CHENNAI: The private lives of people who were born with the public’s gaze on them are an especially tricky subject; the children of celebrities wield tremendous privilege without necessarily having much personal agency. Inbanithi, an 18-year-old who is the grandson of Tamil Nadu’s chief minister MK Stalin and the son of the state’s Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development Udhayanidhi Stalin, recently had photographs of him and a young person identified as his girlfriend leaked online. The pictures are believed to have been taken from social media profiles. Not every publication that has reported comments following the leaking by the Minister and his spouse, filmmaker Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi, has respected the couple’s privacy. Some have republished the images. In them, the teenagers appear to be affectionate but not explicit.
In their comments in response to the leaking, Inbanithi’s parents have both presented a progressive stance. Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi responded first, with a Tweet in January shortly after the pictures began circulating. It said: “Don’t be afraid to love and express it. It’s one of the ways to understand nature in its full glory.” This week, Udhayanidhi Stalin also addressed the controversy directly in interviews, saying that his son is an adult with the freedom to conduct his personal life as he wishes to. As someone formally tasked with youth welfare, Inbanithi’s father’s comment reflects especially well, even if it is a personal opinion.
Moral policing where romance and sexuality are concerned is a major societal issue, one with deep cultural roots. This is an issue that disproportionately affects young people, who are denied many forms of agency and autonomy in this country — even when they are legal adults. They may have the right to vote at their discretion and to impact the national project, but not to make personal choices.
Inbanithi is fortunate that his family is publicly supportive. The harsh reality for far too many young people involves tragedies including the truncation of education, the loss of access to communication devices, shaming and ostracisation from extended family and even violence or death. Every case of murder for loving across caste, class, religious or other lines begins with the belief that people don’t belong to themselves and can choose whom they would like to share those selves with.
I would like to stress that the decisions of the young people in question in this particular situation — be it to date, to click pictures together, or to upload them online — should not be in the purview of public reproach. It is only the public response of the parents that are worth scrutiny. In this case, they have led by example. Their comments have highlighted not only that an adult’s autonomy is to be respected even by their own elders or kin, but also that love itself is a natural and beautiful experience — and that its expression is not wrong. These concepts themselves are taboo-breaking, and may be revolutionary to some. It remains to be seen how and if, in a more formal political capacity, these concepts are propagated further —– for the greater good of society, and not only to protect the privacy of the privileged few.