“Anything that challenges control is called immoral” — this quiet truth lies at the heart of Kerala’s latest absurdity: the moral panic over Zumba.
A dance-based fitness routine, practised across the world for its health benefits, has become the target of outrage in parts of Kerala. The reason is not harm or risk. It is something far more telling. Zumba allows people — especially women — to move, to take up space, to express vitality in public. And for certain religious groups, that freedom is intolerable.
Leading the opposition are some Muslim organisations who claim to speak on behalf of the faith. In practice, they operate as political bodies, using religion as a tool to secure relevance and attention. Their statements are less about theology and more about power. By stirring moral panic over a harmless fitness activity, they attempt to position themselves as protectors of culture, even though their objections have nothing to do with either health or actual religious teaching.
They argue that Zumba is immoral. That it promotes obscenity. That it threatens social order. These claims are not supported by any evidence. Nor do they come with any meaningful alternative for public health or community well-being. The intention is clear: to dictate the boundaries of behaviour, to decide who may do what in public, and above all, to control the participation of women and youth in spaces outside traditional authority.
Zumba, in reality, is a group exercise routine rooted in music and movement. It improves cardiovascular health, reduces stress, and builds confidence. It is not limited by age, background, or gender. In many parts of Kerala, it has even been introduced in schools and community centres to encourage fitness. To suggest that such a practice is immoral is not only misleading, it is deliberately harmful.
The objection is not to Zumba itself. It is to what Zumba represents: autonomy, visibility, and joy outside patriarchal control. The idea that a woman might dance in public, not for entertainment, but for her own health and happiness, is enough to provoke outrage among those who believe public space belongs only to men, and that religion must serve as a gatekeeper for every form of expression.
This is not the first time such groups have tried to conflate physical movement with indecency. It is part of a wider pattern in which religious vocabulary is used to mask political ambition. These organisations do not seek spiritual growth. They seek influence. By inventing moral threats where none exist, they create division, gain followers, and pressure local authorities to act in their favour. In the end, they do more damage to the idea of religion than anyone else, reducing it to a tool for control and censorship.
There must be no hesitation in criticising these tactics. When political groups pretend to speak for entire communities, using religion to silence and shame, they must be exposed for what they are. It is not disrespectful to challenge them. What is truly disrespectful is allowing these voices to dominate public discourse, especially when they offer no vision for progress, only fear and suspicion.
Society must stop treating such outbursts as legitimate expressions of faith. They are political calculations. And they deserve to be met with political resistance. Public health and education policy should not be influenced by groups who view women’s physical movement as dangerous. Education policy should not yield to those who equate fitness with vulgarity.
We must consider stronger institutional checks, such as regular social audits, community-level oversight, and the inclusion of independent civic voices in public space management, to ensure that political extremism wrapped in religious language does not quietly shape the way society functions. These are not abstract concerns. History is full of examples where such thinking leads to real, lasting damage: from the banning of girls’ education, to the policing of art and expression, to the gradual erasure of women from public life altogether.
Kerala, a state often praised for its literacy and health indicators, cannot afford this descent into fear-based governance. Zumba is not a moral issue. It is an activity that promotes physical well-being and inclusion. When any group seeks to recast it as indecent, it reveals far more about their intentions than about the activity itself.
The present controversy should be seen not as a cultural dispute, but as a warning: that even the most ordinary, health-based practices are now under threat from groups who see progress as a challenge to their authority. Today it is Zumba. Tomorrow it may be public libraries, co-education, or even walking in parks after dark.
To prevent this, society must speak plainly. Health is not immoral. Movement is not indecent. And political groups disguised as religious authorities do not have the right to decide how people live.
