By Mohamed Atherulla Shariff
The revival of Kerala’s controversial ‘Kafir Screenshot’ case has once again brought into focus a disturbing trend in contemporary politics – the deliberate use of religious and communal identities to influence electoral outcomes. While investigators seek to determine who created and circulated the alleged fake screenshot during the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign in Vadakara, the controversy raises a far larger question: how far are politicians willing to go in pursuit of power?
The alleged screenshot, which surfaced during the campaign, purportedly showed a message urging Muslim voters not to support CPI(M) candidate K.K. Shailaja because she was a kafir (non-believer). The person in whose name the message was circulated denied authoring it, claiming that it was fabricated. The issue quickly escalated into a major political controversy, with rival political fronts accusing each other of attempting to polarise voters along religious lines.
Two years later, the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and fresh arrests have brought the case back into the headlines. Yet, beyond the legal and political battles lies a deeper concern: the increasing normalisation of identity-based politics and digital misinformation in democratic contests.
Manufacturing Division
Electoral polarisation is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, politicians have sought to mobilise voters by appealing to shared identities – religion, caste, ethnicity, language or region. What has changed is the speed and sophistication with which such messages can now be disseminated.
Social media platforms and messaging applications have become powerful campaign tools. A rumour, manipulated image or fabricated screenshot can reach thousands of voters within minutes. Often, the intention is not to inform but to provoke emotional reactions. Fear, insecurity and anger can be more effective electoral tools than reasoned policy debates.
The alleged ‘Kafir Screenshot’ illustrates how a single digital message can trigger widespread controversy. Whether the objective was to influence Muslim voters, discredit political opponents or create confusion among the electorate, the episode demonstrates how identity can be weaponised during elections.
A Problem beyond Kerala
The Kerala controversy should not be viewed in isolation. Similar patterns can be observed across India and around the world. Political parties of different ideologies have, at various times, been accused of exploiting religious, caste-based or ethnic sentiments to consolidate support.
In some regions, caste arithmetic determines electoral strategies. In others, religious identities dominate political discourse. Elsewhere, linguistic and regional loyalties become rallying points. The methods may vary, but the objective remains the same: transforming social identities into political capital.
This is why the Vadakara episode matters. It is not merely a local controversy but a reflection of a broader challenge confronting democratic societies.
The Digital Age of Misinformation
The rise of digital communication has made polarisation more effective and more dangerous. A fabricated screenshot can spread faster than any official clarification. By the time authorities investigate and fact-checkers expose falsehoods, public perceptions may already have been shaped.
Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and deepfakes are likely to intensify these challenges. The ability to create convincing but false content threatens to blur the distinction between truth and fabrication. Elections may increasingly become battles over narratives rather than facts.
The danger is not simply that voters are misled. It is that trust in institutions, media and democratic processes gradually erodes. When citizens can no longer distinguish between authentic information and deliberate manipulation, democracy itself is weakened.
A Need for Political Maturity
The lesson from the ‘Kafir Screenshot’ controversy is clear. While investigations may eventually identify those responsible, the larger challenge lies in changing the political culture that rewards polarisation.
Political parties, irrespective of ideology, must recognise that short-term electoral gains achieved through communal division come at a significant social cost. Leaders who speak of constitutional values, national unity and social harmony must ensure that their campaign strategies reflect those principles.
