Listen to the article
Controversial Film Uses Sexual Violence as Fear-Mongering Tool
The recently released film “The Kerala Story 2 Goes Beyond” has drawn criticism for its portrayal of inter-faith marriages and what critics describe as an overt attempt to incite religious animosity through disturbing depictions of sexual violence.
At the center of the film is Neha, a Dalit javelin thrower whose dreams are shattered when her Muslim husband allegedly forces her into sex work after coercing her to convert to Islam. The film graphically portrays her suffering, showing her husband receiving payment from a religious leader for the conversion before subjecting her to repeated sexual assault by paying customers.
These scenes are crafted using classic horror techniques to maximize emotional impact on viewers. One particularly charged sequence shows Neha’s father arriving to rescue her from captivity, followed by a scene where authorities arrive with a bulldozer to demolish the building where she was held—accompanied by religious chants from onlookers.
The film follows a similar narrative pattern established in its predecessor. In the first installment, the main character Shalini Unnikrishnan, a nursing student from Kerala, is depicted as being radicalized after conversion to Islam and enduring multiple sexual assaults. Her story culminates in her being separated from her child and facing further trauma at the hands of terrorists.
The sequel continues this thematic approach by following three young women who develop relationships with Muslim men, each storyline ending in tragedy. Besides Neha, the film portrays Divya, a 16-year-old aspiring social media influencer who runs away with her Muslim boyfriend against her parents’ wishes, and Surekha, a progressive Keralite woman whose live-in relationship with her Muslim partner leads to imprisonment and forced religious practices.
Industry observers note that the film’s messaging appears deliberate in its framing of interfaith relationships. Throughout the narrative, the filmmakers suggest these relationships are part of a larger conspiracy to alter India’s demographic makeup, with one character claiming there is an organized effort to target “every single unmarried Hindu girl in the nation.”
The film, directed by Kamakhya Narayan Singh and written by Vipul Amrutlal Shah and Amarnath Jha, presents these fictional narratives alongside references to real-life criminal cases and demographic statistics in an apparent attempt to lend credibility to its claims. It concludes with what critics describe as a direct call for Hindu unity against what the film terms “love jihad.”
Legal challenges have already emerged around the film’s release. The Kerala High Court previously ordered the removal of promotional material but ultimately allowed the screening to proceed despite concerns about its potential social impact.
Media analysts point out that the film represents a growing trend of politically charged cinema in India that exploits sensitive social issues. By focusing heavily on sexual violence as a narrative device, critics argue the film weaponizes one of society’s most traumatic experiences to discourage interfaith relationships.
The filmmakers have defended their work as raising “awareness,” though detractors maintain it does little more than stoke communal tensions through manufactured scenarios and exaggerated threats. The controversial nature of the content has sparked debates about the responsibilities of filmmakers when addressing complex social and religious dynamics.
As audiences continue to process the film’s provocative content, the broader conversation about the intersection of creative expression, religious portrayal, and social responsibility in Indian cinema seems likely to intensify.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
While films can tackle complex social issues, the approach taken here appears to be more about inflaming religious tensions and fear-mongering than providing nuanced insight. The exploitation of sexual violence is deeply concerning and raises questions about the filmmakers’ motivations.
I share your concerns. Responsible filmmaking requires a delicate touch, particularly when dealing with sensitive and politically charged topics. This film seems to fall short of that standard, prioritizing sensationalism over balanced storytelling.
The graphic depictions of sexual violence in this film are deeply troubling and seem to be more about sensationalism than genuine exploration of the issues. Filmmakers should handle such sensitive topics with great care and nuance.
Agreed. The use of sexual violence as a narrative device in this case raises serious ethical questions about the filmmakers’ intentions and the potential impact on viewers. A more balanced and thoughtful approach would be more appropriate.
The use of sexual violence as a narrative device is troubling. While films can explore complex social issues, this approach appears to be more about fear-mongering and religious animosity than genuine storytelling.
Agreed, it’s disappointing to see a film exploit such a serious topic in what seems like a sensationalized, one-sided manner. Responsible filmmaking requires a more balanced and sensitive touch.
The use of sexual violence as a narrative device in this film is highly problematic and raises serious ethical concerns. While complex social issues can be explored through film, this approach appears to be more about promoting a controversial and divisive agenda than genuine, nuanced storytelling.
Agreed. Filmmakers have a responsibility to handle such sensitive topics with great care and consideration for the potential impact on viewers. The graphic depictions and one-sided narrative in this case seem to fall short of that standard.
While films can explore complex social issues, the approach taken here seems more focused on fear-mongering and religious division than balanced storytelling. The use of sexual violence as a narrative device raises serious ethical concerns.
I share your concerns. Responsible filmmaking requires a nuanced touch, particularly when addressing such sensitive and politically charged topics. This film appears to fall short of that standard.
This film sounds like it’s using disturbing depictions of sexual violence to advance a controversial and potentially divisive narrative. While the topic is sensitive, portraying it in such an exploitative way raises ethical concerns.
I agree, the graphic nature of the content seems more focused on sensationalism than thoughtful examination of the issues. Filmmakers should handle such sensitive topics with great care and nuance.
This film seems to be perpetuating harmful stereotypes and inflaming religious tensions rather than providing nuanced insight. The graphic depictions of sexual violence are concerning and raise questions about the filmmakers’ motivations.
Absolutely, the choice to use such disturbing content for what appears to be ideological purposes is highly problematic. Filmmakers have a responsibility to handle sensitive topics with care and objectivity.