when politics unites to bury justice

 The Dharmasthala scandal has entered a stage where truth itself is under siege. Whistle-blowers are smeared, victims forgotten, and political rivals united — not for justice, but to protect a powerful nexus. What is unfolding is not an investigation, but an orchestrated burial of evidence and conscience.

………………..

The troubling events surrounding what has come to be called the “Dharmasthala Republic” have now taken a turn that seems perfectly aligned with the interests of the D gang. Two things are happening almost in concert. First, whistle-blower Bhima who is also the complainant is being systematically discredited, this character and credibility attacked to weaken the moral force of  his expose. Second, the very act of digging for the bodies of alleged murder victims is being ridiculed and dismissed as a pointless exercise. These narratives, pushed with remarkable speed, are not accidental; they are calculated to sap public confidence in the SIT probe.

The BJP has seized on this climate to demand an end to the digging and, by extension, to the SIT investigation itself. For the party, halting the work would serve as a convenient closure — sealing the matter before uncomfortable facts emerge. That BJP would defend the D gang is no surprise given its long history of proximity. What is unexpected, and revealing, is that Congress minister Dinesh Gundu Rao, in charge of Dakshina Kannada and close to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has echoed doubts about Bhima. When a minister of the very government that formed the SIT publicly undermines its key witness, it signals that reluctance to see the probe through runs deeper than party lines.

This raises the uncomfortable possibility that the Siddaramaiah government is unwilling to give the SIT a truly free hand. From the outset, the sensitivity of the allegations — serial rapes and murders tied to a powerful religious-political network — demanded an insulated, interference-proof investigation. The answer should have been to appoint a sitting judge of the High Court or Supreme Court to oversee the SIT’s work. Such a step would have ensured political neutrality, bolstered public trust, and protected the government from accusations of shielding the accused. That it was not done leaves the SIT exposed and vulnerable.

The BJP’s stance carries a deeper contradiction that cuts to the heart of its Hindutva politics. The victims of the alleged crimes were all Hindu women and girls; the accused, as evidence suggests, are not Hindus — contrary to the popular belief BJP has been content to leave unchallenged in other contexts. A party that claims to be the guardian of Hindu honour now appears to be shielding non-Hindu perpetrators at the cost of justice for Hindu victims. This is not merely tactical hypocrisy; it is a betrayal that, if exposed, could shatter the party’s moral claim to its core constituency. The question is plain: whom are these leaders protecting? And do they believe the truth can be buried forever?

Adding to this is the sudden wave of pro–D gang protests reported in various parts of Karnataka. Far from being spontaneous outpourings of public sentiment, these demonstrations appear orchestrated. The D gang’s web of institutions — educational, commercial, and social — provides a ready-made pool of participants. Many so-called protestors are likely employees, affiliates, or others dependent on the D gang’s goodwill. Some may be outright paid to join in, turning the rallies into rented displays of “public support.” The aim is clear: flood media coverage with images of cheering crowds to create the illusion that the accused enjoy mass backing, and that continuing the SIT probe defies public will. A systematic check of protestor identities against D gang rosters could easily expose this sponsorship and demolish the myth of genuine grassroots support.

When political rivals close ranks in undermining the same investigation, it suggests that the stakes of the case cut across partisan divides. Here, the alliance is not formal but tacit, born of shared interest in keeping certain truths hidden. In such a climate, justice becomes the most dangerous outcome. Without strong external oversight, the SIT is at risk of being hobbled, the investigation quietly curtailed, and the victims’ stories consigned to silence.

Judicial monitoring remains the only credible safeguard. A sitting judge would have both the authority and independence to ensure no lead is ignored, no evidence buried, and no victim forgotten. Anything less leaves the process open to manipulation by those with the most to lose from the truth.

The fight over the Dharmasthala SIT probe is not merely about one scandal. It is about whether political and judicial systems in Karnataka will stand up to entrenched power cloaked in religious prestige and political clout. The smear campaigns, the staged protests, the bipartisan manoeuvring — all are aimed at burying the truth alongside the bodies that may still lie beneath Dharmasthala’s soil. But history teaches that what is buried does not stay buried. Satyameva Jayate — truth alone triumphs — is not a comforting slogan but a warning. Those who stand with criminals against the cries of victims may one day find that the truth, when it comes, leaves them with no ground left to stand on.