Elite Enablers

The recent arrest of Ashok Kharat, a self-styled ‘godman’ accused of rape, blackmail and occult manipulation, has rightly horrified Maharashtra. Yet to view this as the story of a lone predator is to miss the larger, more uncomfortable truth. Men like Kharat do not rise in isolation. They are legitimised and ultimately shielded by networks of influence that extend deep into the state’s political and social elite.

The investigation, now in the hands of a Special Investigation Team, has widened its scope. Temple functionaries, staff and associates are being questioned, revealing the ecosystem within which Kharat operated. Kharat’s enterprise was one sustained by credibility, access and patronage of the elite. The more investigators dig, the clearer it becomes that the crimes alleged were enabled as much by social validation as by individual depravity.

That validation came, in no small measure, from high-profile figures who lent Kharat their presence and, by extension, their endorsement. Photographs, visits and public gestures of reverence were not incidental. They told followers and victims alike that this was a man to be trusted, even venerated.

The political storm that followed has centred on Rupali Chakankar, whose resignation, reportedly at the behest of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, came only after intense public pressure. Her defence, that the association was old and rooted in personal belief, is revealing. It underscores precisely how figures like Kharat embed themselves within respectable circles, blurring the line between private faith and public responsibility.

But the issue goes beyond one resignation. To suggest that Chakankar alone bears responsibility would be convenient and misleading. The uncomfortable reality is that Kharat’s rise was facilitated by a broader class of enablers: politicians and social elites who either failed to question or actively promoted his persona.

Allegations now suggest that concerns about Kharat’s activities were not entirely unknown. Questions had been raised in the past; even journalists who probed too closely reportedly faced pressure. Yet these warning signs were ignored, dismissed or suppressed. The result was an environment in which a serial predator could operate with impunity, his authority reinforced by the very people who should have exercised scepticism.

The consequences of such negligence are now evident. Victims, already vulnerable, were drawn into a web of exploitation by the aura of legitimacy surrounding Kharat.

Focusing solely on the accused risks reducing a systemic failure to an individual crime. What is now required instead is a broader reckoning that examines how legitimacy is conferred and how institutions can be insulated from the distortions of personal belief and political convenience. Given the nature of the case, it can be safely assumed that more skeletons are likely to tumble from the closet.

Maharashtra prides itself on its rationalist traditions, yet the persistence of such episodes suggests a disquieting gap between aspiration and reality. As long as high-profile figures continue to patronise dubious godmen, lending them visibility and credibility, new Kharats will emerge to replace the old.