Gangsta Paradise vs Awkward Goat: The Complete YouTube India Controversy Explained

Disclaimer:T his article is based on publicly available information, commentary videos, and social media discussions. It is written for informational and analytical purposes only. The goal is to examine the situation fairly, not to defame or promote any individual or entity. All opinions expressed below are interpretative and should not be taken as factual claims.

Background of the Controversy

In 2025, the Indian YouTube community found itself at the center of a heated debate between two creators: Shwetabh Gangwar, known for his channel Gangsta Perspectives, and Divija Bhasin, better known online as Awkward Goat.

The controversy began when Gangwar, a commentary YouTuber with a background in psychology, created reaction videos critiquing some of Bhasin’s content. Bhasin, who identifies as a counseling psychologist and mental health advocate, responded by filing copyright strikes against those videos.

While Bhasin may have seen the strikes as a way to protect her work, many in the creator community interpreted them as an attempt to silence fair criticism, particularly since Gangwar’s videos were largely analytical and transformative in nature — the kind of content typically protected under fair use.

Timeline of Events

The first strike reportedly occurred in early 2025, when Gangwar reacted to one of Bhasin’s Instagram reels about marriage traditions. YouTube initially rejected the strike, determining that his video fell under fair use.

Months later, however, in August 2025, Bhasin issued another copyright claim on a separate video. Gangwar then publicly addressed the matter, explaining how multiple strikes could threaten his channel’s existence and calling the move “an abuse of the copyright system.”

By October 2025, the issue had escalated across social media. Multiple creators and viewers rallied behind Gangwar, criticizing the use of copyright as a censorship tool. The situation quickly became a trending topic on YouTube and Twitter, sparking a wider conversation about free speech and fair use in India’s creator economy.

The Core Issues

Freedom of Speech vs. Copyright Power

At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: Where does legitimate

copyright protection end and censorship begin?Gangwar’s supporters argue that his videos fall within the realm of commentary, which adds value and critique — a hallmark of fair use. On the other hand, Bhasin’s defenders claim she has every right to control how her image and work are used online.

This tension highlights a long-standing flaw in the YouTube copyright system: creators can issue strikes with little oversight, putting entire channels at risk before fair-use assessments are made.

The Ethics of Being a Public Professional

Because Bhasin presents herself as a mental health professional, some critics questioned whether her handling of criticism aligned with the professional ethics of that field. Others, however, emphasized that everyone — including professionals — has a right to protect their content from what they perceive as misrepresentation.

Ultimately, this aspect of the controversy became less about law and more about character and credibility — how creators respond to criticism and whether transparency matters more than control.

Community and Public Reactions

The broader creator community in India largely sided with Gangwar. Many felt that if copyright laws are used to shut down critics, it could create a dangerous precedent where open discussion disappears from the platform. Several YouTubers released videos analyzing the dispute, calling for better policies to prevent “copyright abuse.”

Public sentiment on social media mirrored that divide. While most viewers criticized the strikes as disproportionate, some defended Bhasin’s right to protect her mental health and intellectual property. Regardless of stance, almost everyone agreed that the system itself needs reform — it’s too easy to weaponize copyright and too slow to resolve disputes.

Broader Implications for YouTube India

This controversy exposed how fragile the balance between freedom of expression and digital ownership really is on Indian YouTube. For a platform built on open conversation, the fear of losing a channel over subjective copyright claims can silence creators — even those acting in good faith.

The case also reignited discussions about how creators, especially professionals or educators, should engage with public criticism. In an era where mental health advocacy and social commentary intersect, such disputes risk undermining trust and transparency in the very spaces meant to foster dialogue.

Current Status and Honest Perspective

As of late 2025, the issue remains unresolved. Divija Bhasin has not publicly retracted her copyright claims, and Shwetabh Gangwar continues to stand by his position that his work was fair and transformative. YouTube has not made any public statement, leaving both parties — and the creator community — in limbo.

My honest opinion:This controversy reflects a larger truth about digital culture — the line between critique and offense is thin, and both sides often see themselves as victims. Gangwar’s videos appeared to be legitimate commentary, which should fall under fair use. However, the emotional toll on the person being critiqued cannot be ignored either.

What’s most concerning here is not who was right or wrong, but how easily copyright tools can be misused and how poorly platforms handle such conflicts. YouTube needs a better arbitration process — one that protects fair use, ensures accountability, and prevents creators from weaponizing legal tools to silence each other.

In the end, this controversy isn’t just about two creators. It’s a wake-up call for every commentator, educator, and influencer in India to rethink how criticism, professionalism, and accountability coexist online.

Would you like me to turn this into a ready-to-publish editorial layout (optimized for Medium or Substack formatting, with headline and excerpt suggestions)?