The Kogilu demolition controversy in Bengaluru has gone far beyond a local administrative action and has once again brought the Congress party’s political DNA under sharp scrutiny. What should have been a straightforward issue of enforcing law while ensuring humane rehabilitation instead turned into a spectacle of selective compassion, high-command intervention, and political signalling. Kogilu is not an isolated incident but a continuation of how the Congress has historically governed, responding not to the rule of law or local sentiment but to vote-bank calculations and pressure from Delhi.
What was the Kogilu demolition incident?
As per reports from the Organiser, the Kogilu demolition incident refers to a civic eviction drive carried out by authorities in Kogilu Layout, near Yelahanka in Bengaluru, where illegal structures and temporary dwellings were removed from land officially earmarked for public utilities, including solid-waste management. The action resulted in the displacement of several families who had been residing there for years without legal land titles.
According to local accounts and political claims that followed, a majority of the affected occupants were Muslims, which added a sensitive communal dimension to the episode. At the same time, there has been no official confirmation clarifying whether the residents were long-settled Bharatiya citizens or included illegal infiltrators from outside the country. The absence of transparent verification intensified the controversy, especially after allegations that the demolitions were carried out abruptly and without adequate rehabilitation. Protests, opposition backlash, and subsequent intervention by the Congress high command followed, after which the Karnataka government announced relief and alternative housing measures, turning a civic enforcement action into a major political flashpoint.
Selective compassion and the high-command syndrome
The most striking aspect of the Kogilu episode was the sudden change in the Karnataka government’s tone after intervention from the Congress high command. Relief packages and rehabilitation promises appeared only after Delhi leaders stepped in, reinforcing the BJP’s charge that the state is being run by remote control. This pattern has long been associated with the Congress, where elected state governments appear hesitant to act decisively until cleared by the party’s central leadership. For Kannadigas watching their own government course-correct only after high-command instructions, the message was deeply unsettling.
Homes for flood-hit Kannadigas still missing
While Karnataka’s flood victims still wait for houses and permanent rehabilitation, the Congress government springs into action only when high command signals and identity politics demand it. Kogilu has reinforced a hard truth in public perception: relief is delayed for natives but selectively accelerated when appeasement suits political convenience.
Congress and the politics of appeasement
The BJP’s attack on the Congress over Kogilu is rooted in a broader accusation: that the party has consistently practiced appeasement politics to consolidate vote banks. From illegal encroachments to sensitive law-and-order issues, enforcement often weakens when electoral arithmetic enters the picture. In Karnataka, compassion surfaced swiftly only when the issue acquired a communal and national political color, while countless poor Kannadiga families displaced by floods, droughts, or development projects continue to wait for similar urgency.
Illegal immigration: a problem decades in the making
The debate inevitably leads to the Congress’ historical approach to illegal immigration. Large-scale infiltration from Bangladesh began decades ago and was allowed to deepen during periods when Congress dominated national politics. Policies and administrative inertia during earlier Congress regimes are blamed for normalizing illegal settlement in several parts of the country. Today’s demographic, social, and security challenges, opponents argue, are the cumulative result of decisions taken, or avoided, 20 to 40 years ago.
Advocate Girish Bharadwaj posted in X, stating that after the Kogilu demolition incident, there is an urgent need for strict identity verification of immigrants through a coordinated operation involving the Ministry of Home Affairs and the State Police.
He urged the Union Home Secretary to launch a special verification drive in Bengaluru to identify illegal immigrants who may pose a national security risk.
Indira Gandhi era and long-term consequences
Much of this criticism traces back to the era of Indira Gandhi, when political considerations were often accused of outweighing long-term national interest in border and migration issues. While the context of that period was different, the Congress institutionalized a mindset where illegal immigration was treated as a political resource rather than a sovereign challenge. The consequences of those choices are being paid today by border states and urban centers alike.
National security and the shadow of 26/11
Congress’ record on national security is another recurring line of attack. After the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, BJP and civil society alleged that accountability and deterrence were inadequate and that political sensitivity often diluted the response. While institutional measures were taken, the broader allegation persists that the Congress has historically been hesitant to adopt a zero-tolerance posture when doing so risked upsetting certain constituencies. This perception continues to haunt the party whenever security and internal order are debated.
External political interference and CPM’s role
The Kogilu issue took a sharper turn when leaders outside Karnataka entered the debate. The intervention and commentary by Pinarayi Vijayan of the Communist Party of Bharat (Marxist) was seen by critics as an attempt to frame a local administrative action into a larger ideological narrative. For opponents, this reinforced the belief that the issue was being used to cook political capital across state lines, rather than to genuinely resolve a civic problem in Bengaluru.
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: where do Kannadigas stand in the Congress’ priority list? The BJP argues that when it comes to illegal encroachments, migration, or urban policy, the Congress bends backwards to protect perceived vote banks while ordinary locals struggle for housing, jobs, and basic services. The Kogilu row, they claim, symbolizes this imbalance: swift political sensitivity for some, prolonged neglect for many others.
The Kogilu episode has brought into sharp focus a long-simmering charge against Siddaramaiah and the Congress government: that governance under them appears guided less by equal justice and more by calibrated appeasement. It demonstrates a consistent pattern, from the days of Indira Gandhi to today, of bootlicking electoral constituencies, relying on high-command control, and blurring the line between humanitarian concern and political appeasement. Time and again, the State seems to move with remarkable speed when issues intersect with Islamist groups or electorally sensitive constituencies, while concerns related to Hindu institutions, temple administration, or the everyday anxieties of ordinary Kannadigas are met with hesitation, delay, or studied silence.
Equally troubling is the growing unease over the use of Karnataka taxpayers’ money. Why, many ask, does generosity flow readily beyond state borders, such as financial assistance to Kerala, when several local Hindu communities continue to feel neglected at home? Compassion is laudable, but selective compassion raises questions about priorities, accountability, and political intent.
The Kogilu controversy has also reopened an uncomfortable but unavoidable line of inquiry. If the settlements were indeed illegal, how did the occupants manage to secure Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and other official documents? Such processes do not occur in a vacuum. In an area politically represented by a Congress MLA, the inference many citizens draw is not conspiratorial but practical: systems of documentation and welfare cannot function without at least tacit administrative and political support.
People are not naïve. They recognize patterns, and they remember precedents. The widening perception today is that the Congress is more invested in protecting vote banks than in upholding the rule of law or ensuring fairness to native Kannadigas. History offers a clear warning: appeasement may deliver short-term electoral dividends, but it steadily corrodes public trust. If the Congress continues down this path, it risks discovering that the very politics it depends on will, sooner or later, hollow out the party from within.
