When Telugu actor Sivaji told women actors to wear clothes that don’t show their “saamaan” so that people don’t think of them as a “disgusting whore”, many artists immediately called him out for victim blaming and policing women’s clothing through a regressive, patriarchal narrative.
Sivaji has since ‘apologised’ multiple times, even before the Telangana State Commission for Women which summoned him on December 27. But every time he has reacted to the anger around his initial remarks, Sivaji has only retracted the crass language while doubling down on what he insists was “well-meaning advice” to women.
Emboldened by substantial support from the public on social media, Sivaji now claims that he is the victim in this situation. He believes people “jealous” of him have hatched a “big conspiracy” over Zoom meetings over “just a couple of words spoken in haste”.
Many artists working in the Telugu film industry have plainly slammed Sivaji’s statements as regressive and disrespectful – singer Chinmayi Sripada, actors Navdeep, Manchu Manoj, Prakash Raj, Naga Babu Konidela, and Anasuya Bharadwaj, filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma, and many others.
Voice of Women (VOW), a collective of women artists in Tollywood, wrote to the Movie Artists Association (MAA) demanding an unconditional apology from Sivaji and further action from the Union ensuring respect and safety for women in the industry. The letter was signed by filmmakers Nandini Reddy, Supriya Yarlagadda, Swapna Dutt, and actors Manchu Lakshmi and Jhansi on behalf of over a hundred women artists.
Since the controversy broke out on December 22, not only has Sivaji failed to meaningfully engage with criticism, but has also made thinly veiled, derisive remarks on women like Chinmayi and Anasuya who have most visibly held him accountable. A real apology is nowhere in sight.
Meanwhile, supporters for Sivaji have mushroomed on social media. Many of them are attacking women challenging Sivaji’s misogyny with more sexist abuse, commenting on their age, appearance, and political views.
Sivaji’s enduring patriarchal views
This is not the first time Sivaji has said something upsettingly patriarchal. When he was on season 7 of Bigg Boss Telugu in 2023, Sivaji had a tiff with some women participants. He said if women in his family behaved like that, he would slap them and step on their throat with his foot.
“What kind of women are these? They don’t have character. Won’t men be afraid to marry them?” he said. He refused to backtrack when the host Nagarjuna confronted him about these remarks. When given a chance to express regret even in the aftermath of the present controversy, Sivaji stood by his statement.
He said that in his village, people say they will stomp on someone’s throat when they make a mistake, even if it’s a girl. “Parents and uncles say such things, so the girl doesn’t get hurt,” he said. “Even animals are possessive,” he said, suggesting it was acceptable for people to make such threats of violence to ‘protect’ women in their family from ‘mistakes’.
Sivaji himself said it was his behaviour on Bigg Boss that landed him the role of Mangapathi in the 2025 film Court. Mangapathi is a rigid patriarch from a dominant caste who dictates the conduct of women in his own household. The film shows how he misuses the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) against a young boy who is in a consensual relationship with his niece.
Many viewers saw parallels between Mangapathi and the real life story of another dominant caste patriarch, Maruthi Rao. A Vaishya man, Maruthi Rao was accused of the brutal murder of Pranay, a Dalit man, for marrying his daughter Amrutha. He later died by suicide.
In a dreadful display of casteism, many people in the Telugu states had rallied in support of Maruthi Rao, justifying his cruelty in the name of parental love.
Sivaji’s menacing portrayal of Mangapathi revived his dormant film career. But though he is the film’s antagonist, he too turned into a poster boy for patriarchs. Appreciation for Sivaji’s acting soon turned into endorsement of the character’s views and actions as appropriate for ‘transgressing’ youngsters.
It was in this context that Sivaji gave his advice on women’s clothing and respectability. He was nearly done speaking at a pre-release event for the film Dhandoraa on December 22, where he again plays a casteist patriarch. As a parting remark, he commended the host for wearing a saree while addressing her as ‘amma’.
His moralising tone prompted cheers from the audience, with at least one person chanting ‘Mangapathi’.
Almost like he slipped into the character, Sivaji went on the now infamous rant. He told women working as heroines, “Your beauty lies in sarees and fully covered clothes. There’s no beauty in showing your saamaan (assets).”
He said that when women wear revealing clothes, “people may smile at you, but really what they want to say is, ‘you disgusting whore, why can’t you wear nicer clothes’. But they can’t say it because they will be accused of curbing women’s freedom.”
How Sivaji and his defenders are targeting women challenging his views
Sivaji’s remarks prompted instant anger from many people. Prominent male actors and filmmakers too have issued strong condemnations. Sivaji’s Dhandoraa co-star Navdeep who said he didn’t agree with his choice of words or his opinion. Actor Manchu Manoj said policing women’s clothing was “outdated and unacceptable.”
Actor Naga Babu Konidela, Jana Sena Party leader and brother of party chief Pawan Kalyan, said such moral policing of women was unconstitutional.
But Sivaji thinks he is being targeted through a “conspiracy” by people “jealous” of him. While responding to the controversy, he has specifically mentioned Chinmayi, actor Anasuya Bharadwaj, and the letter from Voice of Women, speaking with disdain.
Sivaji said the day he made the statement, he was disturbed about his choice of words but was advised that the controversy would die down on its own. “But I saw that tweets kept coming till late into the night. They were tagging – who is that woman who speaks about women’s issues, I can't recall, Rahul [Ravindran]’s wife - Chinmayi. People kept tagging her and Anasuya,” he said.
He also asked why Anasuya had “interfered” in the matter. In a voice filled with contempt, he said, “Anasuya said she pities me. I thank God for giving her such a big heart, and I pray I can repay her favour.” When asked what he meant, he chillingly clarified, “I mean if she ever faces any trouble, I will go condemn that it is wrong.”
Anasuya herself asked if Sivaji was implying he wishes for her to face harassment in the future.
Sivaji’s supporters also commented on Anasuya’s post and attacked women’s appearance and clothing, calling them “whores,” using the term “aunty” to imply that they are too old to be ‘heroines’ and therefore Sivaji’s remarks do not apply to them. They further alleged that the women speaking against Sivaji have an “agenda”, while justifying that his remarks as “well-intentioned.”
Women like Karate Kalyani and Priya Chowdary who frequently appear on YouTube channel debates with conservative, right-wing views have also joined them, attacking Chinmayi and Anasuya.
Anasuya addressed the derision over her age while pointing out that she’s 40 and Sivaji is 54. “Some people are using my age to put me down. Such people mostly target progressive women out of fear of losing control over women. We don't have to carry forward ideas from older generations. We can choose to change, we protect our dignity and freedom and empower each other.”
Sivaji continues to miss the point
After facing backlash, Sivaji has apologised but only for the couple of “unparliamentary words” he used. “My intention was good. I just shouldn’t have used those two words. I just wanted to give good advice,” he said in the first reaction video he filmed.
But in media interactions since then, journalists have given him many opportunities to shift the blame from victims of sexual harassment to perpetrators and to tell men to respect women regardless of what they wear. He has refused to do so, standing by his original statement barring the choice of words. This too, he said, was because he was worried his wife and kids would be embarrassed that he used such words in public. His media interactions have been telling of his views on women and sexual violence.
He said he felt like advising women on what to wear because of a recent incident where actor Nidhhi Agerwal was mobbed by a group of men at Lulu Mall in Hyderabad, while attending a film promotion event. The men aggressively surrounded her, breaching her personal space and touching her, asking for photographs and trying to talk to her.
“Nidhhi looked so uncomfortable in that video. If her clothes had slipped, those videos would be around forever. That's what provoked me to say those things,” he said, claiming he was the only one who spoke on her behalf although Chinmayi and others had slammed the mob for their behaviour.
Meanwhile, Nidhhi appeared to rebuke Sivaji’s comments in a cryptic post saying that victim blaming is “manipulation.”
When a journalist asked about Samantha also being similarly mobbed a couple of days later while wearing a saree, Sivaji said, “Gen Z kids are crazy about artists. They just want to touch them.”
Filmmaker and Voice of Women member Nandini Reddy said this was just another way of saying ‘boys will be boys’ and men are not to be blamed for sexual violence.
Sivaji has tried to couch his advice in the language of respectability, calling women Mahashakti or goddesses and comparing them to nature. Nandini said such language is only being used to feign respect while trying to exercise control.
“These cautions can be extended till women are asked to fully cover themselves and never leave home alone. But they don’t want to create a safe environment for women. They don’t speak about the Unnao rape case (in which the convict and former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s life sentence was recently suspended) because they only want control over women,” she said.
When a journalist asked what we should tell the boys mobbing actors, Sivaji said, “No one will listen to us even if we tell them how to behave.” When asked why advise women then, he said, “If Gandhi had simply given up, we wouldn't have got freedom.”
nother journalist told Sivaji that people wanted him to tell men to respect women, regardless of what they wear. His response was to claim again that actors who dress respectably are not mobbed in spite of many examples to the contrary.
“Women shouldn’t provoke. If it seems like you have provoked, boys will think this is how you are. They’ll place bets among themselves. These are small kids. Why should we give them a chance (to commit sexual harassment)?” was Sivaji’s response.
Even after so many of his colleagues and journalists tried to point out the misogyny in his views, he insisted he only wanted to “protect” women and not to deny them freedom.
“I said it like a father, since I play father roles to heroines these days. We all have mothers, wifes, daughters, and there are frequent rapes in India. Out of that fear, a father says to wear nice clothes,” he said.
“Even if an 80-year-old mother’s saree is off, her son will caution her to cover up,” he said.
When asked about the fact that most rapes are committed when women are wearing ‘modest’ clothes, Sivaji dismissed it as an invalid argument (vithandavaadam). He said it wasn’t about clothes at all but about taking ‘precaution’.
With much self-pity, he said his main learning from the controversy has been that “giving good advice is wrong”. When asked about male colleagues who have differed with his views, he said, “Gandhi himself was assassinated, no one can make everyone happy.”
Sivaji’s views are conveyed in the same cover of tradition, civilisation, and virtue as religious leaders like Garikapati Narasimha Rao and Chaganti Koteswara Rao, whom he cited as precedents for such advice.
Such sexist comments have been the norm in Tollywood, from Balakrishna to Ali and Chalapathi Rao. In a resentful, sarcastic voice, Sivaji said to the women artists who called him out, “All the senior women who wanted to present me as a culprit in society, my salutes to you. But why me? There were so many people before me, why don’t you ask them (for an apology)?”
Journalist Rajeshwari Kalyanam noted that Sivaji’s comments were “not an isolated misstep but a telling reflection of how misogyny is normalised, rewarded and ultimately absolved within the Telugu film industry and its social media ecosystem.”
She said that far from facing any consequences, Sivaji only benefits from the media attention, and even sympathy from misogynists on social media. “What is disheartening every single time, however, is the comments section filled with support for such views,” she said, calling on the Telugu film industry to penalise Sivaji for his comments.
Voice of Women too has called on the Movie Artists Association (MAA) to issue a formal code of conduct prohibiting misogynistic statements by members with defined consequences for violations, a safety protocol for women artists during public appearances, sensitisation programmes for artists, and a public statement from MAA taking a clear stand for women's safety, autonomy, and dignity.
