Investigation Exposes Pattern of Misinformation and Inflammatory Rhetoric by Influencer Deepak Sharma

A comprehensive three-month investigation conducted by the Digital Forensics and Research Analysis Centre (DFRAC) has shed light on the online activities of Deepak Sharma, a prominent X (formerly Twitter) figure who identifies as a journalist and political commentator. Spanning from May to July 2026, the study systematically monitored Sharma’s digital footprint, revealing a recurring pattern of circulating false claims, communal propaganda, and abusive rhetoric. DFRAC’s report highlights that Sharma’s content often violates standards of responsible communication, leveraging his platform to amplify polarizing narratives that intentionally incite social and communal division.

Deepak Sharma, the founder of the media platform “Aapka Bharat,” has established himself as a notable voice within right-wing social media circles. While he identifies as a “Nationalist” and “Political Thinker,” DFRAC’s findings suggest that his influence is frequently used to disseminate misinformation. His content is characterized by a reliance on inflammatory stereotypes and unverified allegations, often targeting political opponents and religious minorities. The investigation noted that the ambiguity surrounding his professional background—specifically conflicting claims regarding his geographic origins—serves as a backdrop to an online presence defined by tactical, rather than factual, reporting.

A significant portion of the report details Sharma’s history of directing vitriolic and misogynistic abuse toward women in public life. DFRAC documented multiple instances where he targeted figures such as actor Swara Bhasker, actor Sonakshi Sinha, and Member of Parliament Dimple Yadav. When these individuals expressed political opinions or supported protest movements, Sharma’s response regularly bypassed substantive debate in favor of body-shaming, personal insults, and the use of demeaning terminology, such as referring to protesters as “cockroaches.” This behavior patterns an environment of digital harassment designed to silence political dissent through intimidation.

The investigation further highlights Sharma’s tendency to weaponize communal narratives to discredit political opponents. By frequently mischaracterizing leaders from various parties—often using communal slurs or associating them with terrorism without evidence—Sharma attempts to frame legitimate political discourse as a conflict between religious ideologies. A recurring theme in his posts is the portrayal of opposition parties as “anti-Hindu” or complicit in demographic changes. DFRAC notes that such rhetoric is not rooted in reality but is a deliberate strategy to polarize his audience and delegitimize democratic debate by appealing to sectarian prejudices.

The core of DFRAC’s report focuses on the systematic dissemination of fake news through fabricated captions and misleading contextual frames. The investigation successfully debunked several high-profile claims propagated by Sharma, including false assertions regarding stone-pelting in Uttarkashi, misidentified videos of religious events in Karnataka, and the intentional misinterpretation of religious slogans in Ujjain. In one instance, Sharma attempted to pass off a years-old video from the Indian Union Muslim League as a current rally for Priyanka Gandhi. These cases demonstrate a clear trend: Sharma frequently recycles outdated or unrelated footage, re-contextualizing it with communal narratives to stir outrage.

In its conclusion, DFRAC emphasizes that Sharma’s digital activity poses a direct challenge to the integrity of online discourse. By consistently relying on manipulated media and official police rebuttals to prove his claims false, the investigation confirms that his output is not merely erroneous but intentionally provocative. As platforms struggle to combat the spread of harmful misinformation, the report serves as a critical case study on how individual influencers can exploit social media to manufacture toxic environments, bypass ethical journalism standards, and undermine the facts necessary for a functioning, democratic public sphere.