YouTuber Dhruv Rathee is under fire for issuing copyright strikes against DS Education, a channel run by 12-year-old Aryan Tiwari, after the boy factually challenged Rathee’s claim that Lord Ram consumed meat. Rathee’s action reek of hypocrisy, especially since his past advocacy against aggressive copyright enforcement.
The Ramayana Dispute Ignites
The controversy began when Aryan Tiwari uploaded videos around first week of April 2026, directly refuting Rathee’s interpretation of Valmiki Ramayana shlokas suggesting meat consumption by Ram. Using Rathee’s signature analytical style, Aryan presented Sanskrit verses and translations, arguing they refer to roots or herbs, not meat, amassing 1.8 million views.
Aryan titled his video “Shri Ram EAT MEAT? Shocking Shlokas from Valmiki Ramayan.” The video went viral, with supporters praising the child’s scholarly rebuttal.
Strikes Hit Aryan’s Channel
By 6 April 2026, YouTube notified Aryan of three copyright strikes from Rathee, triggered by brief clips (under 10 seconds) of Rathee’s original video.
Hindi notices warned of potential channel termination, prompting Aryan to post: “Dhruv Rathee has issued strikes against three of my videos,” sharing appeal screenshots.
Echoes of ANI Hypocrisy
Rathee’s actions clash with his May 2025, tweet decrying ANI’s “extortion racket” via strikes, urging YouTube to allow creators a deletion chance for short clips before penalties. Social media erupted, branding it “hypocrisy at its peak,” especially against a minor. Aryan appealed, pleading implementation of Rathee’s suggested policy.
Remember the ANI copyright episode?
This German Shepherd was preaching that creators should be given a chance before copyright strikes
Now he’s issuing a copyright strike on a 12-year-old kid’s YouTube video just because the kid gave a factual reply.
Hypocrisy at its peak.… https://t.co/Pd75zhCYr5 pic.twitter.com/vAVnACPt4e
— Lala (@FabulasGuy) April 6, 2026
This episode has turned into a textbook case of hypocrisy that Dhruv Rathee cannot easily explain away. The same creator who once attacked harsh copyright strikes as an “extortion racket” is now using the very tactic to silence a 12-year-old who challenged him with evidence. The contradiction is stark: when large agencies issued strikes, Rathee framed it as an attack on free speech; when faced with criticism himself, he allegedly responded with strikes over seconds-long clips.
What has intensified the backlash is not just the act, but the target – a minor presenting a structured rebuttal in Rathee’s own analytical style. This flips Rathee’s long-standing narrative on its head, raising a blunt question: was his stand against copyright misuse a principle, or just convenience?
In trying to curb a small critic, the question to Rathee is whether he practices the very freedoms he publicly champions.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
