/
Vijay Deverakonda, Rashmika Mandanna hit back at trolls after Koffee With Karan episode drew 'red flag' reactions
Vijay Deverakonda posted a strongly worded reply after a Koffee With Karan episode in which he said Rashmika Mandanna proposed to him nearly 100 times, a remark many called a 'red flag'. Rashmika had posted that she wanted to protect those who believe in love. Reports differ on marriage.
A
4 min
Actor Vijay Deverakonda has replied to online critics after an episode of the chat show Koffee With Karan in which he and Rashmika Mandanna spoke about their relationship. In a post on Instagram on Monday, 26 October, he called Rashmika one of the most beautiful parts of his life and his best companion, said that they are both gloriously happy, and said that if it is him and her against the world, so be it. He then added a strongly worded line telling everyone else to stay out of it. Reports differ on the status of the relationship, and some call it a marriage while others note that it had not been publicly confirmed.
What set off the reaction
The trigger was a moment in the episode in which, according to reports, Vijay revealed that Rashmika had to propose to him nearly 100 times before he agreed to marry her. Many people on social media reacted by calling him a 'red flag', a phrase that is used for behaviour in a partner that is seen as a warning sign. Other reports of the episode said that some viewers asked whether he had belittled her on screen, and that a clip of his remarks was widely shared.
The reaction followed the pattern that often follows chat-show moments. A line was taken out of the conversation and passed round, without the tone in which it was said, and was read in the harshest way. Whether it was a joke about how persistent she had been or a comment that was meant seriously is the sort of thing that the people who were present, and the two of them, would know best.
How Rashmika responded
Rashmika Mandanna responded first. She posted on Instagram that she wanted to protect the people who believe in love, a message that was read as a defence of the relationship and as a comment on the cynicism of the online response. She has also been in the news this month for responding to trolling about her remarks on marriage, and for comments that she made on subjects such as appearance on screen.
Vijay's post was longer and more pointed. It began with warm words about Rashmika and ended with a line that used strong language about everyone else. A news agency used the line in its headline, which made it the most quoted part of the post. The post did not answer the specific criticism about the number of proposals, and it did not explain what he meant on the show.
The reports are not consistent about whether the two are married, and the point is worth stating plainly because several headlines assume it. One agency refers to Rashmika as his wife, while earlier reports said that neither of them had publicly confirmed a wedding, and that rumours had been fed by a viral invitation. The search of reports available does not settle when, or whether, they married, so the marriage should be treated as unverified. What is clear is that they have spoken about their relationship on the show and have defended it online.
The show itself has a long record of turning remarks into headlines. Its format, in which the host asks guests about relationships and personal views in a light tone, is built to produce short quotable moments, and the clips that spread are usually chosen for their ability to provoke. Fans and critics both know this, which is one reason why such reactions fade quickly.
The episode shows how quickly a conversation on a chat show can become a public argument, and how public figures in relationships are expected to account for the way they talk about them. Many fans defended the couple and said that the criticism was an overreaction to a light remark. Others said the comment was an example of a way of talking about women that deserves to be questioned.
For the two actors, such controversies tend to pass. The question for the audience is how much of a person's private life they are entitled to judge on the strength of a few minutes on television. For now, the two have said what they have to say, and the online debate is likely to move on to the next clip.
A
4 min
What did you think?
