The Gangwar–Bhasin Clash Explained

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available information, commentary videos, and online discussions. It is written solely for analytical and informational purposes — not to defame or promote any individual or entity. All perspectives expressed are interpretative and should not be taken as factual claims.

The Spark That Ignited a Digital Debate

In 2025, the Indian YouTube community found itself split over a heated clash between two well-known creators: Shwetabh Gangwar, the psychology-based commentator behind Gangsta Perspectives, and Divija Bhasin, popularly known as Awkward Goat — a creator who discusses relationships, mental health, and culture.

The controversy erupted when Gangwar released reaction videos critiquing parts of Bhasin’s content. In response, Bhasin filed copyright strikes on his videos, alleging misuse of her work. Gangwar countered that his videos were transformative commentary, which falls under fair use.

What began as a dispute between two creators quickly evolved into a national conversation about free speech, fair use, and professional ethics on YouTube India.

Timeline: How It All Unfolded

Early 2025:Gangwar reacted to one of Bhasin’s reels on Indian marriage traditions. YouTube rejected Bhasin’s initial strike, concluding that Gangwar’s reaction qualified as fair use.

August 2025:Bhasin filed a second copyright claim on another reaction video. Gangwar responded publicly, warning that multiple strikes could permanently remove his channel — calling it “an abuse of the copyright system.”

October 2025:The issue escalated on social media. Fellow creators and fans rallied behind Gangwar, arguing that copyright laws were being used as censorship tools rather than protection mechanisms. Within days, hashtags related to the controversy trended on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter).

The Core Debate

1. Copyright vs. Censorship

This controversy exposes the blurry boundary between protecting intellectual property and stifling legitimate criticism.

• Gangwar’s supporters claim his content added commentary and critique — central to fair use doctrine.

• Bhasin’s defenders argue she has the right to control how her image and words are repurposed, especially when context or tone could misrepresent her.

This dispute highlights a long-standing issue on YouTube: anyone can issue a strike with minimal oversight, jeopardizing a creator’s livelihood before fair-use analysis is complete.

2. Professional Ethics and Public Accountability

Because Bhasin presents herself as a mental health professional, critics questioned whether her response to criticism aligned with the ethical standards of that profession. Others emphasized that professionals, too, have the right to defend their boundaries.

Ultimately, this shifted the discussion from legality to credibility and character — how public figures handle criticism and whether transparency matters more than control.

Community Reactions: Divided but Vocal

The wider creator ecosystem largely sided with Gangwar. Many felt that if copyright laws can silence critique, it sets a dangerous precedent — one that could chill open discussion on YouTube.

Numerous Indian creators released analytical videos dissecting the case, urging YouTube to improve its dispute-resolution system and protect fair-use creators from being silenced.

Public reactions mirrored this divide:

• Most viewers called the strikes disproportionate and harmful to free expression.

• Some sympathized with Bhasin, noting the emotional toll of being repeatedly critiqued online.

Yet across perspectives, there was one shared concern — YouTube’s copyright system is deeply flawed and prone to misuse.

The Bigger Picture: What It Means for Indian Creators

This controversy is more than a feud — it’s a case study in the fragility of digital expression. When content creators fear legal retaliation for commentary, it undermines the very foundation of YouTube as an open platform for dialogue.

It also forces introspection within India’s creator community:How should professionals and educators engage with critique in public spaces?What balance must exist between emotional safety and accountability?

In the age of mental-health advocacy and social commentary, this line is thinner than ever.

Current Status (As of Late 2025)

• Divija Bhasin has not publicly withdrawn her copyright claims.

• Shwetabh Gangwar continues to defend his content as fair use and transformative analysis.

• YouTube has issued no public statement regarding the strikes.

The community remains in limbo — awaiting either a resolution or a policy shift.

Author’s Take

This isn’t just about two YouTubers; it’s about how easily power dynamics can distort creative ecosystems.

Gangwar’s videos appear to qualify as legitimate critique — educational, analytical, and transformative. Yet the emotional impact on Bhasin, as the subject of repeated critique, can’t be dismissed either.

The real issue is systemic: YouTube’s copyright tools lack nuance, and creators exploit that weakness. The platform urgently needs a transparent arbitration process — one that protects fair use while holding all parties accountable.

Until then, controversies like this will keep repeating — eroding trust and silencing the very conversations that keep online culture alive.