The trolling of popular TV anchor Anjana Kashyap over her remarks on star YouTube teachers—where she appeared to belittle their pedagogy and implied that they are more interested in garnering views than imparting knowledge—is a telling commentary on how profoundly the transformation of teaching and learning from the traditional to the digital world is still misunderstood, even by seasoned journalists.
Much of her criticism was unwarranted, and the backlash she has faced was predictable in an age where the virtual world has its own mechanisms of accountability and retaliation. The fundamentals of the digital economy rest on engagement—views, likes, shares, and subscriptions. The same ecosystem has produced influencers whose reach, in many cases, surpasses that of established celebrities. Kashyap may be operating from a conventional understanding of public influence, but the reality is that influencers now exist in virtually every field, and education is no exception.
Teacher-influencers deserve recognition for having earned their place in this ecosystem and for choosing a profession that remains socially vital. India continues to grapple with a severe shortage of teachers, particularly subject specialists. In many regions, this shortage has reached near-emergency proportions. Against this backdrop, the contribution of YouTube educators deserves appreciation rather than dismissal.
Online education platforms are, in many ways, an extension of this coaching ecosystem. However, over time, technological innovation, digital resources, and market competition have transformed them into something more dynamic and accessible. For millions of students, online classes often provide better learning opportunities than what is available in their schools or neighbourhoods. Meanwhile, many large, branded coaching institutes have, through aggressive commercialization and exorbitant fees, alienated sections of their student base. Increasingly, students are turning away from these institutions, aided by influencers, YouTubers, and social media communities that have exposed their shortcomings and marketing excesses.
The controversy also reveals a broader gap in media literacy. Most audiences fail to appreciate that news organisations operate within institutional constraints. Television channels and newspapers function according to editorial policies, commercial considerations, and political realities. Individual journalists are rarely fully autonomous actors. In an environment where the survival of many news organisations is uncertain, direct confrontation with political and economic power carries significant risks. Consequently, criticism of a journalist’s editorial choices should not always be reduced to personal preference or individual bias.
Viewed in this context, the controversy has had one positive outcome: it has brought online educators into sharper public focus and generated overdue appreciation for the work they do. Across the country, countless students from poor and lower-middle-class backgrounds rely on these educators for quality instruction that is either free or available at a nominal cost. For many of them, online learning offers not only access to knowledge but also hope, confidence, and the reassurance that quality education is no longer restricted by geography or income.
This debate should ultimately lead to a deeper understanding of the digital economy, the changing landscape of educational services, the persistent shortage of quality teachers in schools, and the limitations of India’s coaching culture. Above all, it should foster greater sensitivity toward those who are helping educate millions of Indian children and young people in ways that traditional institutions have often failed to do.
