Two women, speaking about their experiences, described deeply disturbing instances of sexual abuse carried out by men posing as spiritual figures. In both cases, it was their families’ belief in supernatural claims that led them into these situations, while the silence that followed allowed such individuals to continue operating without immediate consequences. Their accounts highlight how unchecked faith and social hesitation can create an environment where exploitation thrives.
The issue has come into sharper focus following allegations against Nashik-based godman Ashok Kharat, who faces serious charges including rape, sexual assault, forced abortion, and even murder. Within days of the case gaining attention, police reportedly received dozens of complaints involving similar accusations, such as abuse, extortion, and the circulation of explicit material. The scale of the response raises a critical question—why did many victims not come forward earlier?
A closer look at such cases reveals a recurring pattern. These individuals often establish credibility through religious gatherings and gradually build trust among followers. Once that trust is established, they begin to exert psychological influence, framing abusive acts as part of rituals or “treatment.” Victims, often already vulnerable due to health, emotional, or personal struggles, are made to believe that compliance is necessary for relief or salvation.
One of the women recounted how she was taken to a spiritual figure by her parents after medical treatments failed to resolve her health issues. Initially, the setting appeared ordinary, with prayer sessions and interactions that seemed routine. Over time, however, the situation escalated. During a visit to a temple, she witnessed behaviour that made her uncomfortable and alarming, prompting her to remove herself from the situation. What disturbed her further was the unquestioning trust shown by others present, including families who appeared to accept such conduct without objection.
After returning home, she shared the experience with her family, expecting intervention. Instead, the response was silence. She was simply told not to return, with no further action taken. This lack of accountability, even within families, reflects a broader societal issue where discomfort is acknowledged privately but rarely challenged publicly.
Another woman described a similar experience, where she was taken by her father to a man claiming spiritual authority. In a private setting, she was subjected to inappropriate physical contact under the pretext of a ritual. She recalled feeling frozen and unable to react, highlighting how shock and confusion often prevent immediate resistance. To avoid returning, she later told her family she was fine, choosing silence as a form of self-protection.
These accounts underline a troubling reality. The authority these individuals wield is not inherent but constructed—built on belief, reinforced by social acceptance, and sustained by silence. Victims often hesitate to speak out due to fear, stigma, or the knowledge that their own families may not support them. This creates a cycle where abuse continues unchecked.
Investigations in the Nashik case suggest prolonged exploitation in some instances, with victims allegedly manipulated over extended periods through a mix of fear, ritualistic claims, and psychological control. Such methods indicate a calculated approach, where trust is gradually deepened before abuse escalates.
While arrests and legal action bring temporary accountability, they do not address the underlying conditions that allow such cases to emerge repeatedly. The persistence of these incidents points to a deeper issue—where faith, when combined with unquestioned authority, can override critical thinking and personal boundaries.
Ultimately, these cases are not just about individual perpetrators but about the systems that enable them. As long as blind belief goes unchallenged and victims feel unable to speak openly, similar patterns are likely to continue. The shift required is not only legal but social—where questioning authority is not seen as defiance, but as a necessary step toward protection and accountability.
