Listen to the article
The controversial film “The Kerala Story” is set to return with a sequel on February 27, despite ongoing debates about its factual accuracy and allegations of religious divisiveness.
The original 2023 film, directed by Sudipto Sen and starring Adah Sharma, centered on claims that 32,000 women from Kerala had been converted to Islam and recruited into ISIS. The film followed a nursing student allegedly groomed by Muslim classmates, converted, and transported to ISIS-controlled territory—presenting her story as evidence of systematic “love jihad” targeting Hindu women.
This central claim of 32,000 women was heavily contested by fact-checkers who found no evidence supporting such numbers. The controversy reached the Supreme Court of India, which allowed screenings to continue but ordered the filmmakers to include a disclaimer acknowledging the figure lacked verification. Eventually, the producers amended promotional materials to reference only “three girls” rather than thousands.
Kerala’s Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has been vocal in his criticism of both films, describing them as “fabricated narratives” designed to create communal discord and damage the state’s secular reputation. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has similarly condemned the sequel for “hate-mongering,” questioning the filmmakers’ assertions about large-scale religious conversions.
Political analysts suggest the films align with the BJP’s strategy to expand influence in Kerala, where the party has traditionally struggled against the Left Democratic Front and United Democratic Front. Recent gains include BJP’s first-ever parliamentary win from Thrissur during the 2024 General elections and control of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation in December 2025. The party has specifically targeted Christian communities by addressing concerns over “love jihad” while elevating leaders like George Kurian to key positions in the Modi cabinet.
The sequel, “The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond,” faces legal challenges already. A petition in the Kerala High Court seeks to revoke the film’s certification, arguing that it portrays Kerala as a terrorism hotspot and stigmatizes an entire state. The court has issued notices to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Central Board of Film Certification, and producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah, with a hearing scheduled for February 24.
Director Kamakhya Narayan Singh claims the sequel draws from documented legal cases, but critics point to concerning patterns in the franchise’s approach. The films consistently portray Muslim characters as predators or extremists while suggesting Hindu women lack agency and require protection. The sequel’s tagline—”Ab sahenge nahi… ladenge” (We won’t tolerate… we will fight)—employs classic language of populist mobilization.
By expanding its setting beyond Kerala to include Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, the sequel appears to nationalize its narrative. The new film stars Aditi Bhatia, Ulka Gupta, and Aishwarya Ojha as a minor, an aspiring athlete, and a UPSC student who allegedly face deception and violence after entering interfaith relationships.
The first film received unusual political patronage, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and various Chief Ministers endorsing it while several states made it tax-free. This governmental backing blurred lines between independent filmmaking and state-sponsored messaging, creating an environment where questioning the film’s accuracy became equated with being “anti-national.”
The commercial success of the original—grossing over Rs 300 crore worldwide on a modest budget of Rs 20-30 crore—demonstrated the market for such content regardless of factual basis. Reports indicated rising tensions in colleges following the first film’s release, as its high-production values legitimized conspiracy theories that found traction online.
Critics argue that when cinema prioritizes provoking anger over exploring truth, it becomes propaganda rather than art. As philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, ideal propaganda subjects are not convinced ideologues but people for whom distinctions between fact and fiction have dissolved—what some scholars call “epistemic corrosion.”
The sequel appears poised to continue this approach, raising concerns about its potential impact on communal harmony in an increasingly polarized society.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
The controversy around this film highlights the importance of rigorous fact-checking and transparency in the media. Unsubstantiated claims, even in the name of storytelling, can have serious real-world consequences. I hope the filmmakers take this lesson to heart for the sequel.
Absolutely. In an age of widespread misinformation, the responsibility of media creators to uphold journalistic standards is paramount. Prioritizing accuracy and nuance over sensationalism should be the guiding principle, especially for sensitive topics.
The use of fabricated narratives to create public outrage is deeply concerning. I hope the sequel to ‘The Kerala Story’ takes a more measured and fact-based approach, rather than sensationalizing the issues. Promoting communal discord is never the answer.
I agree. Films have a powerful influence, and it’s crucial that they wield that influence responsibly. Factual accuracy and balanced storytelling should be the top priorities, not inflaming existing tensions for the sake of attention or controversy.
The Kerala government’s criticism of these films as “fabricated narratives” is concerning. If the central claim of 32,000 women being recruited is indeed false, that’s a serious issue. I hope the sequel addresses this more honestly.
Absolutely. Distorting facts to fit a particular narrative is unethical, regardless of the filmmakers’ intentions. A balanced, well-researched approach is essential for a topic as complex and sensitive as this.
I’m curious to see how the sequel handles the criticism around the original film. Presenting unsupported claims as facts is problematic, regardless of the intent. Hopefully they will be more transparent about the data limitations.
That’s a fair point. Transparency around data sources and verification is crucial, especially for sensitive topics like this. The filmmakers have a responsibility to ensure accuracy and avoid fanning the flames of division.
As someone interested in the mining and energy sectors, I’m concerned about the potential impact of this film. Divisive narratives can have far-reaching consequences, even in seemingly unrelated industries. I hope the sequel focuses on substantive issues rather than unverified claims.
That’s a good point. Misinformation and propaganda can have ripple effects across various industries and sectors. It’s critical that films on sensitive topics like this maintain a high standard of factual integrity, even if it means sacrificing some dramatic impact.
This film sounds very controversial, with unverified statistics being used to stoke outrage. I hope the sequel provides a more balanced and factual portrayal of the issues it aims to address.
Agreed. It’s concerning when films use questionable data to make provocative claims and potentially inflame tensions. A more nuanced, evidence-based approach would be much more constructive.
As someone who follows the mining and energy sectors, I’m concerned about the potential for this film to contribute to social unrest and instability. Accurate, evidence-based storytelling is crucial, especially when dealing with complex, divisive issues.
I share your concern. The mining and energy industries can be vulnerable to political and social upheaval, and films that amplify misinformation or stoke communal tensions can have far-reaching, detrimental effects. Responsible filmmaking is essential in this context.
While I appreciate the filmmakers’ desire to shed light on important issues, using unverified statistics is counterproductive. It undermines the credibility of the film and risks exacerbating existing tensions. I hope they take a more nuanced approach in the sequel.
Well said. Responsible filmmaking requires a commitment to accuracy and objectivity, especially when dealing with sociopolitical topics that can have far-reaching consequences. Nuance and transparency should be the guiding principles.