The SIT drama and the erosion of public faith in the Dharmasthala probe

 

                                    Mr Pranab Mohanty,

The question haunting Karnataka today is simple but deeply unsettling — will the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Dharmasthala mass burial and Sowjanya cases present a truthful report, or will it tailor its findings to serve the interests of the powerful? What began as an exercise meant to restore faith in the system now appears to be descending into a political farce.

When the SIT was first constituted under the leadership of Pranab Mohanty, many citizens and activists welcomed it as a sign that justice would finally be pursued without fear or favour. But that optimism has since evaporated. Even those who initially supported the SIT now question Mohanty’s independence and credibility. There is a growing belief that he is under immense pressure to deliver a report that targets the messengers rather than the culprits — a narrative convenient to both the Congress and the BJP, given their long-standing ties with Dharmasthala’s influential ruling family.

The government’s behaviour has reinforced these suspicions. Statements by senior leaders — from the Chief Minister and his deputy to the Home Minister — have repeatedly hinted at an intention to protect Dharmasthala’s “big men.” Their open declarations that they would not “let down” these figures have all but destroyed the illusion of neutrality. For the SIT, functioning under such overt political supervision, autonomy has become an empty phrase.

Meanwhile, the investigation itself seems vitiated. Activists like Mahesh Shetty Thimarody and whistleblower Chinnayya, who spearheaded the “Justice for Sowjanya” campaign, have faced imprisonment, intimidation, and multiple criminal cases. Others such as Girish Mattanavar, T Jayant, and Vittal Gowda are constantly summoned and threatened with arrest. In contrast, the key accused — including members of the Heggade family named by Sowjanya’s mother, Kusumavathy — remain untouched and unexamined. Even Veerendra Heggade, accused of shielding his kin, has not faced interrogation.

Adding to the confusion are the Home Minister’s contradictory statements. On one hand, he says there is no deadline for the SIT to complete its inquiry; on the other, he orders that the report be filed within a week. Such inconsistencies expose not just poor briefing but deliberate obfuscation. The mixed messaging suggests that the government is controlling the pace and direction of the probe — deciding who is to be blamed and who spared.

If the government had known its brief before constituting the SIT, it might have been better not to form it at all. The state could have saved its resources — and the public, the daily spectacle of a compromised investigation. A probe without a clear mandate to pursue truth and only truth is bound to become a pawn in the hands of those seeking to protect the perpetrators.

Today, the credibility of the SIT and its officers stands at a dangerous low. Among citizens, the prevailing belief is that if the SIT were to expose the real culprits, it would be nothing short of a miracle. And miracles, in Karnataka’s corridors of power, are a rare event indeed.