WHEN DALITS ARE FORCED TO THE STREETS, WHO IS THE STATE PROTECTING?

Recently Beltangady witnessed a rally and procession by Dalits, pressing for their rights to own lands meant for them. This is not the first time such an event held. The repeated agitations by Dalits in the Beltangady–Dharmasthala region of Karnataka are not  politically engineered spectacles. They are the consequence of a long and unresolved denial of rights over land legally reserved for them.

For Dalits, land is not merely an economic asset; it is the basis of dignity, security, and independence. Land reform laws were designed to undo historical injustice by redistributing agricultural land to those who were systematically dispossessed. When such land is alleged to have been encroached upon by vested interests, the State’s obligation is clear and non-negotiable: it must investigate, act, and restore. The persistence of protests in Beltangady suggests that this obligation has been deliberately sidestepped.

What makes this failure indefensible is that it follows judicial notice and sustained representation. Court findings have already recorded instances where land was obtained on forged claims. Dalit organisations and civil society groups have documented patterns of encroachment and placed them before both the Karnataka government and the Union government. Petitions have been filed and memoranda submitted. This is not a case of administrative ignorance; it is one of political unwillingness.

Governments at both levels routinely proclaim their commitment to Dalit welfare. In Karnataka, social justice is invoked through political formulations that place Dalits at the centre of governance claims. At the national level, constitutional symbolism and welfare schemes are highlighted as evidence of concern for marginalised communities. Yet these assertions collapse when tested against the ground reality in Beltangady. Welfare outreach has substituted for enforcement, and symbolism has replaced accountability.

The heart of the issue is selective governance. Governments appear willing to support Dalits where it involves distribution of benefits, but retreat when the assertion of Dalit rights threatens entrenched power. Enforcing land laws in such cases requires confrontation, not ceremony. The reluctance to act reveals where the true priorities lie.

The continued silence of the State sends a damaging message. It tells Dalits that court findings do not guarantee justice, that petitions do not compel action, and that power can override law. It also explains why protest has become the primary avenue of redress. Until governments act decisively—by investigating encroachments, enforcing land reform laws, and restoring land to its rightful beneficiaries—the agitations in Beltangady will remain a standing indictment of their claimed commitment to Dalit dignity and equality.