The digital landscape has become a double-edged sword, providing a voice to everyone while simultaneously creating breeding grounds for coordinated misinformation. A recent three-month investigation by DFRAC into the social media activity of Deepak Sharma, a self-styled “journalist” and founder of the platform Aapka Bharat, offers a somber look at how inflammatory narratives are manufactured and weaponized online. By monitoring his presence on X (formerly Twitter) between May and July 2026, researchers uncovered a persistent pattern of behavior that moves beyond casual political opinion and into the realm of systemic social toxicity. This report serves as a diagnostic tool for understanding how misinformation networks operate, stripping away the persona of a “nationalist thinker” to reveal the structural dishonesty underpinning his digital influence.
At the core of the investigation is the dual identity Sharma presents to his audience. While public records tie him to Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, his shifting geographical claims and self-proclaimed titles—such as “Son of Bharat Mata”—are designed to build a brand of militant legitimacy. However, beneath this curated image lies a history of targeting specific demographics, most notably women in the public eye. DFRAC’s analysis reveals that Sharma frequently abandons political debate in favor of visceral, gendered abuse. By labeling prominent figures like Swara Bhaskar and Sonakshi Sinha with dehumanizing terms and resorting to body-shaming, he weaponizes social media to harass those who express dissent. This is not merely an expression of political frustration; it is a calculated effort to silence women through public humiliation and digital intimidation.
The investigation further highlights a disturbing reliance on communal polarization as a primary content strategy. Sharma’s approach to political discourse involves reframing legitimate policy debates into existential religious conflicts. By using derogatory slurs—such as referring to Mamata Banerjee as “Mamata Bano” to imply an illicit link to terrorism—he effectively paints political rivals as enemies of the nation’s moral fabric. These narratives rarely rely on facts. Instead, they utilize sweeping, unverified accusations to alienate communities and foster an “us versus them” mentality. By routinely painting opposition leaders as “anti-Hindu” or complicit in imaginary demographic shifts, he encourages a hostile digital environment where nuance is replaced by raw, sectarian anger designed to galvanize a specific ideological base.
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of Sharma’s digital footprint is the systematic dissemination of fabricated news. DFRAC’s fact-check reports provide clear evidence that his claims are frequently contradicted by official police statements and geographical verification. From falsely attributing stone-pelting incidents in Uttarkashi to communal attackers to misrepresenting decade-old videos from Tripura as fresh instances of religious tension in West Bengal, his content acts as a virus in the social discourse. By deliberately mislabeling videos and mistranslating cultural or religious slogans to suggest violent intent, he exploits the public’s emotional triggers to ensure his content remains viral, often well before the truth can catch up to the misinformation.
The repetitive nature of these falsehoods suggests that they are not mere slips of the pen, but rather a deliberate operational tactic. In cases like the Bareilly rape allegation—where he falsely claimed the victim was a Dalit minor for communal effect—the police evidence proved the incident had no such caste or religious dimension. By injecting identity politics into local crime, the objective is clearly to manufacture outrage. The investigation clarifies that this is not an isolated phenomenon; rather, it is a consistent pattern of taking random, unrelated digital assets and retrofitting them with inflammatory subtitles that tap into pre-existing social anxieties. This methodology ensures that misinformation travels at the speed of light, while the corrections take significantly longer to reach the same audience.
Ultimately, DFRAC’s investigation concludes that the online activity of Deepak Sharma is a significant contributor to the degradation of our public square. By merging the persona of a journalist with the tactics of a provocateur, the account serves to erode the foundational norms of responsible communication. This behavior poses a real-world threat: it does not just misinform; it actively destabilizes social cohesion. As digital platforms continue to struggle with moderation, it is essential for the public to recognize the patterns of such misinformation networks. A healthy democracy relies on an informed citizenry, and by documenting these tactics, we can better protect ourselves against the erosion of truth that occurs when inflammatory rhetoric is allowed to masquerade as the voice of the people.