On the evenings of May 29–30, 2026, a primetime anchor sitting behind a studio desk referred to some of India's most followed educators as "do kaudi ke", not worth two pennies, and called them "big frauds." That anchor was Anjana Om Kashyap, managing editor at Aaj Tak, and the remark detonated across the internet within hours. But the controversy that followed wasn't really about YouTube teachers. It was about who gets to hold the microphone in India and whether that person has earned the right to use it.
The timing was not incidental. The controversy broke amid growing questions about the NEET paper leak, with many YouTube teachers openly criticising the government and examination agencies in support of students. The NEET-UG 2026 exam, held on May 3 for over 2.27 million aspirants, was cancelled on May 12 following investigations that revealed overlaps between a pre-circulated guess paper and the actual question paper. Students' lives were in genuine free fall; some had sold land to fund years of preparation, and the educators they had trusted were asking hard questions on their behalf. In this moment, Anjana chose not to interrogate the system that failed these students. She went after the teachers instead.
Abhinay Sharma of Abhinay Maths responded by asking who, exactly, had been preparing millions of students for JEE, NEET, SSC, and UPSC over the past several years, if these teachers were worthless. It is the kind of question
that answers itself. Suman Ma'am pointed out that she runs free marathon classes for students who cannot afford coaching, and questioned why a journalist in an air-conditioned studio was calling her a fraud instead of covering the actual problems, student unemployment and paper leaks. Khan Sir, with his characteristically direct brevity, told Anjana: "Tu apna gyaan apne paas rakh." Keep your wisdom to yourself. The controversy also prompted reactions from students, many of whom shared personal stories of how online educators had helped them clear competitive examinations.
What made the original criticism particularly weak is that it applied a single brush to an entire ecosystem. A serious, fact-based conversation about accountability in digital education would be entirely worthwhile. There are YouTube channels that overpromise and manipulate students emotionally. But Kashyap's remarks did not target specific bad actors; they dismissed an entire community. That is not journalism. That is the very thing she accused the teachers of doing: performing outrage for an audience.
The irony compounds when you look at the institution making the accusation. India ranks 157th out of 180
countries in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index, dropping six places from 151st in 2025. RSF cited rising violence against journalists, highly concentrated media ownership, and the weaponisation of national security laws. A long-form piece in The Caravan has been highly critical of Kashyap's journalism, noting the aggressive propagation of Hindutva-centred ideologies and biased reporting in favour of the BJP across a variety of situations. A press ecosystem described by its own international watchdogs as operating in crisis, not because of TRP-hungry teachers on YouTube, but because of the channels those teachers were supposedly imitating.
Then came the move that turned a controversy into a story. Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network filed a civil defamation suit in the Delhi High Court against Khan Sir, Abhinay Sharma, and others, seeking ₹2 crore in damages. The suit alleges that the defendants made "scandalous, false, and grossly defamatory" statements and that the remarks were part of a coordinated online campaign. In a video, Khan Sir had accused Kashyap of spreading fake news and being a "broker" for the government. Whether or not those specific words cross a legal line is a question for the court. But the larger question the lawsuit raises is simpler and more uncomfortable: why, after calling millions of students' teachers worthless on national television, is the next move a legal threat rather than a rebuttal?
India in 2026 is a country where defamation laws are increasingly being used against those who push back against powerful institutions, and where Khan Sir did not invent the criticism he levelled at Anjana Om Kashyap. He reflected a question that millions of Indians have been asking for years: whose side is this journalism on? That question deserves an answer. Not a lawyer.
Sources
- Hauterrfly — YouTube Educators React: https:// hauterrfly.com
- The Jan Post — "Do Kaudi Ke" Remark Backfires: https://www.thejanpost.com
- Inventiva — ₹2 Crore Case Analysis: https:// www.inventiva.co.in
- Scroll. in — Defamation Suit Filed: https://scroll.in
- Best Media Info — Suit Details: https:// bestmediainfo.com
- Wikipedia — 2026 NEET Controversy: https:// en.wikipedia.org
- Outlook India — NEET Paper Leak Scandal: https:// www.outlookindia.com
- RSF 2026 World Press Freedom Index: https:// rsf.org
- The Wire — India 157th in RSF Index: https:// m.thewire.in
- Wikipedia — Anjana Om Kashyap: https:// en.wikipedia.org