Freedom of expression in art is often at risk in India. That makes the Kerala High Court’s refusal to stay the display of the film, The Kerala Story, exemplary in the upholding of a constitutional principle. The high court ruled on petitions against the exhibition of the film that claimed to be ‘inspired’ by true events in Kerala. In these, allegedly, girls from the majority community had been made subject to ‘love jihad’, forcibly converted and sent to fight in troubled regions by an extremist organisation declaring loyalty to a minority faith. But the high court reportedly questioned the specific number of girls — 32,000 — in the film’s teaser on social media. The producers agreed to remove it after stating that this, too, was based on ‘information’. The high court reportedly regarded the film as a work of fiction; being based on true events did not make it a truthful account — fiction remained in the domain of art. The court also made a nuanced difference between a faith and an extremist organisation, stating that there was nothing against a particular minority religion but only against the outfit.

The Kerala High Court’s ruling could be seen as part of the secularism, equality and freedom of which the state is proud. Yet the discomfort generated by the film among artists and people from other communities indicates that achieving balance in these matters, in a situation when forces are pushing against them, is like walking a razor’s edge. The high court laid stress on the film’s fictional aspect. The producers’ repetition on it being derived from ‘true’ events, however, could be a source of controversy, especially since ‘love jihad’ has remained elusive. It cannot be expected that all film viewers would be as sensitive as high court judges: fact and fiction, a religion and an extremist outfit, may merge in their minds through the power of the audio-visual medium. Besides, their prime minister in an electoral campaign declared that the film shows the ‘ugly truth’ of terrorists’ conspiracies and their designs. The twists to the ‘story’ raise many questions: can the freedom of a work of art be allowed to threaten fraternity, a constitutional ideal, or cause hurt — not just to a community, but more to a people’s pride in harmony and achievement in their culture? Has this concern informed the Bengal government’s decision to ban the film?