Hadn't watched Madam's video earlier. Just did, however. There are several inaccuracies.
1. Around 12:30 She claims that Taranath uses the word Tirthikas to mean Brahmins. This is a blatant lie and she knows that. The words appear independently several times. Bramhana - 133 times. Tirthika - 93 times. They often appear in the same sentence, and not in a way that would make them synonymous. Examples attached. There are many such. Moreover, one can see that Taranath is generally kind towards Brahmanas and quite harsh towards Tirthikas. So they are NOT the same. So, who are the Tirthikas. It is unclear. In one place a Tirthika Lokayat is mentioned, which appears to be someone following the Charvaka principle (an atheist, basically). In another place it is mentioned that the deity of the languages (who is Avalokiteswara) teaches Panini Sanskrit, and that deity is considered the God of Tirtikas. This indicates that perhaps Tirthikas are Shaivas. It also mentions Shankaracharya as the teacher of Tirthikas, who, apparently, loses a series of debates and commits suicide. Evidently not THE Shankaracharya then. Tirthikas may also be Jains, given that titthiya was used for Jains.
... contd below.

2. She mentions Taranath does not say Bakhtiyar destroyed Nalanda. He does not. But he clearly shows an Islamic hand. This was a major assault on the Vihara, before the occult burning of books and water coming out of other books caused by the siddhi of two Tirthikas, which is a cock-and-bull story she cites as evidence. The Islamic attack story is straightforward, not requiring you to suspend your disbelief. If she believes the fire and water theory, she might as well believe the tale Taranath presents of a man who is half Brahmin and half cat, living in Arabia (Screenshot 2) :)

3. She literally repeated multiple towards the end of the video that the Tibetan authors did not mention Turushkas damaging the Nalanda. She attributed the Turushka attack that Dhammasvamin described to Raja Harshadeva of Kashmir. She herself mentioned in the video that the Dhammasvamin attack happened 18 years after Bakhtiyar's death (ie. mid 1230s) at around 19:40. Harshadeva (who was known as Raja Turushka) died in 1101. So unless he came back as a zombie to attack Nalanda, this theory does not hold any water. She also, somehow, instead of addressing that point, tried to connect a (purported) 7th century attack on the Nalanda with Raja Harsha being called Turushka, quoting Sukumar Dutt. Again that was too early for Raja Harsh, and the 1230s attack was too late for him. She was trying to fit Raja Harsha in this to show that the term "Turushka" may not only imply a Turk.
Being a historian, however, she should not have confused the centuries.
I have shown where Taranath has implicated a Persian man with a Turushka army as having wreaked heavy damage to Nalanda. Let's read the build up of that. Interestingly we find mention of a King of Kashmir called Turushka there (hence her attempt to conflate a much later king). The tale also mentions King Dharmachandra who ruled Aparantaka. Now, this is a recognizable name.
The King Dharmachandra ruled Aparantaka in the 8th century, not 7th (703-720). Towards the later part of that period (711 onwards), both Multan and Kashmir were under the control of the Umayyad Caliphate. Even before that, Arab military commanders held sway in Multan. The incident appears to happen towards the end of Dharmachandra's life, so I guess the reference is either to Muhammad Bin Qasim or his immediate successors. It is, of course, impossible to decipher the name of the Persian ruler from the syllables mentioned there.
So despite Dr. Sharma trying to create confusion with the dates, there certainly was an Islamic attack on Nalanda, which pretty much destroyed it. All the Acharyas escaped with their lives. This is when the vihara fell into disrepair.

4. She says that Odantapuri is the only vihara Khilji destroys, and that it is far away from Nalanda.
She either forgets or misses to mention that not only Dhammasvamin but Taranath as well have confirmed that Vikramshila was damaged by Khilji too.
Notice here that there came a Turushka king called "Moon" in the Antarvedi region post Labamsena's (Lakshman Sena) reign, and some of the monks started collaborating with him. This angered the Bhamgala (Bengal) Turushkas and caused them to raze both Odantapuri and Vikramshila to. Since both texts confirm Vikramshila, we will have to assume that it happened.
Antarvedi is the region between Ganga and Jamuna, so clearly UP. Who was the ruler of UP when Khalji came to Bengal? Qutbuddin Aibak. Aibak literally means Moon Lord in Turkic. So, why was she trying to paint this as the King of Kashmir who was dead a 100 years previously? Kashmir is not even between the Ganga and Jamuna!
So clearly this destruction happened not while Bakhtiyar was riding to Bengal, but after he had assumed control of Bengal.
Now the other trick Dr. Sharma played on her viewers. She said Odantapuri was destroyed because it was mistaken for a fort, etc, and it was very far away from Nalanda. Taranath and Dhammasvamin are suggesting otherwise - that these were premeditated attacks targeting the monks. Now the fun details.
Distance between Nalanda and Vikramshila is only 115 miles! Riding a quick horse, hardly a few hours' journey!

@tishasaroyan 5. Last but not the least, she mentions Dhammasvamin did NOT say that Nalanda was attacked by Bakhtiyar or Turushkas earlier. Well, he does.