South Indian movie distorts history; portrays Hindus as aggressors in the 2002 Godhra riots
Kerala, India 
26 March, 2025
Case Summary
South Indian actor Mohanlal’s film L2: Empuraan faced significant backlash for its misrepresentation of the 2002 Gujarat riots. The movie misrepresented historical events, portraying Hindus as the aggressors in the riots. According to news reports, following the widespread criticism, the film’s producer, Gokulam Gopalan, stated that he had instructed director-actor Prithviraj Sukumaran to modify certain controversial scenes. He said, “If any scenes or dialogues in Empuraan have offended anyone, I have asked director Prithviraj to make changes.” He further clarified, “Some words have already been muted for the time being. Protests have arisen over certain portrayals, and I have requested the director to make adjustments where possible. The film passed censorship without issue at the time. We are not affiliated with any political party. I view politics as a service.” This film was a sequel to Lucifer (2019), which represented the events following the Godhra riots in a manner that pushed an anti-Hindu narrative. One particularly contentious scene depicted a Muslim family being brutally murdered by ‘Hindu right-wing extremists’. Sukumaran, who played a secondary role to Mohanlal’s character, portrayed a man named Zayed Masood. His character’s backstory included highly controversial scenes related to the 2002 riots. Additionally, the film suggested that the then BJP-led Gujarat government, under Chief Minister Narendra Modi, misused central agencies during the riots. Several scenes were criticised for portraying Hindus in an extremely negative light. One such sequence features a Hindu man committing violence against a pregnant Muslim woman. The film’s opening includes a disturbing depiction of a Muslim village burning during the post-Godhra riots, followed by a series of graphic and unsettling scenes—including Hindu men mercilessly beating a Muslim child and committing heinous acts against a pregnant Muslim woman. These scenes were deliberately designed to reinforce the false narrative that Hindus were the primary aggressors, exacerbating communal divisions and vilifying an entire community. However, in stark contrast to the film’s portrayal, the actual events of 27th February 2002 tell a different story. That day, the Sabarmati Express arrived in Godhra, carrying 59 karsevaks returning from the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya. Within minutes of the train’s arrival, a mob of approximately 2,000 Muslims from the nearby Signal Falia area surrounded the S6 coach carrying karsevaks and set it ablaze. The attack resulted in the horrific deaths of all those inside, including 25 women and 15 children. Following extensive judicial proceedings, on 22nd February 2011, a trial court convicted 31 Muslims for their involvement in the Godhra massacre. These convictions were later upheld by the Gujarat High Court in 2017. In February 2003, one of the accused confessed under judicial custody, admitting that the carnage was a premeditated attack. Over the years, several false narratives were propagated by certain Muslim and leftist groups to justify the attack on the karsevaks. These included fabricated claims such as the karsevaks abducting a Muslim girl or engaging in disputes with Muslim vendors at the railway station. However, these accounts were thoroughly discredited by the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, which was established to investigate both the Godhra train massacre and the subsequent riots. The commission conclusively determined that the karsevaks had not provoked the attack in any way and that the assault on the train was pre-planned. The commission’s findings revealed that approximately 60 litres of inflammable liquid had been used to set the train on fire. The floor of the coach was completely burnt in some areas. Experts concluded that, given the large size of the coach, around 5,000 square feet, the phenomenon of flashover (a rapid spread of fire) was unlikely unless a significant amount of fuel had been used. The investigation further confirmed that the fire did not originate externally; rather, it was ignited inside the coach, with the most severe damage occurring in the eastern section. Despite these well-documented facts, L2: Empuraan deliberately pushed anti-Hindu propaganda that contradicted historical evidence, reigniting communal tensions, misrepresenting the tragic events of 2002, and unfairly portraying Hindu victims as villains. The film depicted Hindus and Hindu nationalism as inherently evil and dangerous, reinforcing anti-Hindu narratives. However, Prithviraj Sukumaran’s anti-Hindu stance was not a recent development. According to Organiser, he had previously announced a project on Variyamkunnan, a leader of the Muslim faction responsible for the 1921 Malabar Hindu Genocide in Malappuram, Kerala. Variyamkunnan orchestrated the persecution, murder, and rape of thousands of Hindus. In another instance, Prithviraj openly supported the idea of an Islamic religious administration in Lakshadweep, directly challenging the Indian government’s authority over the Union Territory. Following the backlash, superstar Mohanlal issued a statement. The actor acknowledged that certain aspects of the film had caused distress to some of his fans and assured that the team had decided to remove such references.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice and the tertiary category chosen is- Mislabelling/Misrepresentation of perpetrator's religion as Hindu. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. The controversy surrounding the South Indian movie, L2: Empuraan, highlights yet another instance of deliberate misrepresentation of historical events to push an anti-Hindu narrative. The film’s depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots distorts the truth by exclusively portraying Hindus as aggressors while conveniently omitting the horrific carnage that preceded the riots—the Godhra train burning, in which 59 karsevaks, including women and children, were brutally murdered by a Muslim mob. This selective representation serves as an attempt to reinforce the long-standing falsehood that Hindus were the primary perpetrators of violence, rather than acknowledging the sequence of events that led to the riots. The inclusion of scenes showing Hindus committing atrocities, such as murdering a pregnant Muslim woman and brutalising children, is not just irresponsible filmmaking—it is a dangerous attempt to vilify an entire Hindu community. The Organiser rightly pointed out how these depictions are carefully designed to perpetuate hatred and cement a false perception of Hindus as ruthless oppressors. The reality of the Godhra riots, as established by the Nanavati-Mehta Commission and subsequent court rulings, is clear: the riots were a reaction to an act of mass murder that was premeditated and executed with the intent of targeting Hindu pilgrims. Yet, films like L2: Empuraan continue to push a lopsided narrative that erases Hindu suffering while amplifying misinformation. Such misrepresentation does not arise out of mere ignorance but stems from an innate hatred for Hindus. The filmmakers consciously chose to showcase Hindus as merciless oppressors while erasing their suffering, reinforcing a long-standing anti-Hindu propaganda campaign. This aligns with a broader pattern where Hindu persecution is downplayed or ignored, while false or exaggerated narratives are created to malign them.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
