A sanitation worker says he buried the evidence after mass murder and rape. The central man in one of Karnataka's most shocking investigations wasn't in uniform to catch people's attention. He didn't hold public office, nor did he stand on a political platform. He worked in Dharmasthala for years, a town where millions of pilgrims come in a year. Decades later, after what he said, he came forward with allegations that shifted the discussion on one of India's most revered religious pilgrimages.
He said he had been repeatedly directed from 1995 to 2014 to dispose of bodies in isolated spots throughout the town. He claimed many of the victims were women and girls and that some seemed to have been sexually assaulted. Those claims have NOT been substantiated in a court of law. Yet, they were taken seriously enough to create a Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was set up by the Karnataka government to investigate whether there is any evidence to substantiate the claims.
The case was an immediate national sensation, albeit not all for the wrong reasons. It drew an uncomfortable conclusion. The weakest are the ones who see what the strong ones don't see. Firefighters, sanitation personnel, drivers, cleaners and maintenance workers often follow others around the area, after they have gone home. They are working in the background of their work, but they seldom put their observations in public print. This time, an unheralded man whose projects were mostly out of view became the linchpin for a potentially important legal and social investigation.
His claims have also reignited a longstanding discussion about the power of institutions. Religious institutions stand in a special situation in Indian society. They are houses of worship, charities, education and community. Millions trust them. That trust, however, also poses a challenging question. What is the proper response of society to serious allegations against those associated with influential institutions?
Outrage is not enough of an answer. It can't be still, either.
Rather the legal system must play its role as it was meant to do. Conduct investigations, review evidence, listen to witnesses and make decisions based on evidence, not opinion. It is for this reason that the creation of the SIT was a key development. The team is not there to prove the allegations or to debunk them. Its task is to establish facts. Investigators will look into areas that the witness has pointed out, check historical records, interview people involved with the case and decide if there is physical or documentary evidence to support the witness's claims.
That work is particularly challenging given that the claims are for acts allegedly committed years ago.Historical investigations are not usually like TV dramas. The evidence might no longer be there. Landscapes change. Records disappear. Evidence is lost or lost contact with witnesses. Some are now extinct. Each one of the missing pieces adds to the complexity of the investigation.
These investigations have been likened to "putting the pieces of a puzzle together", as many of the pieces are missing.
The case has also brought the issue of violence against women in India to the fore. The National Crime Records Bureau data shows that thousands of women are reported to be raped annually. For many survivors, it has been argued, official statistics fail to capture the full picture as many do not come into contact with law enforcement. Reporting remains hindered by fear, stigma, family pressure and lack of confidence in the justice system.
While those national statistics cannot be directly correlated to the allegations in Dharmasthala, it does account for why women and girl allegations are given a lot of public attention. They also bring to light the reality that investigations into allegations have wider ramifications than just that case.
One of the other problems that's coming up as a result of the investigation is witness protection. Witnesses all over the world have been hesitant to come forward due to the threat of retribution for their cooperation in investigations into corruption, organized crime, and abuse. A loss of job, a tarnished reputation or a sense of loneliness in the community can be strong motivations to
stay silent. To tackle some of these concerns, the India's Witness Protection Scheme has been established and the experts are debating the effectiveness of these safeguards in practice.
The responsibility of the journalist in the case. When reporting allegations, accuracy is key. It's easy to craft headline copy that sounds dramatic. Presenting complex information without overstating what has been established is much more challenging. Responsible reporting makes clear the difference between allegations and proven facts, adds official responses, and lets readers know the status of the investigation.
The investigation in the case of Dharmasthala is ongoing. There have been no rulings, and investigations are ongoing. It's unclear if the sanitation worker's story is substantiated, discredited or just partially true.However, there is one thing that is certain. His evidence put a private case into the public agenda. It challenged questions which were previously unasked, and it made people realise that accountability starts when the ordinary person decides to speak.
The results of the investigation will impact the legal record. The debate it has sparked on transparency, institutional accountability and witness protection will be far from over.
References
- Al Jazeera. Why is India investigating alleged mass killings of sexual assault victims? https://www.aljazeera.com
- National Crime Records Bureau. Crime in India. https://ncrb.gov.in
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Good Practices for the Protection of Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings. https://www.unodc.org
- The Indian Express. Coverage of the Dharmasthala investigation. https://indianexpress.com