Calm after the clamour: Why the NIA probe into Dharmasthala scam has fizzled out

 

For weeks, the Sangh Parivar and its friendly media outlets were in overdrive demanding an NIA probe into the Dharmasthala scandal. Their aim was not truth-seeking but to deflect attention from the SIT investigation, which is inching closer to exposing the perpetrators of serial rapes and murders linked to the shrine. The calculation was simple: once the NIA stepped in, the SIT would be sidelined, and a favourable report could be managed.

That plan, however, has collapsed. Reports from the Union Home Ministry suggest that Amit Shah has refused to entertain the plea for an NIA probe. Four factors explain this reluctance.

The Asaram Precedent
First is the bitter lesson from Gujarat’s Asaram Bapu case. Both Modi and Shah once patronised the godman. Yet, when Asaram was convicted under POCSO, the fallout caused political embarrassment. Aligning too closely with controversial godmen is now seen as risky. Repeating the mistake with Dharmasthala could inflict similar damage.

Centre–State Sensitivity
Second, intervening through the NIA in what is essentially a state matter would invite charges of political meddling. Karnataka is under Congress rule, and the BJP cannot afford to be accused of protecting vested interests in opposition territory. A needless controversy would be self-defeating.

A Hollow Foreign-Hand Theory
Third, the claim of a “foreign hand” behind the criticism of Dharmasthala does not hold water. Running a YouTube channel or publishing critical material requires little money. Any attempt to pin this on international conspiracies would lack credibility and only invite ridicule.

Public Representations and Intelligence Inputs
Fourth, the Home Ministry has reportedly received multiple documented representations from NGOs, civil society groups, and concerned citizens detailing the omissions and commissions of the Heggade family. Though not widely publicised, these have carried weight. Intelligence assessments too are said to have disfavoured an NIA probe, advising instead that the SIT continue unhindered. The Karnataka Congress government has assured it will not interfere in the SIT’s work. Against such a backdrop, for the Union government to order an inquiry favouring one family would be politically suicidal.

These reasons explain why the Centre has quietly asked its lobbyists to back off. The BJP and Sangh Parivar voices that were earlier clamouring for NIA action have now fallen silent. When the master chooses silence, the echo from its media supporters naturally dies down.

For the D-gang, this is a serious setback. Bereft of political cover, they must now face the SIT’s unrelenting probe. The lesson here is stark: lobbying and media campaigns cannot permanently suppress truth. Power can delay justice but cannot erase it. As the SIT inches towards its conclusions, those who once believed themselves untouchable may soon discover that “man proposes, God disposes.”