The caste politics in the country know no bounds. The denigration of the upper castes (savarna) concerning the adverse situations of those from scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes is a grim truth, as those who perpetuate this victimhood narrative leave no stone unturned in disseminating falsehoods.
All things are depicted as tools of oppression devised by the upper castes to dominate those they regard as beneath them. Now, after proclaiming that everything from education to bureaucracy and the complete democratic framework, including institutional bodies, has a caste bias, the focus has shifted to technology. ChatGPT is painted as the perceived foe of the caste warriors, as it is asserted to be partial towards their all-time preferred targets, the upper castes.
Vijender Singh Chauhan, an Associate Professor at Delhi University, known for conducting mock Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) interviews for Drishti IAS, used artificial intelligence to direct his malice against the upper castes in front of a cheering audience during the recent launch of a book.
He stated, “Provide a brief prompt to ChatGPT and examine the data it generates. There is a higher likelihood that the information will lean towards the upper castes due to the individuals who have trained it. ChatGPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer. It is trained on existing content that favours the upper castes and the people in power. It is trained by excessively represented individuals from this group.”
“Consequently, if there is a machine with a flawed foundation, how can it be anticipated to deliver justice? Therefore, the battle is not only with the vice chancellors of universities, chief ministers, prime ministers, or bureaucrats, but also with an algorithm. In fact, the challenge is more pronounced with the algorithm because it strips away your ability to discern right from wrong,” he further alleged.
While the remarks might initially seem amusing and only worthy of ridicule on the surface, they uncover a significant and worrying trend of consistent denunciation of the upper castes without any fear of repercussions. These statements are made to further divide Hindu society along caste lines, consistently pitting two communities against each other, vilifying one and portraying the other as a perpetual victim.
This also illustrates how fault lines are exploited for political or personal gain, as has been done repeatedly by colonisers, imperialists and invaders to establish their control over the indigenous people of India and later by “secular parties” for electoral advantage.
Netizens slam the comments with a comedic flair.
The video has been widely disseminated, attracting criticism from netizens. A UPSC aspirant inquired about the benefits of introducing “caste angles into something as neutral as AI.” He also expressed concern over the persistence of these narratives being circulated in 2026. He outlined how shocking it is to be still confronted with such persons peddling this propaganda to divide communities.
He pointed out, “As someone prepping for UPSC myself, I expect educators to unite us, not spread hate under the guise of observations. This kind of talk is harmful and sets a bad example for aspirants. We need better from our mentors.”
Hey everyone, I just came across this ridiculous statement from Vijender Chauhan, that UPSC teacher who's always popping up in interviews and talks. He basically said that ChatGPT is biased towards "savarns" like, what? Claiming an AI tool is somehow made for upper castes? That's… pic.twitter.com/pSKHWBX29r
— Ankit Pandey (@iamankitpande) January 18, 2026
“The Skin Doctor” opted for a hilariously sarcastic approach, writing that Chauhan was indeed right, as the family of Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI) was actually from the Maithil Brahmin lineage in Bihar’s Samastipur. He added that they relocated to the United States at the time of India’s independence because they “would no longer be able to exploit Dalits” and altered their surname.
He then wryly remarked that Altman continues to wear janeu (sacred thread), practice Brahminism and has trained ChatGPT based on the principles of the Manusmriti, leading to ChatGPT’s inclinations towards the upper castes. “Sam thought he was too smart and wouldn’t be caught, but the eagle-eyed watchfulness of our UPSC coach Vijender Singh Chauhan exposed him,” the doctor humorously mentioned.
He is right.
— THE SKIN DOCTOR (@theskindoctor13) January 17, 2026
ChatGPT’s founder Sam Altman’s family was actually Maithil Brahmins from Samastipur, Bihar.
When they realised the country was about to get independence and they would no longer be able to exploit Dalits, they moved to America and changed their surname to blend in… pic.twitter.com/xU29xB8mlT
A person labelled Chauhan a “clown” as well as questioned his knowledge and common sense. The user insinuated, “Anyone can understand how he would have got his degrees. This country is becoming a place of clowns because of these social justice schemes.”
He is Vijender Singh Chauhan, Associate Professor, Delhi University.
— Lovlesh (@LovleshPokra) January 18, 2026
He holds degrees in BA, MA, B.Ed, M.Phill, PhD.
Now look at his knowledge and common sense. Anyone can understand how he would have got his degrees. This country is becoming place of clowns because of these… pic.twitter.com/CECuO4jVzp
Another individual described the statements as “outlandish” and asked, “Should there be reservations in ChatGPT teams?”
Vijender Chauhan, UPSC educator, makes outlandish claims about how ChatGPT produces answers coloured by caste.
— ALLCLEAR ™ (@allclearlive) January 18, 2026
He asserts, due to lesser representation of people of lower castes among teams for these apps, ‘savarna’ people, i.e., upper caste people determine somehow, how apps… pic.twitter.com/sB5jLFoSWS
On the other hand, the professor invoked the “intrinsic bias” of AI and ascribed his statement to “several studies” in a following video after observing the increasing backlash.
वैसे कुछ स्टूडेंट्स को दो बार समझाने से भी समझ नहीं आता 🙂 #Algorithmbias pic.twitter.com/Ov7T1ZrKGQ
— Vijender Chauhan (@masijeevi) January 19, 2026
If the world were genuinely tilted in favour of the upper castes, as is often suggested, these remarks would at least result in some legal action for the profound impact on society and the unjust targeting of a community. However, these issues do not garner a response beyond social media outrage from certain sections, as hostility towards the upper castes is often disregarded.
Meanwhile, the attention of the entire country and online discourse is primarily focused on generalising discrimination against lower castes based on sporadic incidents, with some instances where the SC/ST Act is weaponised to settle personal scores.
Anti-upper caste hate is a norm, not an exception
The characterisation of upper castes as the ultimate adversaries is not an exception but a widespread norm, present not only in the political fabric of the country but also in the coaching centres that are tasked with cultivating bureaucrats in the country.
Vision IAS Academy faced flak in 2022 when its faculty member, Smriti Shah, referred to the Bhakti movement as a “cult” and insisted that it was founded in response to the emergence of “Liberal Islam,” absorbing its concepts of speaking out against discrimination and promoting universal brotherhood.
She claimed, “It was nothing but Islam arriving in India in the seventh century. It was very liberal and talked about equality. There was no caste system either.” Notably, the institution not only defended her but also doubled down on her preposterous statements in the name of clarification.
Shah also made generalisations, casting women as commodities on the subject of polyandry and dragged Draupadi into her argument in another video.
“In the agricultural communities from Punjab and Haryana, the livelihood depends on land. If you have five sons, you have to purchase a wife. You must have that much money to take a bride for each of your sons. Once you get her, the chances of property division are also high, since now there would be five different families. To avoid the fragmentation of land-holding, you instead buy one bride for all your sons,” she stated.
She then stressed, “Polyandry solves two purposes, one, you have to purchase one woman instead of five and second, your economic assets would be retained. When you question if this is illegal, the reference is then made to Draupadi, your culture.”
“We never had this culture of giving gifts during Diwali. It was always about lighting diyas and cleaning your homes because Goddess Laxmi arrives. Nowadays, that Sonpapdi (sweet) Box travels from one household to another until the expiry date doesn’t come,” Shah even imparted the quintessential Diwali sermon to her Hindu students.
Moreover, Vikas Divyakirti, the founder of Drishti IAS, came under fire in the same year for his controversial comparison of Goddess Sita to “ghee contaminated by a dog.” He indicated that Lord Ram told his wife, “that just as food licked by a dog becomes unfit for consumption, you are no longer acceptable to be my wife,” blatantly distorting the Valmiki Ramayana.
Afterwards, netizens uncovered clips from his other lectures and charged that he has been gradually brainwashing and instilling Hinduphobia under the pretence of coaching. Divyakirti was shown openly misrepresenting the Ramayana and disparaging Lord Ram by calling him a casteist in another video. He contended that Tulsidas left out the alleged occurrence related to Dalit Shambuk only to protect Ram. However, the instance is not referenced in the original Sanskrit epic.
Conclusion
It is undeniable that these UPSC coaching centres have transformed into hubs of Hindutva as both their founders and the staff they hire to produce the future leaders of the nation harbour a similar resentment towards the religion and the upper caste community, which is only escalating with time.
Hence, it is hardly surprising that these people have recently discovered a new enemy in ChatGPT. However, it is crucial to recognise that their comments closely resemble the anti-Hindu sentiments promoted by the Islamo-leftist cabal under the pretext of opposition to Brahminical patriarchy, as they try not to straightaway attack Hinduism to uphold a facade of neutrality.
The motivation for Chauhan’s recent outburst could also have stemmed from the declining interest in the mock interviews that previously garnered him millions of views, or it could be an outcome of his increasing irrelevance on social media platforms, as provoking Hindus and upper castes is the easiest way to remain in the news without any apprehension of “sar tan se juda.” Nonetheless, it is a fact that these remarks have tangible effects on the ground.
The slogan “Bhura Baal Saaf Karo” (eliminate upper castes) by Lalu Prasad Yadav exemplified the same and prompted very real and deadly effects on the community, especially during the Rashtriya Janata Dal’s (RJD) Jungle Raj. However, the aversion towards the upper castes is extremely normalised and permeates the consciousness of these people to such an extent that the implications of their rhetoric never affect them.
