Article on Kogilu–Yelahanka Demolitions: a factual analysis
This is regarding an article published in the following webpage: https://risalaupdate.com/story/congress-karnataka-jcb
Key Highlights of the article:
The Issue:
The article criticizes the Congress-led government for using bulldozers (JCBs) to demolish homes in areas like Kogilu and Yelahanka, leaving many poor families homeless.
The Broken Promise:
It mentions that 26 families were initially promised housing under the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme in Byappanahalli. However, the government has now backed out of this promise.
Government's Stance:
The government justifies the demolitions by claiming the settlements are “illegal encroachments.” This shift occurred after the arrest of three individuals in the Kogilu area, whose bank accounts reportedly showed ₹2 crore—money allegedly collected from residents to build these “unauthorized” houses.
Political Criticism:
The author (Sanjayan 2.0) argues that by adopting “bulldozer politics,” the Congress is mimicking the Hindutva political style they usually criticize.
It draws a historical parallel to the Turkman Gate demolitions during the Emergency, warning that such authoritarian actions led to the Congress’s downfall in the past.
The article states that while the country looks to Rahul Gandhi for hope, the Karnataka government’s actions are damaging the party’s political future and moral standing.
Humanitarian Impact:
It highlights the plight of children whose education has been disrupted and families who have lived there for decades but are now out on the streets.
The article concludes by urging the Congress leadership to intervene and adopt a more “human-centric” approach rather than relying on technicalities to displace the marginalized.
Facts on ground:
1. Demolitions and Selective Outrage
Law has to take its stand irrespective of religion. Illegal encroachments are cleared across India routinely. When Hindu settlements are affected, there is little sustained outrage. The narrative escalates only when the encroaching population belongs to a minority community and media framing converts enforcement into alleged cruelty.
A constitutional state cannot allow law enforcement to be guided by communal optics.
2. The Myth of the “Broken Promise”
The expectation that illegally occupied land should automatically translate into government housing is a moral inversion. Ordering the state to give houses to encroachers effectively rewards illegality and penalises law-abiding citizens waiting within the system.
Compassion cannot be converted into entitlement.
3. “Government’s Stance” vs Legal Reality
Calling these settlements illegal encroachments is not a political stance but a legal fact. The arrest of intermediaries with ₹2 crore confirms organised fraud and land scams. Residents may be victims of cheating, but victimhood does not create ownership rights.
The correct response is prosecution and recovery—not legalisation of encroachment.
4. The False Idea of “Bulldozer Politics”
Bulldozers are administrative tools, not ideological symbols. On deeper analysis, many citizens accept decisive enforcement—such as that seen in UP—because it restores state authority and curbs lawlessness. Reducing enforcement to “Hindutva style” avoids the real legal question.
5. Turkman Gate: A False Parallel
Emergency-era demolitions involved suspension of rights and lack of judicial remedies. None of those conditions exist here. Courts are open, remedies are available, and executive action is challengeable. The analogy is rhetorical, not historical.
6. Rahul Gandhi and Narrative Engineering
Linking state-level law enforcement to national political symbolism is messaging, not analysis. Governance cannot be reduced to protecting optics at the cost of legality.
7. Children, Compassion, and Governance Limits
Children’s suffering is real, but emotional vetoes cannot replace law. If the presence of children grants immunity, illegal settlements become untouchable and criminal networks gain incentive to embed families deliberately.
Humanitarian relief must accompany law—not override it.
8. On the “Sanjayan 2.0” Persona
“Sanjayan 2.0” is a constructed pseudonym designed to appear as a Hindu moral voice. Authentic critique does not require identity camouflage; dependence on it signals messaging strategy rather than ethical depth.
Conclusion
This issue is not bulldozers versus humanity. It is about whether a state upholds the rule of law consistently while providing lawful humanitarian relief. Compassion without law leads to chaos; law without compassion leads to cruelty. Governance demands balance, not surrender to selective outrage.
