Propriety in public discourse: On Udhayanidhi Stalin’s double entendre remarks

Public discourse is distinguished by some rules and codified conduct. While humour is a definite tool for wooing audiences, vulgarity should be afforded no place in interactions in a public forum. The remarks that Leader of Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin made on Monday (August 3, 2026), the video of which is now viral, sit squarely in the latter quarter.

Madras High Court agrees to hear urgently the anticipatory bail plea of Udhayanidhi Stalin

Addressing a public meeting, Mr. Stalin’s double entendre remarks were made in response to the crowd mentioning an actor’s name in response to a comment on what was important to Chief Minister Joseph Vijay. Addressing a protest gathering at Thanjavur on the Cauvery dispute, the LoP took a swipe at the Chief Minister, charging that while Tamil Nadu had not got a drop of water, Mr. Vijay remained unconcerned.

When people in the crowd chanted the name of the actor, he paused, smirked and made the double entendre remark, making a reference to water. His next statement proved that he was fully aware of the double entendre he had just made — he said that he was making the remark with reference to the Cauvery issue only.

His remark has since been described as obscene and vulgar, indecent and distasteful and people from various walks of life have condemned the leader for this. The chorus demanding an apology from him has also grown shriller on social media since the video went viral.

The remarks of the LoP besides being distasteful, are sexist in nature, dragging as they do, a woman outside the electoral political sphere into public speech: to shame an opponent, mock and signal masculinity, or generate crowd applause. The woman herself is denied agency in the exchange. When a senior politician, former Deputy Chief Minister of a State responds to an unnecessary allusion to a woman in a lewd manner, it is a reinforcement of the familiar playbook of patriarchy that renders women as objects of commentary rather than as participants.

In this sense, Mr. Stalin’s distasteful remarks cannot be seen as merely against one woman or actor. They are deeply sexist and are rightly to be taken as the LoP’s poor appreciation of social justice, a slogan he and his party swear by.

His apologists are seeking to explain away the remark, claiming it was made in response to jeers from the crowd, but Mr. Stalin’s should know better. He is no stranger to controversy, his off-the-cuff public remarks have often raised ire and criticism in public.

In this case, a complaint has been lodged against him by women owing allegiance to the TVK, since the remarks were made in reference to their leader, the Chief Minister, in Thanjavur. A complaint has been lodged with the National Commission for Women too. While there might be little to no ground to act on this within the confines of criminal law, what Mr. Stalin must realise is that he’s crossed a line. If he can read the writing on the wall, he will do well to express some remorse for using women as tools to shame his political opponents.

That would not merely be the right thing to do on this count, but also send the message to legions of his followers and youth that apologies, when words slip, are also de rigeur in political discourse.