“Why should it matter if food is halal?”

At first, this question seems simple and harmless. If a Muslim prefers halal food, why should anyone else be concerned? But behind this easy logic lies a deeper issue that affects society, business, and the principle of equal opportunity.

Originally, halal referred only to food permitted by Islamic law. Over time, however, the idea has expanded far beyond the kitchen. In many parts of Kerala, halal certification has become a requirement not only for meat but also for restaurants, shops, and even packaged goods. When a business must follow religious rules to operate successfully, it naturally excludes those who do not or cannot conform to those rules.

This quiet exclusion is not always visible, but it has real consequences. Workers who once found employment in certain sectors are slowly being pushed out. Entrepreneurs who do not follow the halal system find it harder to compete. What was once a personal religious practice is now shaping economic and social boundaries.

History offers a sharp contrast. Kerala once fought against social exclusion — against practices that divided people by caste and restricted who could cook, eat, or even walk on certain roads. Yet today, under the modern label of “halal,” similar forms of exclusion are returning in a new form.

The same pattern is emerging in other areas too. In educational institutions, for example, there are increasing demands for special prayer rooms and religious privileges. While everyone has the right to follow their faith, shared public spaces must remain neutral — places where people of all beliefs feel equally respected. When one group’s religious rules begin to shape common spaces, equality quietly disappears.

A healthy society must draw a clear line between personal faith and public life. Religion should guide individuals, not control the collective. If we continue to accept every demand without examining its wider impact, we risk losing the inclusive spirit that once defined Kerala’s progress.

The debate over halal is not really about food. It is about fairness, freedom, and coexistence.

True coexistence means living with mutual respect — not by enforcing one community’s rules upon everyone else, but by ensuring that all people have equal space to live, work, and believe as they choose.

The Hidden Power Struggle Behind a Piece of Cloth

Why does a piece of cloth on a little girl’s head cause such uproar? Why does it trouble governments, courts, and political parties alike? After all, what could be so dangerous about a simple head covering?

The truth is, this is not about cloth at all — it is about control.

When a young girl wears a headscarf, supported by her family, it may look like a personal or religious choice. But behind that image often stands a much larger and more organized force — the political machinery of religious extremism. Islamist movements across the world have learned the art of using symbols to advance their agenda. A scarf, a slogan, or a small concession in the name of “faith” — each becomes a carefully planted step toward greater cultural and political influence.

This is how ideologies that seek dominance begin their journey — not through open warfare, but through emotional manipulation and gradual normalization. They use the language of rights and freedom to disarm their critics. “It’s just her choice,” they say. “Why are you afraid of a little girl’s dress?” But what begins as an individual expression soon becomes a collective demand. The next step is pressure on schools, workplaces, and public institutions — until society itself bends to accommodate a religious code that leaves little space for dissent.

This is not paranoia; history has shown this pattern again and again. What looks like a cultural practice today can become a political weapon tomorrow. When religion enters the political arena under the mask of “personal faith,” it does not stop there — it seeks to shape laws, control education, and redefine freedom itself.

And so the state, the judiciary, and political leaders are right to be cautious. They are not fighting against a girl’s garment; they are confronting a growing ideological force that aims to reshape society in its image. Behind the soft fabric lies a hard strategy — the assertion of religious supremacy over democratic equality.

In this light, the “headscarf debate” is not about fashion, modesty, or rights. It is about whether a nation will continue to uphold the principle that faith is personal — or whether it will surrender, piece by piece, to those who want to make faith the law of the land.

The danger lies in our complacency. Every time society shrugs and says, “It’s only a small matter,” it concedes ground. And once that ground is lost, it is rarely regained. The struggle, therefore, is not against a piece of cloth, but against the slow, deliberate erosion of secular freedom — the freedom that allows every citizen, of every belief, to live as equals under the law.

A small piece of cloth may look harmless. But when it becomes the flag of an ideology that seeks to conquer hearts, minds, and institutions, it demands to be recognized for what it truly is — a symbol of power, not of piety.