Democracy does not merely test a politician’s ability to win elections. It tests character when applause is easiest to earn through the cheapest of means. Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of former Chief Minister DMK chief M.K. Stalin, has repeatedly failed that test. His arrest over an allegedly vulgar, sexually suggestive remark aimed at Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and actor Trisha Krishnan is, in one sense, a legal matter that must be adjudicated by the courts. Whether his words meet the threshold for criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act or Tamil Nadu’s law against harassment of women is for judges to decide. But legality is not the only standard by which public life should be measured. Political decency matters. And the DMK leader has once again demonstrated a startling absence of judgment. During a protest over the Cauvery water dispute, Udhayanidhi, the opposition’s most recognisable face allowed himself to descend into playground innuendo after sections of the crowd chanted an actor’s name. A rally meant to spotlight one of Tamil Nadu's most pressing water disputes was instantly reduced to gossip and insinuation. That may have amused partisan supporters, but it did nothing to advance the cause they had assembled to champion. The DMK predictably insists this is political vendetta by the ruling TVK government, a convenient diversion from administrative failures. This does not absolve Stalin of responsibility for his own conduct. Those who aspire to govern must also know where civility ends and crudity begins. His latest controversy is part of a troubling pattern. Udhayanidhi’s repeated pouring of vitriol over Sanatana Dharma – in 2023, he compared Sanatana Dharma to malaria, dengue and COVID-19 – has generated precisely the outrage it appeared designed to provoke. His subsequent reiteration in the Tamil Nadu Assembly that Sanatana Dharma “must certainly be abolished” suggested his penchant for manufacturing controversies and dominating headlines. This is especially disappointing because Tamil Nadu has long prided itself on an intellectually rigorous political culture. The state’s public discourse has produced formidable debaters, social reformers and administrators capable of combining ideological conviction with rhetorical sophistication. Now it seems that dynastic entitlement has become a substitute for political maturity. The burden on second-generation leaders is heavier precisely because inherited prominence invites heightened scrutiny. Every careless phrase reinforces the suspicion that public office has become less about public service than permanent performance. India’s politics already suffers from performative outrage and collapsing standards of public debate. It needs fewer provocateurs and more statesmen. Until politicians understand that distinction, the coarsening of democratic discourse will continue, regardless of which party occupies the treasury benches or the opposition front row.
Comments