When religious heads turn lobbyists: The Dharmasthala conclave

 In a move clearly designed to bring pressure on the state government, religious heads of various Jain denominations gathered at Dharmasthala yesterday. Their message was unmistakable—they declared solidarity with the Pattadhikari of Dharmasthala, Veerendra Heggade, and issued a warning to the government that “justice must be done to Heggade.”

This conclave raises serious questions. At a time when a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is probing allegations of unimaginable crimes—rapes and murders that have allegedly taken place over decades in Dharmasthala—the timing and tone of the Jain seers appear troubling. The SIT was constituted precisely to establish truth and deliver justice. For respected seers, who are considered men of wisdom and patience, to jump into the arena before the inquiry is complete is not only premature but also unbecoming of their stature.

Traditionally, Jain seers are revered for detachment, restraint, and their adherence to truth through patient inquiry. Yet in this case, the seers seem to have abandoned that very virtue. Their impatience begs the question: for whose sake? Is it to shield one among them—a man of exalted social standing, whose reputation today stands threatened by the specter of unspeakable crimes that are tumbling out one after another? If so, then this conclave was not an act of spiritual guidance but a calculated exercise in community protectionism.

The optics of the gathering only deepened this impression. Veerendra Heggade himself was present at the meeting. So too was Hampa Nagarajaiah, an acclaimed figure in Kannada literary circles and himself a Jain. For both men, their participation reflects a clear conflict of interest. It will inevitably be construed that they were not there in the spirit of impartial wisdom, but to protect their own community interests—and perhaps even their personal stakes.

The wider public will read this conclave less as a spiritual assembly and more as an act of lobbying, if not outright intimidation, of the government. The implicit message was: do not touch Dharmasthala, or risk the wrath of an influential religious bloc. Such tactics do not sit well with the moral authority that seers are supposed to embody.

The least the Jain seers could have done, in the circumstances, was to wait. Wait for the SIT to complete its inquiry. Wait for facts to be established. And then, if the findings were adverse to the Dharmadhikari, decide how to protect their community’s dignity in a way consistent with truth and justice. By rushing to pre-empt the inquiry and attempting to create pressure, they have cast doubts not just on their intent but on the very values they claim to represent.

The Dharmasthala case is no longer merely about one man’s reputation. It is about whether the powerful can escape accountability by mobilising religious authority and social influence. Yesterday’s conclave sends the wrong message: that power matters more than truth. And that is precisely why the SIT must do its work, free from fear or favour.