Ravish Kumar, and Think School follow close behind. The hunger for understanding political bias in YouTube content reflects a maturing audience that wants to consume information critically.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: every political creator has a bias. The question isn't whether they're biased, but how they're biased and whether you can identify it.
This guide provides a comprehensive framework for detecting political lean in Indian YouTube content.
Why "Unbiased" Is a Myth
Before analyzing specific creators, let's establish a foundational principle: true objectivity in political commentary doesn't exist.
Every creator makes choices: - What to cover (topic selection bias) - How to frame it (narrative bias) - Who to interview (source bias) - What to emphasize (prominence bias) - What to omit (exclusion bias)
These choices reflect worldviews, even when creators genuinely believe they're being neutral. The goal of media literacy isn't finding unbiased sources - it's understanding each source's bias so you can adjust accordingly.
The Indian Political YouTube Spectrum
Based on content analysis, here's how major Indian political YouTubers position on the ideological spectrum:
←───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────→
CRITICAL/LEFT CENTER INDIC/RIGHT
Dhruv Rathee Mohak Mangal Sham Sharma
Ravish Kumar Nitish Rajput Abhijit Chavda
Akash Banerjee Think School
Abhisar Sharma Gaurav Thakur
Sushant Sinha
This isn't a value judgment - it's a positioning based on observable content patterns.
Analyzing the Critical/Left-Liberal Camp
Dhruv Rathee: The Data Behind the "Biased" Label
Subscribers: 31 million | Primary Language: Hindi/English
Dhruv Rathee is simultaneously India's most popular and most controversial political YouTuber. His critics call him "Congress spokesperson" while his supporters see him as a fearless truth-teller.
Let's examine the evidence objectively:
Bias Indicator 1: Topic Selection
Analyzing Rathee's last 100 videos reveals clear patterns:
| Topic Category | Percentage | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Central Government Criticism | 65% | Electoral bonds, Adani, democracy concerns |
| Social Issues | 20% | Caste discrimination, women's safety |
| International | 10% | Germany, climate change |
| Opposition Criticism | 5% | Rare coverage of Congress/AAP failures |
Assessment: Heavy skew toward government criticism. Opposition parties receive minimal critical scrutiny.
Bias Indicator 2: Framing Patterns
Rathee's framing consistently employs specific linguistic choices:
Loaded Questions: - "Is India becoming a Dictatorship?" (26M views) - "Why is India's Democracy in Danger?" - "What is BJP Hiding?"
These titles presuppose conclusions before presenting evidence.
Comparative Framing: - Frequently compares India to authoritarian regimes - Uses international indices (Press Freedom, Democracy Index) that rank India poorly - Rarely acknowledges methodological criticisms of these indices
Bias Indicator 3: Source Selection
| Source Type | Frequency | Lean |
|---|---|---|
| International Media | High | Often critical of India |
| Opposition Leaders | Medium | Anti-government |
| Independent Researchers | Medium | Varies |
| Government Sources | Low | Usually to counter |
| Pro-Government Voices | Rare | Almost never |
Bias Indicator 4: What Rathee Omits
- Detailed coverage of opposition-ruled state failures
- Positive government initiatives without critical framing
- Nuanced defense of policies he criticizes
- Acknowledgment of economic improvements
Bias Indicator 5: Emotional Triggers
Rathee's content frequently employs: - Fear: Democracy dying, freedoms eroding - Outrage: Corruption, crony capitalism - Moral superiority: "Educated" vs "bhakts"
Overall Assessment: Dhruv Rathee operates from a clear left-liberal framework with consistent anti-BJP positioning. His research is generally solid, but framing and topic selection reveal ideological preferences. Bias Rating: Left-leaning (7/10)
Ravish Kumar: Journalism or Activism?
Subscribers: 14 million | Primary Language: Hindi
Ravish Kumar's transition from NDTV to YouTube preserved his journalistic credibility for supporters while crystallizing criticism from detractors.
Content Analysis
Strengths: - Long-form, detailed analysis - Focus on rural and marginalized communities - Professional journalism background - Ramon Magsaysay Award credibility
Bias Indicators:
| Pattern | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Topic Selection | Overwhelming focus on government failures, unemployment, communal issues |
| Guest Selection | Rarely platforms BJP supporters or government defenders |
| Framing | "Fearless journalism" implies others are fearful/compromised |
| Emotional Appeal | Frequent appeals to fear about democratic erosion |
What He Does Well: Covers stories mainstream media ignores, particularly rural distress and minority concerns.
What to Watch For: One-sided source selection, implicit framing that BJP = threat to democracy.
Overall Assessment: Kumar's journalism background provides credibility, but his content selection and framing consistently align with opposition narratives. Bias Rating: Left-leaning (7/10)
Akash Banerjee (The Deshbhakt): Satire as Ideology
Subscribers: 5.1 million | Primary Language: Hindi/English
Akash Banerjee's satirical format makes bias analysis complex - satire inherently requires a target.
The "Bhakt Banerjee" Character
Banerjee's most famous creation - "Bhakt Banerjee" - is a caricature of BJP supporters who: - Views everything through "rose-tinted glasses" - Defends the "supreme leader" unconditionally - Attacks anyone questioning authority
This character reveals Banerjee's ideological positioning more than any policy analysis could.
Bias Indicators
| Element | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Satire Targets | 95%+ aimed at BJP/right-wing |
| Character Framing | BJP supporters portrayed as blind followers |
| Opposition Coverage | Rarely satirized with equal intensity |
| Constitutional Framing | Positions himself as defending constitution against threat |
What He Does Well: Makes political commentary accessible and entertaining; highlights genuine hypocrisy.
What to Watch For: Satire creates permission to attack without substantive argument; opposition rarely receives equal treatment.
Overall Assessment: Banerjee is openly partisan through his satirical framework. Entertainment value is high, but viewers should recognize the ideological positioning. Bias Rating: Left-leaning (8/10)
Analyzing the Indic/Right-Leaning Camp
Sham Sharma: The "Non-Left" Identity
Subscribers: 2.1 million | Primary Language: English/Hindi
Sham Sharma explicitly rejects the "right-wing" label, preferring "non-Left" - a framing choice that itself reveals ideological positioning.
Self-Declared Position
From Sharma's own statements:
"I'm not right-wing, I'm non-Left. I started studying Hinduism and realized there's a massive anti-Hindu bias in mainstream media."
This framing: - Positions "Left" as the default/establishment - Frames his content as counter-narrative - Centers Hindu identity as primary lens
Bias Indicators
| Pattern | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Topic Selection | "Anti-Hindu bias" stories, left-liberal hypocrisy, Hinduphobia |
| Framing | "Left-liberal cabal," "breaking narrative" |
| Source Selection | Indic scholars, Hindu activists, right-leaning commentators |
| Omission | Rarely critical of BJP policies or Hindu extremism |
| Ecosystem Building | Collaborative sessions with other "non-Left" creators |
Content Patterns
Frequently Covered: - Perceived anti-Hindu bias in media/academia - "Left-liberal" double standards - Hindu history and achievements - Government achievements (without critical lens)
Rarely Covered: - BJP policy failures - Hindu nationalist violence - Economic challenges under current government - Nuanced criticism of Hindutva politics
Overall Assessment: Sharma operates from an explicit Hindu-nationalist framework, consistently supporting BJP while framing opposition as anti-national. Bias Rating: Right-leaning (8/10)
Think School: Aspirational Propaganda?
Subscribers: 4.71 million | Primary Language: English
Think School presents an interesting case - educational content that critics argue carries implicit political messaging.
Content Analysis
Think School's videos typically cover: - Indian infrastructure development - Geopolitical analysis favoring India - Business case studies - Economic growth narratives
The "Soft Propaganda" Criticism
Critics argue Think School: - Emphasizes government achievements without critical analysis - Frames India's rise in aspirational terms that align with ruling party narratives - Avoids covering failures or challenges - Uses educational framing to legitimize partisan content
Bias Indicators
| Element | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Topic Selection | Overwhelmingly positive India/government stories |
| Framing | "India rising," "superpower narrative" |
| Critical Analysis | Minimal critique of government policies |
| Opposition Coverage | Rarely covers opposition-ruled states positively |
Defenders' Argument: Think School covers positive stories that mainstream media ignores; optimism isn't bias.
Critics' Argument: Selective optimism that aligns perfectly with government messaging is propaganda with better production value.
Overall Assessment: While not explicitly partisan, Think School's content selection and framing consistently align with pro-government narratives. Bias Rating: Right-leaning (6/10)
Abhijit Chavda: Historical Revisionism
Subscribers: 936K | Primary Language: English/Hindi
Abhijit Chavda represents the intellectual wing of the Indic ecosystem, focusing on history and geopolitics.
Content Focus
Chavda's core themes: - "Distortion" of Indian history by Western/Marxist scholars - Indigenous origin theories for Indian civilization - Geopolitics from an "Indic perspective" - Critique of colonial-era historiography
Bias Indicators
| Pattern | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Historical Framing | Positions mainstream history as "distorted" |
| Source Selection | Indic scholars, often outside academic mainstream |
| Omission | Rarely engages with academic rebuttals |
| Political Alignment | Historical narratives align with Hindu nationalist politics |
Academic Context: Many of Chavda's historical claims (particularly around Aryan migration theory) are contested by mainstream academics. This doesn't make them wrong, but viewers should know they're consuming one perspective in an ongoing debate.
Overall Assessment: Chavda presents revisionist historical narratives that align with Hindu nationalist politics, framed as recovering "true" history from colonial distortion. Bias Rating: Right-leaning (7/10)
The "Centrist" Middle Ground
Mohak Mangal (Soch): Genuine Balance or Perceived Neutrality?
Subscribers: 4.35 million | Primary Language: Hindi/English
Mohak Mangal is frequently cited as India's most "balanced" political YouTuber. Let's examine this claim.
What Makes Him Appear Neutral
- Data-heavy presentations
- Acknowledges multiple perspectives
- Avoids explicitly partisan language
- Covers both government and opposition critically
Bias Indicators (Yes, They Exist)
| Pattern | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Topic Selection | Still skews toward government criticism |
| Framing | "Let's look at data" implies others don't |
| Platform | More opposition-friendly guests than government |
| Omission | Less coverage of opposition-ruled state failures |
The ANI Controversy Context: Mangal's viral "Dear ANI" video and subsequent legal battle positioned him as a free speech warrior against establishment media - a framing that aligned him with anti-establishment narratives.
Overall Assessment: Mangal is more balanced than explicitly partisan creators, but still operates from a framework that skews critical of the current government. Bias Rating: Center-left (4/10)
Nitish Rajput: Critical Thinking Framework
Subscribers: 7.9 million | Primary Language: Hindi
Nitish Rajput positions himself around "critical thinking" rather than political commentary.
Content Approach
- Short-form, accessible content
- Multiple perspectives presented
- Focus on "how to think" rather than "what to think"
- Socio-economic issues over political parties
Bias Assessment
Rajput's content is genuinely harder to categorize politically. His focus on methodology over conclusions creates more balanced output.
Limitations: Even "how to think" content carries implicit biases in: - Which topics are chosen - Which examples are used - Which frameworks are presented
Overall Assessment: Among the more balanced creators, though topic selection still reveals preferences. Bias Rating: Center (3/10)
The 5-Point Bias Detection Framework
Use this framework to evaluate ANY political YouTuber:
1. Topic Selection Analysis
Questions to Ask: - What does this creator consistently cover? - What do they consistently ignore? - Track 20 videos - what patterns emerge?
Red Flags: - One party/ideology always criticized - Other party/ideology rarely examined - Selective outrage (angry about X but silent on equivalent Y)
2. Framing Analysis
Questions to Ask: - How are headlines/titles constructed? - What language choices are made? - What's the implicit narrative?
Examples of Loaded Framing:
| Neutral | Left-Leaning | Right-Leaning |
|---|---|---|
| "Government announces policy" | "Regime pushes controversial policy" | "Bold reform despite opposition" |
| "Protest occurs" | "Citizens demand rights" | "Mob disrupts order" |
| "Religious event" | "Communal gathering" | "Cultural celebration" |
3. Source Audit
Questions to Ask: - Who does this creator cite? - Who do they interview? - Whose voices are amplified vs ignored?
Track Over 10 Videos: - Count sources by political lean - Note who gets sympathetic vs adversarial treatment - Identify missing perspectives
4. Omission Check
Questions to Ask: - What context is missing? - What counter-arguments aren't addressed? - What inconvenient facts are skipped?
Exercise: After watching a video, search for the opposing perspective. What did the creator leave out?
5. Emotional Trigger Count
Questions to Ask: - What emotions does this content provoke? - Is information designed to inform or inflame? - Are you being manipulated?
Common Triggers by Lean:
| Left-Leaning Triggers | Right-Leaning Triggers |
|---|---|
| Fear (democracy dying) | Fear (nation under attack) |
| Outrage (corruption) | Outrage (appeasement) |
| Moral superiority (educated/rational) | Moral superiority (patriotic/dharmic) |
Building Your Balanced YouTube Diet
The Cross-Spectrum Approach
Don't just consume your side. Deliberately watch creators you disagree with.
| If You Usually Watch | Also Watch |
|---|---|
| Dhruv Rathee | Sham Sharma, Think School |
| Sham Sharma | Dhruv Rathee, Ravish Kumar |
| Think School | Akash Banerjee, Mohak Mangal |
The 3-Source Rule
For any major political story: 1. Watch one left-leaning creator's take 2. Watch one right-leaning creator's take 3. Watch one centrist/analytical take
The truth usually lies in the overlapping facts all three acknowledge.
Red Flags That Should Make You Skeptical
Regardless of political lean, be wary when creators:
- Never acknowledge the other side has any valid points
- Use dehumanizing language for opponents ("bhakts," "anti-nationals," "presstitutes")
- Claim to be "unbiased" while clearly taking sides
- Rely heavily on emotional manipulation
- Never correct errors or update positions
- Attack critics personally rather than engaging arguments
The Algorithmic Trap
YouTube's algorithm rewards engagement, not accuracy. Polarized content generates more: - Comments (arguments drive engagement) - Watch time (outrage keeps you watching) - Shares (extreme content spreads faster)
This means both left and right creators are incentivized to become more extreme. The algorithm doesn't care about truth - it cares about attention.
Understanding this helps explain why political YouTube feels increasingly polarized: moderation is algorithmically punished.
Conclusion: Bias Awareness, Not Bias Avoidance
The goal isn't finding unbiased creators - they don't exist. The goal is:
- Knowing each creator's lean before consuming their content
- Adjusting your interpretation based on their framework
- Consuming across the spectrum to get complete pictures
- Developing your own informed positions rather than adopting creators' views wholesale
Every creator covered in this guide produces content worth watching - but only if you watch critically.
Dhruv Rathee will show you government failures others ignore. Sham Sharma will show you anti-Hindu bias others ignore. Mohak Mangal will show you data others oversimplify. Think School will show you progress others dismiss.
Watch them all. Trust none completely. Think for yourself.
Cut through political bias with The Balanced News. See every story from left, center, and right perspectives with transparent bias ratings. Download free for iOS and Android.
