BJP’s double game in the Dharmasthala case

 

The unfolding drama around the Dharmasthala issue and the Soujanya rape-and-murder case has put the Bharatiya Janata Party in a tight corner. What appears to be a muddle of contradictory statements by its leaders is, in fact, a carefully crafted political maneuver against the fallout of an SIT inquiry that threatens to expose the involvement of powerful temple administrators.

At Dharmasthala, Union Minister Prahlad Joshi’s categorical stand that there exists no prima facie case for an SIT probe was widely read as an assurance to the Heggade family, the hereditary administrators of the Manjunatheshwara temple. This is consistent with the BJP’s longstanding policy of protecting entrenched Hindu religious institutions, even when allegations are serious. By siding openly with the temple family, Joshi was playing to the BJP’s core Hindutva constituency, signaling that the central leadership will not allow a probe to destabilize Heggades.

Yet, almost in the same breath, State BJP president B. Y. Vijayendra broke with tradition by visiting the family of Soujanya — something no party leader had done since her brutal killing in 2012. He even declared that the BJP would back the family if they approached the Supreme Court for a reinvestigation, given that the High Court had not favored their plea. Vijayendra’s move was not driven by compassion alone. Sources in the state BJP suggest that he is privy to inside information: the SIT has reportedly identified some 15 land plots near the temple linked to the administrators’ family, and is in possession of indisputable evidence pointing to their direct involvement. If this is true, then Joshi’s defence of the Heggades could soon collapse in the face of damning revelations.

By aligning himself with Soujanya’s family, Vijayendra has created a crucial “escape route” for the party. If the SIT nails the culprits, he can present himself as the leader who dared to stand with the victim’s kin, rather than the one who blindly shielded the accused. His inclusion of area MP Brijesh Chowta in the visit shows that this was not an impulsive gesture but a calculated political signal to the coastal base that the BJP will not be caught entirely on the wrong side of history.

Meanwhile, former state BJP president and MP Nalin Kumar Kateel struck yet another note, alleging that the Congress government’s intent behind the SIT probe was to wrest control of the temple from the Heggades. This line seeks to reframe the issue as a “Congress versus Hindu institutions” battle, diverting attention from the gravity of the allegations themselves. It is an old saffron tactic: when cornered, turn every investigation into an “attack on faith.”

Together, these three positions — Joshi’s defense of the temple, Vijayendra’s solidarity with the victim’s family, and Kateel’s charge against Congress — reveal not confusion but strategy. The BJP is hedging its bets, waiting to see which way the wind blows and SIT inquiry breaks. But in trying to play both sides, the party risks exposing itself as duplicitous. For over a decade, no leader dared to enter Soujanya’s home. Now, sensing the tide turning, the BJP is scrambling to rewrite its role.

When the SIT report is out, the party’s double game will either look like shrewd foresight or blatant opportunism. For now, it is a balancing act — protecting the powerful while nervously preparing to side with the powerless if forced to.