A swarm of largely male voices rushed in to “correct” her, caution her and recast women’s choices as obligations to everything and everyone, including “ancestors,” “civilisation” and “Bharat,” but not themselves.
Published Nov 19, 2025 | 5:35 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 19, 2025 | 5:35 PM
Upasana Konidela
Synopsis: Recently, entrepreneur Upasana Konidela advised young women at IIT Hyderabad to freeze their eggs, build financial independence and decide their own timelines. When she posted a video of the session online, it quickly prompted a moral panic among largely male commentators, who rushed in to “correct” her, caution her and recast women’s choices as obligations to everything and everyone, including “ancestors,” “civilisation” and “Bharat,” but never to themselves.
Entrepreneur and philanthropist Upasana Konidela recently told young women at the Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad something Indian society rarely allows them to hear openly: freeze your eggs, earn your own money, secure your future and take control of your timeline.
In a now-viral video she shared on X from her session at the institute, Upasana, who is married to Telugu actor Ram Charan, set out a clear message: women do not owe their twenties to marriage markets or demographic anxieties. They owe their choices to themselves.
“The biggest insurance for women is to save your eggs, so you can choose when to get married, when you want to have kids, on your own terms, when you are financially independent,” she said.
She spoke of earning her own money, making bold decisions and planning health-wise, wealth-wise and relationship-wise before 30. Her accompanying observation was simple but telling: fewer women at IIT Hyderabad said they wanted to marry early, while far more men did.
“The women seemed far more career focused,” she wrote on X. She called this “the new progressive India.”
But the response to her words online veered off course almost immediately. Men, and some women too, almost on cue, flooded the conversation to explain why her autonomy-focused advice was wrong, risky or culturally unacceptable.
A swarm of largely male voices rushed in to “correct” her, caution her and recast women’s choices as obligations to everything and everyone, including “ancestors,” “civilisation” and “Bharat,” but not themselves.
Upasana’s post on X, at the time of writing, was viewed by more than 70 lakh users and had nearly 2,700 comments.
Some lectured her on how it is not right to conclude that “not marrying is a marker of progress” and that it “creates damaging ideas for young minds.”
Others wrote at length about how “in Bharat, family remains the strongest stabilising force” and cited “many of the most successful professionals” who credit their families for emotional strength, focus and professional excellence.
What has caught the attention of many observers is that a large portion of the responses come from male internet users and male commentators offering sharp critiques, moral judgments, advice and even condemnation, even though the topic is about women, their choices, careers, fertility, marriage and life timelines.
Many began with “polite disagreement, madam,” only to end with grand declarations about what “Bharat” stands for: balance, tradition, civilisation, moderation. The implication was subtle but clear, that women focusing on careers before early marriage threatens this equilibrium.
One of the loudest responses came from the chronically online billionaire entrepreneur, Sridhar Vembu, who urged young people to marry and reproduce in their twenties as a “demographic duty” to society and ancestors.
What made the sermon even more striking was the background it came from. The man dispensing instructions on marital duty has himself been embroiled in bitter domestic and legal conflict, hardly the portrait of stability he insists others must emulate.
“I advise young entrepreneurs I meet, both men and women, to marry and have kids in their 20s and not keep postponing it. I tell them they have to do their demographic duty to society and their own ancestors. I know these notions may sound quaint or old-fashioned but I am sure these ideas will resonate again,” his post read.
Some women who first spoke to him opined on these comments that “it is the old story in public life: men who cannot manage their own households teaching women how to build theirs.”
Women were not missing from the conversation, but their perspectives were far from uniform.
Some echoed the patriarchal anxieties already dominating the thread, framing Upasana’s advice as culturally dangerous. One self-described “sanatani woman” declared that girls “no longer understand the importance of marriage at the right age” and even suggested that Hindu women are at risk of being “influenced” away from timely marriage by voices like Upasana’s.
Her language, invoking “demographic dangers” and “necessity,” mirrored the political vocabulary of online culture-war narratives rather than the personal realities of young women navigating careers and relationships.
It was less a critique of Upasana’s message and more a warning saturated with anxiety about identity, numbers and community preservation.
“Because of women like Upasana girls nowadays don’t understand the importance of marriage at right age… Hindu girls especially get influenced by women like this lady… SIT down aunty,” she said.
Other women pushed back on Upasana from a completely different angle, critiquing her oversimplified perspective that effectively makes the issue a binary.
Ananda S Jayant on X questioned why career and marriage were being positioned as mutually exclusive at all. If Upasana was calling career-focused women “progressive,” did that automatically render married, career-oriented women “regressive”?
For many women, she implied, life is not a forked path but a braided one, with relationships, work, ambition, partnership and timing intersecting in more complex ways than inspirational soundbites allow.
Experts similarly offered a more nuanced view of the issue.
One gynaecologist reminded readers that while egg freezing may help certain women delay pregnancy, the science is neither a guarantee nor a universal solution.
She pointed out that maternal and fertility outcomes are biologically optimal in the twenties and decline faster for Indian women than for Western counterparts, a fact widely known in reproductive medicine but rarely acknowledged.
She urged that medical choices should stay in medical spaces, a subtle pushback against celebrity empowerment messaging that often oversimplifies hard science.
Then there were women who criticised Upasana from a socioeconomic perspective, arguing that her advice reflected privilege more than applicability.
Renowned doctor from Hyderabad, Dr. Sunita Sayammagaru, pointed out that Upasana herself married young and built her career after marriage, a reality inaccessible to many women without family wealth or networks.
She argued that average women do not have the financial cushion, partner support or social protection to delay relationships indefinitely while chasing career milestones that keep shifting.
To them, Upasana’s speech felt aspirational but detached, empowering in language but impractical in lived reality.
Their responses were a reminder that women’s choices operate within unequal systems, and that “do both” or “do it later” is an option not evenly distributed.
“I believed this shit and now I am regretting every time whenever I am not finding strength to lift my baby! Not everybody can afford freezing eggs! Trust me even if it’s affordable for you it’s not going to give you strength to play and cherish happy moments with your kids!” one user wrote.
Meanwhile, a few also argued that Upasana was selling the “Apollo IVF egg freezing business” by creating a use case that linked financial independence to motherhood.
“She is basically selling Apollo IVF egg freezing business… never follow her advice… no wonder Niharika and Sreeja are divorced… she spoken like true capitalist… for them basically everything is business (from pickles to hospitals). Career is important, but don’t need to delay anything! We need adapt to situations, not delay situations,” the user wrote.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
