The phrase “Godi media” has, over the years, turned into a powerful label used by the Congress ecosystem. It is employed to discredit, mock, and undermine anyone who either supports the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or refuses to follow the political script that thrives on spreading Hindu animosity under the cover of secularism. Instead of being an organic expression, this label was carefully planted and popularized by individuals such as Ravish Kumar. These personalities often try to portray themselves as “neutral journalists,” yet in practice they broadcast propaganda that aligns with a single ideology. The coinage of the term began to circulate widely right after their preferred party was ousted from power through the world’s largest democratic mandate.

That electoral outcome was not just a routine loss for the Congress. It was an unexpected development that rattled the party’s pride and shook the arrogance of its loyal media supporters. The grand old party, long accustomed to authority, found itself stripped of its dominance, and its ideological partners in the press reacted with visible bitterness. Since then, the disheartened opposition and its allies have adopted the “Godi media” tag as a tool to dismiss the will of the people and to accuse anyone who challenges their worldview of being divisive, communal, or biased.

Over the past decade, Congress has failed to regain power and shows little sign of an immediate comeback. During this long exile from governance, its sympathizers in the media have abandoned even the thin mask of neutrality they once wore. Today, their allegiance is out in the open. In fact, their rhetoric closely resembles propaganda strategies of Joseph Goebbels, who famously advised accusing opponents of the very faults one is guilty of. By constantly shouting “Godi media,” these elements attempt to accuse others while remaining loyal courtiers of a single party, faithfully serving their political masters as they have done for decades.

The latest illustration of this bias came when Ravish Kumar went out of his way to elevate Rahul Gandhi. In one of his videos, Kumar compared the Congress leader to none other than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. His attempt was clear: to portray Rahul Gandhi as an enlightened politician, one who supposedly rises above electoral success or failure and dedicates himself solely to the people.

“The question often arises regarding Rahul Gandhi’s failure to win elections. However, he has managed to separate his political pursuits from electoral outcomes. Even after several defeats, he returns to the political arena shortly thereafter. He has ended the opposition’s sense of hopelessness. Perhaps the BJP is troubled by his apparent lack of frustration. He is actively involved on multiple fronts simultaneously and indeed, he creates a new front for himself each day. He has risen above the threats of legal action and imprisonment,” Kumar stated in his video on 25th August.

In this speech, Kumar not only praised Gandhi’s persistence but went even further, attempting a comparison between Rahul Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi. He argued that both figures had worked to remove the fear of jail from politics. He said:

“Mahatma Gandhi’s significant contribution to the freedom movement was his ability to eliminate the fear of prison among the poor and innocent, making incarceration a component of political existence. This is why, during British rule, Jawaharlal Nehru was thrown behind bars for 9 years. It was not just him but countless ordinary Indians were also jailed. For a long time, there were efforts to trap Rahul Gandhi through court cases. However, he has begun to confront those challenges as well.”

This narrative painted by Ravish Kumar attempts to recast Rahul Gandhi not as a career politician but as a crusader for justice, someone selflessly fighting for the downtrodden. However, reality paints a far different picture. Far from working like a non-governmental organisation for the poor, the Congress has historically left no opportunity unused to divide people along caste and community lines, using these divisions as tools to gain political advantage against the BJP.

Examples of this approach are plenty. Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly invoked allegations of an Adani-Ambani nexus with the Modi government. These charges were even echoed by the Trump administration in its own attacks on New Delhi. Gandhi has also made promises about scrapping the Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling on reservations and about redistributing wealth, tactics clearly aimed at gaining voter sympathy. Yet, despite these loud claims, his party consistently failed to translate them into electoral success.

In fact, Gandhi’s so-called commitment to India even took a controversial international turn. He urged then U.S. President Donald Trump to exploit Gautam Adani’s indictment in an American court to pressure Prime Minister Narendra Modi into submission. Later, it came to light that Mossad revealed how Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda (head of the Indian Overseas Congress), and U.S.-based short-seller Hindenburg Research allegedly attempted to weaken India’s economy by targeting the Adani Group, in a larger attempt to malign the Modi government.

At the same time, the I.N.D.I. Alliance—of which the Congress is the main pillar—chose to rely on Trump’s remarks about mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan rather than supporting its own government’s official position. This act alone highlighted how the opposition has frequently placed political calculations above national security. Time and again, it has cast doubt even on the Indian Armed Forces and their successful operations.

But none of this shakes Kumar’s loyalty. To him, Rahul Gandhi remains an altruistic leader, a savior of the people, and a man who rises above politics. While Kumar glorifies Gandhi’s actions, he simultaneously lashes out at others by labeling them as “Godi media” for refusing to echo his version of “objectivity.” The irony of this situation is impossible to ignore. As Kumar paints himself as neutral while serving a single ideology, one can only conclude that irony itself must have suffered a thousand deaths.

Ravish Kumar’s Past Antics Expose His Political Loyalties

Ravish Kumar’s career before his current YouTube stint was tied to NDTV, a channel long accused of acting as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Congress party. The network’s leanings were hardly a secret. In fact, it proudly celebrated its 25-year journey with a grand event at Rashtrapati Bhavan in 2023, a gesture that highlighted its proximity to the establishment of the time. If anything, NDTV was the original face of what Kumar himself now derisively calls “Godi media.”

After leaving television, Kumar shifted to YouTube, but the change of platform did not bring any change in his content. His videos continue to echo the opposition’s line while targeting the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party at every opportunity. It is not out of any journalistic duty, but because the BJP refuses to fit into his self-serving narrative.

Kumar has displayed a consistent hostility toward the BJP, brushing aside the credibility of his arguments and pursuing an agenda that, despite his repeated claims of neutrality, is clearly one-sided and unhelpful to the nation. He projects himself as a defender of democracy, yet his actions tell a different story. One glaring example was his opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar. The program was designed to ensure legitimate voters were given priority and fraudulent entries were eliminated. Instead of supporting a move that strengthened democracy, Kumar openly rejected it.

His actions have, on several occasions, gone far beyond criticism. Kumar was even accused of trying to replicate what came to be known as the “Bangladesh toolkit,” an undemocratic method of toppling governments through violent unrest. By provoking voters and aligning closely with the Congress-led bloc, Kumar stood accused of encouraging tactics that threatened India’s democratic stability.

Kumar’s bias was again evident after the Modi government suspended the Indus Water Treaty following the Pahalgam terror attack. His response was dismissive and undermined the seriousness of the decision. “You can stop the water of six rivers, who gets to decide that? Nature or Modi’s ministers,” he asked in frustration, insisting that India could never prevent rivers from flowing into Pakistan. According to him, the central government was deceiving the public with hollow promises.

His record as a so-called “neutral journalist” came under even more scrutiny when he addressed the shocking Sandeshkhali crimes. Instead of acknowledging the atrocities linked to TMC leaders, Kumar downplayed the severity of the incident and went so far as to connect it to an alleged BJP conspiracy. In doing so, he accused the media of only highlighting cases that hurt the opposition. His misplaced confidence was on full display again when he confidently declared that the I.N.D.I. Alliance would secure over 295 seats in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections—an assertion that revealed more about his political hopes than his journalistic objectivity.

Kumar’s work has not gone unnoticed abroad either. Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontières, RSF) presented him with the “Independence Prize” at its 32nd Press Freedom Awards in Washington, DC. But RSF’s credibility is controversial—it is a Western government-backed outfit, funded in part by the Ford Foundation, with a track record of publishing reports that many in India view as biased, anti-Indian, and openly hostile to Prime Minister Modi. That an organization like this chose to honor Kumar only raised further questions about the global networks supporting his brand of journalism.

All of these episodes highlight a pattern. Ravish Kumar accuses others of bias, yet his own work is steeped in disinformation and carefully aligned with the political interests of the Congress and its allies. While he paints himself as a crusader for truth, his reporting has routinely promoted a specific agenda. With the saffron party firmly in power, his frustration has only grown, and it is likely that he will continue advancing this narrative, regardless of how often he labels others as “Godi media.”