The Case of MLA Manikrao Kokate: Truth, Myth, and Facts

The judicial case involving Manikrao Kokate does not merely raise questions about an individual political leader; it brings into sharp focus the entire Indian judicial system, administrative machinery, and the implementation of welfare schemes meant for the poor.

This article is neither an attempt to defend any individual nor to assassinate anyone’s character. Rather, it is a mirror reflecting systemic failure, exposed through a single case.

If justice were to expose all political leaders with the same rigor, many would find themselves behind bars, because the bitter reality is that politics today has very few untainted individuals left.

In the pre-independence era, politics was largely driven by selfless service to the nation and society. Today, however, politics has become a means to acquire and expand wealth, power, position, and prestige—not a tool for public service. Exceptions to this rule have become increasingly rare. Development projects are no longer acts of service but mechanisms for extracting unlawful personal gain.

Unfortunately, India still lacks a robust system where every wrongdoing can be conclusively proven with evidence, and this systemic weakness is often exploited.

Is the Manikrao Kokate Case Only About One Individual?

In the Manikrao Kokate case, the court delivered its verdict based strictly on the available evidence, as judicial authority is necessarily limited to what can be proven before it.

However, the fundamental question remains:

If a beneficiary submitted false documents, how can the system that issued, accepted, and failed to verify those documents remain blameless?

This question points not only at an individual but directly at the system itself.

Welfare Schemes: For the Poor or for the Capable?

Schemes such as EWS / LIG are designed for the genuinely poor. Yet, in practice, the reality is often different:

Those with proper documents qualify

Those with recommendations move ahead

Those with genuine need are left behind

The poorest citizens often do not understand the application process, cannot afford repeated visits to offices, and lack the capacity for prolonged legal battles.

This leads to a critical question:

If schemes are meant for the poor, why do the benefits so often fail to reach them?

Beneficiary at Fault, Officials Innocent?

Every sanctioned scheme involves files, verification of documents, official signatures, and approvals.

If documents were forged, then:

How were they issued?

Why were they accepted?

Why was no verification conducted?

Why was accountability never fixed?

Yet, in most cases, only the beneficiary is prosecuted, while the administrative machinery remains untouched. This selective accountability emboldens future misuse.

This is not justice—it is selective enforcement.

Truth-Seeking or Political Vendetta?

Questions have also been raised about the complainant’s intent:

Was the complaint driven by a commitment to truth, or by political rivalry?

Public debate highlights another uncomfortable reality:

Were other beneficiaries of the same housing allotments truly poor?

From a legal standpoint, however, only evidence matters.

If evidence is strong, the complainant’s motive becomes irrelevant.

Lack of Evidence: The System’s Greatest Failure

In India:

Deals are often verbal

Financial transactions occur in cash

Files mysteriously disappear over time

As a result:

Everyone knows the truth

But it cannot be proven in court

This vacuum enables selective justice, where outcomes depend more on evidence availability than on actual truth.

Individual Guilt or Systemic Failure?

This question extends far beyond the Manikrao Kokate case. It applies to the entire political and administrative ecosystem.

If the law were applied fearlessly and uniformly, many powerful faces would be exposed. This is precisely why the law is often applied selectively.

Dr.B. R. Ambedkar had warned that political democracy is meaningless without social and economic justice.

Conclusion: Who Is the Real Accused?

This case leads to one unavoidable conclusion:

The fault does not lie with an individual alone

The fault lies with the entire system

Punishment, however, is selective

Complaints are not always filed out of love for truth or justice; often, they are motivated by personal or political self-interest.

Many times, truth fails due to lack of evidence, while falsehood prevails on the strength of fabricated proof.

Therefore, the real question should not only be who was caught, but also:

Who was spared—and why?

Raising this question is not anti-politics; it is an attempt to keep democracy alive.

Instead of wasting entire lifetimes trying to prove corruption—often ending up with negligible outcomes—it is far more urgent to build a robust, transparent, and ethical system where corruption itself becomes impossible. This is no longer optional; it is a necessity of our times.

Author:

Arun Ramchandra Pangarkar

Founder,

Shramik Kranti – Voice of the Poor