The title of Dhruv Rathee’s post, as referenced in the context, is “My Response to Pakistani People | Operation Sindoor Explained,” uploaded on May 31, 2025.

Background: The Controversy

The controversy stems from Rathee’s earlier video, “India-Pak Ceasefire | Can Pakistan EVER be Trusted Again?” uploaded on May 14, 2025, which discussed the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians, mostly Hindu tourists, on April 22, 2025. The attack, attributed to The Resistance Force, a group linked to Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad, prompted India’s Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Pakistan. Rathee’s video critiqued the Indian government’s security lapses but also discussed the broader context of India-Pakistan relations, including Pakistan’s alleged role in sponsoring terrorism. This content sparked significant backlash, particularly in Pakistan, where some social media users and commentators accused Rathee of bias, nationalism, and aligning with the Indian government’s narrative to avoid being banned in India. Pakistani YouTubers like Syed Muzammil Shah and others responded with videos debunking Rathee’s claims, arguing that his narrative was one-sided and relied on Indian media sources, which they deemed unreliable. Meanwhile, Indian audiences, particularly on platforms like Reddit’s r/indiadiscussion, expressed mixed sentiments—some praised Rathee for supporting India, while others accused him of pandering to nationalist sentiments for views.

The Pakistani audience’s reaction was particularly intense because Rathee had previously been perceived as a neutral or even sympathetic voice due to his criticisms of the Indian government. His large Pakistani following felt that his ceasefire video marked a shift, portraying him as a “sellout” or someone who had succumbed to pressure from Indian authorities. This led to accusations that Rathee was peddling Indian propaganda, with some Pakistani Reddit users on r/pakistan calling him out for “misrepresenting facts” and being “insidious” in his narrative. Additionally, Pakistani news channels had previously used out-of-context clips from Rathee’s videos to depict India as unstable, a move Rathee later claimed was unauthorized and manipulative.

Rathee’s Response: Key Points

In his May 31, 2025, video, Rathee addresses these criticisms head-on, aiming to clarify his stance and dispel misconceptions. The following key points summarize his response, based on available information and the broader context of his work:

1. Clarification on Video Misuse: Rathee begins by addressing the Pakistani media’s use of his clips, particularly following the Pahalgam attack. He claims that pro-Pakistan channels selectively edited his videos to create anti-India propaganda, presenting his critiques of Indian security failures as evidence of India’s instability. In his response, he emphasizes that these clips were taken out of context, stating, “They misused my video by cutting out of context clips”. He calls out the hypocrisy of critics who accuse him of bias while ignoring how his content was manipulated to serve Pakistan’s narrative.

2. Reaffirming Neutrality: Rathee reiterates his commitment to fact-based content, distancing himself from both Indian and Pakistani nationalist narratives. He acknowledges that his ceasefire video may have been interpreted as pro-India due to its focus on Pakistan’s role in terrorism, but he argues that his primary intent was to analyze the geopolitical situation objectively. He urges viewers to watch his videos in full to understand the context, echoing advice he received from Grok AI in a user query: “Check the claims made by both parties yourself, watch the full context of the videos, and focus on facts”. This approach aligns with Rathee’s broader brand as a fact-checker and educator.

3. Addressing Pakistani Audience Expectations: Rathee expresses disappointment that his Pakistani audience, who once viewed him as an unbiased voice, now accuses him of being a “sanghee” (a pejorative term for Indian nationalists). He explains that his criticism of the Indian government does not equate to being anti-India, nor does it imply unconditional support for Pakistan. He acknowledges the complexity of India-Pakistan relations, noting that both sides have valid grievances but also engage in propaganda. He specifically addresses Pakistani YouTubers like Muzammil Shah, suggesting that their responses, while valid in pointing out inconsistencies, often amplify emotions rather than facts.

4. Operation Sindoor Context: Rathee provides a detailed explanation of Operation Sindoor, India’s military response to the Pahalgam attack. He clarifies that his video did not endorse India’s actions blindly but aimed to highlight the security failures that allowed the attack to occur, such as the lack of mandatory clearance for reopening the Baisaran Valley to tourists. He also notes India’s claim of targeting terror camps, contrasting it with Pakistan’s narrative of civilian casualties, and encourages viewers to seek primary sources to verify claims.

5. Personal Attacks and Misinformation: Rathee addresses the personal attacks he faced, including false claims that he is a Pakistani Muslim named Badruddin Rashid Lahori, that his wife Juli Lbr is Pakistani, and that they live in Dawood Ibrahim’s bungalow in Karachi. He calls these accusations “desperate” attempts to discredit him, emphasizing that he is “100% Indian” and his wife is “100% German.” He condemns the dragging of his family into the controversy, highlighting the moral bankruptcy of such tactics.

6. Appeal for Constructive Dialogue: Rathee concludes by calling for constructive dialogue over divisive rhetoric. He acknowledges the pain caused by the Pahalgam attack and the subsequent India-Pakistan clashes but urges both Indian and Pakistani audiences to focus on shared humanity rather than nationalist agendas. He references his earlier videos, such as the one on the “Lies Factory,” where he criticized misinformation campaigns on both sides, including WhatsApp-driven propaganda in India and similar tactics in Pakistan.

Analysis: Navigating a Polarized Landscape

Rathee’s response reflects the challenges of being a public figure in a polarized geopolitical context. His large audience—34 million subscribers as of January 2025—spans India, Pakistan, and beyond, making him a target for both praise and criticism. His critics in Pakistan argue that his ceasefire video lacked neutrality, relying on Indian sources like The Indian Express, which they view as biased. Meanwhile, Indian critics, particularly from pro-government circles, accuse him of being a foreign agent due to his German residency and association with Deutsche Welle. This duality underscores the difficulty of maintaining credibility when addressing contentious issues like India-Pakistan relations.

Rathee’s approach in his response video is strategic: by addressing specific accusations, providing context for Operation Sindoor, and reaffirming his commitment to facts, he attempts to reclaim the narrative. However, his critics argue that his content, while fact-based, often carries an implicit bias due to his Indian background and need to maintain relevance in India’s media landscape. Pakistani Reddit users, for instance, suggest that Rathee’s shift in tone was a calculated move to avoid being banned in India, a claim he denies.

Broader Implications

Rathee’s response highlights the broader issue of narrative warfare in India-Pakistan relations. Both sides weaponize media—Pakistani channels using Rathee’s clips to depict India as unstable, and Indian outlets accusing him of being a Pakistani sympathizer. This dynamic reflects a deeper problem: the inability to engage in good-faith discourse across borders. Rathee’s call for viewers to verify claims independently is a step toward countering this, but the polarized reactions on platforms like Reddit and X show that audiences often consume content through preconceived lenses.

Conclusion

Dhruv Rathee’s response to the Pakistani people in his May 31, 2025, video is a calculated effort to address accusations of bias, clarify his stance on Operation Sindoor, and counter misinformation about his personal life. While he maintains his commitment to fact-based content, the polarized reactions from Indian and Pakistani audiences underscore the challenges of navigating sensitive geopolitical issues. By urging viewers to focus on facts and engage in constructive dialogue, Rathee attempts to rise above the fray, but his success in bridging divides remains uncertain in a landscape defined by mistrust and competing narratives.