In a venomous outpouring on his YouTube channel, alleged journalist Ravish Kumar went on a cope fest following India’s Operation Sindoor in retaliation of the Pahalgam terror attack. In what seemed like a 30-minute rant on what he called “Godi media”, Kumar’s commentary in the video discussing the operation, revealed his biased reporting and antagonistic approach toward certain media outlets and narratives.

Kumar persistently used the term “Godi media” throughout his commentary, a pejorative label designed to delegitimize certain news outlets by suggesting they are lapdogs of the government.

Hypocritical Criticism

While criticizing what he calls “Godi media” for sensationalism, Kumar employs the same tactics of exaggeration and emotional manipulation. He accuses others of “making fun of the country” while positioning himself as the sole arbiter of journalistic integrity. His self-righteous tone suggests others are incapable of proper reporting.

Selective Presentation of Facts

Kumar carefully chooses which information to highlight and which to downplay, creating a narrative that aligns with his personal biases. He criticizes media outlets for reporting casualty figures while offering no evidence that these reports are actually false, merely pointing out that they weren’t mentioned in the official press conference.

Divisive Insinuations About Religious Motives

Kumar makes pointed comments about the government’s choice of Colonel Sophia Qureshi and Wing Commander Vamika Singh as speakers, insinuating that other media outlets are viewing the conflict through a religious lens. This injecting of religious considerations into his analysis appears designed to create further division.

False Equivalence

Kumar equates reporting casualty numbers from sources with “talking nonsense,” creating a false equivalence between standard journalistic practice (citing sources) and deliberate misinformation. This reveals his antipathy toward reporting that doesn’t align with his viewpoint.

Operation Sindoor

Speaking on the operation and its name and origin, he said, “There is a lot of emphasis on sindoor and revenge for the destruction of the married woman’s forehead (maang) on Godi channels. In the press conference of the army and the government, it was called Operation Sindoor. But who named it, how it was named, why it was named, was not told. But in the coverage of Godi media, headlines are being made about Suhagin (married woman) and Sindoor. After all, which source is telling Godi media that the name Operation Sindoor was given by Prime Minister Modi? Is there a separate press conference of sources going on? We want to repeat again that we are talking about the difference between the way the government presented its action and the way Godi media presented it to the country, and why there is this difference. Sources have told News 18 that the name Sindoor was given to the army by Modiji in the meeting with the army. In a ticker of News 18 channel, it was written that the Indian army has taken revenge for the Suhag of India’s daughters. It was flashed on the screen as the biggest news, the first coverage. We heard a discussion on a channel that Sindoor was destroyed and ‘Sindoor khela’ took place. A reporter of a channel started the report by remembering the dialogue of the film, Om Shanti Om – “Sindoor ki keemat, tum kya jano”. that you don’t know the value of Sindoor. There is an attempt to create emotion with ups and downs in their reporting. You can find everything from factual mistakes to spelling mistakes.”

That man is so full of venom, he can’t even stand with his own country.

A true traitor. THOO pic.twitter.com/6bEl6KRMoF

— BALA (@erbmjha) May 7, 2025

Ravish Kumar’s commentary on Operation Sindoor reveals a personality filled with contempt for alternative viewpoints and media outlets. Rather than providing objective analysis, he delivers a venomous critique designed to delegitimize other sources of information while positioning himself as uniquely trustworthy. His approach contributes to polarization rather than understanding, as he consistently demonizes those who do not share his perspective while claiming to be above the fray.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Ravish Kumar’s Operation Sindoor Meltdown, Attacks ‘Godi Media’ To Mask His Cope appeared first on The Commune.

After a series of disappointing movies with repetitive plots centred on his personal ideology, Pa Ranjith has become increasingly defensive about his failures. He blames both audiences and movie critics for his lack of success. With the release of his latest film, “Thangalaan,” he has taken a more extreme stance. Ranjith is now playing a victim card, criticizing everyone who found the film confusing and artificial as “anti-Dalit”.

He didn’t stop there. His “performance anxiety” is driving his claim that his work is unfairly targeted by anti-Dalit elements. Instead of constructively addressing criticism from respected film reviewers, Ranjith has defended his films by invoking his “Dalit” victim card as a shield against further critique.

Pa Ranjith – Victim Or Lousy Filmmaker

In a recent interview, Ranjith discussed his most recent movie, “Thangalaan.” While the plot was simple and mystical, he intentionally added layers of complexity. He blended themes of oppression, Buddhism, and other elements. He also believes that this blend left the audience overwhelmed and unable to comprehend the film entirely.

But when he speaks on stage, Ranjith seems to imagine that he is the victim of some imaginary group (read the evil Brahminical group) or conspiracy (read Brahminical conspiracy) undermining his success. However, this isn’t the case. Unlike in the past, when films were released primarily during festivals like Pongal and Diwali and had long runs in theatres, today’s technology allows audiences to enjoy intricate and imaginative plots from foreign and Indian films in their homes. Ranjith’s claim of pioneering magical, mystical cinema now seems misplaced, akin to Aishwarya Rajinikanth’s exaggerated assertion that “Kochadaiyaan” was a hundred times better than “Baahubali.”

First, Ranjith should know the audience’s pulse. When audiences see a trailer hinting at a mystic goddess and an ancient plot, they typically expect a captivating storyline enriched with mystical and mythological elements. They look forward to visually striking scenes featuring elaborate costume details, ancient settings, and special effects that enhance the film’s magical and historical themes. A strong narrative should solve what, when, how and why that evokes strong emotions, whether through awe, inspiration, or dramatic conflict. But all we get in The Thangalaan Nightmare is a weak story with a weak screenplay and underwhelming visual effects.

No Lessons Learnt From Kaala

In the past, let’s consider Ranjith’s film “Kaala,” which featured Rajinikanth.

Despite the high-profile cast, the film had a poor opening with negative reviews. It had disappointing collections in the Tollywood trade, earning only ₹6.33 crores during its first weekend in Telugu states. It is a significant shortfall compared to the ₹33 crores spent on its theatrical rights, indicating the film was likely to incur heavy losses. Although the film had a somewhat better opening in Tamil Nadu, the film’s business dwindled because of Ranjith shoving his ideology down people’s throats. Despite a total pre-release business of ₹60 crores in Tamil Nadu, “Kaala” managed to recover only ₹25 crores in its first weekend. The film’s poor performance and reasons highlight the disparity between expectations and actual results.

Why is that? Ranjith intentionally crafted “Kaala” as an antithesis to Mani Ratnam’s “Nayakan,” reimagining it from a Dalit perspective. However, it failed to capture the depth of Ratnam’s character, Vellu Nayakar. Ranjith’s approach, which leaned towards delivering subtle messages rather than engaging plots, missed the mark. Instead of developing a compelling narrative, “Kaala” became overly dramatic and preachy. The movie was didactic, particularly in the second half, which bored many viewers. While audiences tolerate slow-paced films, excessive emphasis on political messages makes it difficult for them to remain engaged throughout the film.

Now, he confronts the general audience at the theatre. He displays arrogance by insisting he will deliver his message in the film. If the audience ignores him, they are “casteists.” If they criticize him, they are “suppressing a Dalit director.”

Conclusion

It remains a question of what kind of person he is, as he seems to view everything through a caste lens. Let us presume Ranjith wants to avoid criticism or his films becoming flops. In that case, he should probably make documentaries for leftist dens of TISS, JNU or The News Minute‘s office. He may get all the simping he expects from audiences in such places.

That may be a better solution for him rather than complaining on stage. Nothing will come out of blaming the audience and seeking sympathy by playing the victim card for the failure of his films.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post The Endless Rants Of Pa. Ranjith Who Is Playing Victimcard For The Failure Of His Mokka Films appeared first on The Commune.