Kerala has long projected itself as a model of literacy, social awareness, and secular values. It is a society that takes pride in questioning authority, challenging orthodoxy, and demanding evidence before accepting claims. Yet, recent controversies surrounding cinematic narratives and historical legends reveal a troubling contradiction. In Kerala, the acceptance or rejection of a story often appears to depend not on evidence, but on ideology.
The debate surrounding The Kerala Story and the emerging controversy over its sequel has once again exposed what many see as Kerala’s “selective scepticism.” Certain narratives are instantly dismissed as propaganda or communal, while others—despite weak historical documentation—are embraced, celebrated, and even institutionalised as unquestionable truth.
The Instant Rejection of Uncomfortable Narratives
When The Kerala Story was released, it faced intense opposition in Kerala. Critics labelled it as “communal,” “fictional,” and “anti-secular,” often without engaging deeply with the broader issues it attempted to portray. The controversy has resurfaced with discussions about The Kerala Story 2, particularly over scenes depicting alleged coercion and forced cultural or religious practices, including the forced consumption of beef.
For many, the immediate reaction was not to investigate, debate, or examine facts, but to condemn the narrative itself. The pattern was familiar: rejection first, discussion later—if at all.
Yet, the reality is that Kerala has witnessed documented cases of radicalisation and recruitment of individuals into extremist organisations such as the Islamic State. Some individuals from Kerala travelled to conflict zones like Syria, and several cases have been investigated by national agencies. These are matters of public record, discussed in courts, media reports, and government statements.
Acknowledging these incidents does not indict an entire community. Rather, it highlights the need to recognise and address extremism wherever it exists. However, raising these issues through cinema or public discourse is often met with resistance, not because the events never occurred, but because discussing them challenges prevailing political and ideological narratives.
Nangeli: Legend, Symbol, or History?
In contrast, consider the story of Nangeli, a woman said to have lived during the era of the so-called “breast tax” (Mulakkaram). According to popular accounts, Nangeli cut off her breasts in protest against this oppressive tax, becoming a symbol of resistance and social justice.
This story is widely taught, celebrated in art and literature, and accepted as historical fact by many. Yet, historians have pointed out that there is limited direct documentary evidence confirming Nangeli’s existence or the specific incident as popularly narrated. Some scholars consider it a powerful social legend rather than a verifiable historical event.
Despite these uncertainties, questioning Nangeli’s story is often considered insensitive or politically incorrect. The same society that demands forensic-level proof for contemporary narratives accepts this story without demanding equivalent evidence.
This contrast raises an important question: why are some stories protected from scrutiny while others are denied even the opportunity for discussion?
Selective Scepticism and the Politics of Secularism
True secularism is not about accepting or rejecting narratives based on political convenience. It is about fairness, neutrality, and intellectual honesty. It requires equal scepticism, equal openness, and equal willingness to examine all claims—whether they align with one’s beliefs or not.
Selective scepticism undermines credibility. When people see one set of standards applied to one narrative and a completely different set applied to another, it erodes public trust. It creates the impression that truth itself has become secondary to ideological loyalty.
Cinema, by its very nature, often draws from real events, social concerns, and human experiences. Not every cinematic portrayal is perfect or complete, but dismissing narratives outright without engagement reflects intolerance toward uncomfortable realities.
The Real Purpose of Such Stories
The purpose of films like The Kerala Story 2 or similar narratives is not to target or defame any community as a whole. Rather, they intend to highlight the dangers posed by extremist elements and to raise awareness about real social issues that affect individuals and families.
Extremism, coercion, and exploitation—when carried out in the name of religion, ideology, or power—are crimes against humanity itself. Exposing such atrocities is not communalism; it is a social responsibility.
Ignoring these issues for political convenience does not make them disappear. Instead, silence allows such problems to grow unchecked, putting more innocent lives at risk.
Truth Must Not Be Selective
Kerala’s strength has always been its intellectual courage—the willingness to question, debate, and seek truth. But that courage must be applied consistently, not selectively.
If a story like Nangeli’s can be respected as a symbol despite limited documentation, then contemporary stories highlighting real social concerns deserve at least the space for discussion. Rejecting narratives solely because they challenge political comfort zones weakens the very foundations of secularism.
The purpose of films like The Kerala Story 2 and similar efforts is not to create division, but to prevent exploitation, coercion, and atrocities committed by a few in the name of faith or ideology. They serve as warnings—not accusations against entire communities.
However, if society chooses to ignore such warnings for short-term political gain, it risks allowing serious problems to deepen and spread. True secularism lies not in denying uncomfortable truths, but in confronting them honestly, courageously, and fairly—for the protection, dignity, and unity of all.
