Uncontrolled digging could erase Dharmasthala mass burial evidence: Soil scientist warns SIT
Bengaluru: A soil scientist, who has studied tropical lateritic soils, has released a note in anonymity, warning the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing alleged mass burials in Dharmasthala (1994–2014) that improper excavation could permanently destroy critical forensic evidence.
The scientist cautioned that in the coastal, high-rainfall environment of Dharmasthala, bones from older graves are often not visually present due to the region’s acidic laterite soil, which accelerates decomposition. “In these conditions, the visual absence of bones does not mean there was no burial,” the expert stressed. “Chemical and microscopic soil analysis may be the only way to detect older graves.”
According to the soil scientist, Dharmasthala’s lateritic soil has a pH of 4.5–6, is porous and rich in iron and aluminium oxides, and is subject to over 3,500 mm of annual rainfall. These factors together cause rapid bone mineral dissolution and collagen breakdown. “In as little as 15–20 years, complete skeletons can be reduced to just teeth, enamel shards, or micro-residues,” the scientist said.
Drawing on comparisons with Rwanda, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Srebrenica, the scientist estimated that:
- Graves less than 15 years old have a reasonable chance of yielding skeletons.
- Graves 15–20 years old may yield only partial skeletons and teeth.
- Burials older than 20 years often retain only chemical signatures and microscopic fragments.
“In Dharmasthala’s soil, the probability of finding a full skeleton after two decades is near zero,” the expert said.
‘JCBs will destroy what’s left’
The soil scientist was particularly critical of the use of heavy machinery in the investigation. “Uncontrolled digging with JCBs can obliterate brittle bone fragments, erase burial stratigraphy, and mix burial soil with surrounding soil, diluting chemical signals,” he warned. “It’s equivalent to destroying the crime scene.”
The scientist emphasised that disturbed lateritic soil can quickly resemble undisturbed ground, making it almost impossible to detect graves later.
GPR as a map, not a microscope
The expert also noted that Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) could play a limited role in the investigation. “GPR can help locate soil disturbances, but in wet, iron-rich lateritic soils, it cannot ‘see bones.’ For burials decades old, chemical analysis of soil is far more reliable,” he said.
Call for controlled forensic exhumation
The soil scientist urged the SIT to stop all mechanical digging and adopt a forensic protocol:
- Use GPR or other non-invasive methods to locate anomalies.
- Excavate in small, measured layers under forensic supervision.
- Collect soil samples for chemical and microscopic analysis.
- Sieve soil to recover micro bone fragments and teeth.
“Only a controlled, scientific approach will preserve what little evidence may remain in this environment,” the scientist said. “If these traces are destroyed, the truth about the alleged burials may never be proven.”
The SIT is investigating allegations of mass burials linked to the disappearance of individuals between 1994 and 2014 in Dharmasthala. No official response to the scientist’s concerns has been issued.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sigh and Pay: What the New US Import Tax Means for India’s Export Giants
When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Price badh gaya hai, naya tax laga hai,” you usually do only one thing — you sigh and pay more. You do not argue with the government; you simply adjust your household budget. That is exactly what is happening in the United States right now. And when prices and taxes change in America, the effect does not stay there. It slowly travels across oceans and reaches India too.
On 21 February, American President Donald Trump announced a new 15% import tax on almost all goods entering the US from other countries. An import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money charged when a product crosses the border — like a gate fee. A T-shirt from Tiruppur, a medicine from Hyderabad, or an electronic item from China — if it wants to enter the US market, it must now pay 15% extra. Companies usually pass this extra cost to customers. So in the end, it is the ordinary American buyer in a supermarket who pays more.
This 15% tax did not come out of nowhere. Just one day earlier, on 20 February, Trump had announced a 10% global import tax. Before that, he had introduced even higher tariffs, which the US Supreme Court struck down. The court said he was misusing a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law is meant for genuine emergencies — like dealing with hostile nations or blocking dangerous financial flows — not for imposing wide import taxes on almost the entire world. In simple terms, the court said normal trade cannot be labelled an emergency just to collect extra tax.
So Trump turned to another legal option: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This rarely used law allows a president to impose temporary import surcharges when there is a serious trade imbalance. It permits tariffs of up to 15%, but only for 150 days — roughly five months. That is why it feels like a 150-day fuse. The law was originally designed for situations when the US was buying far more from other countries than it was selling to them — what economists call a trade deficit. Trump argues that America’s large and long-standing trade deficit justifies this step.
However, legal experts are divided. Some believe today’s trade deficit may not fully match the conditions envisioned when Section 122 was written decades ago. That means the new tariff could also face legal challenges. But until any court decision changes it, the 15% tariff is active.
The numbers explain the shift clearly. Before the Supreme Court struck down the earlier tariffs, the average import tax in America had risen to about 16%. After the court ruling, it fell sharply to around 9%. Now, with the new 15% global tariff, analysts expect the overall average to settle somewhere between 13% and 14%. In simple words, tariffs are lower than last year’s peak but higher than they were just days ago. They have not returned to old normal levels.
Why does this matter for India? Because the US is one of India’s largest export markets. India sends medicines, IT services, textiles, gems and jewellery, engineering goods, and auto components to America. If a 15% tariff is applied, Indian exporters face a difficult choice. Either they absorb the extra cost and accept lower profits, or they raise prices and risk losing customers. Lower profits often mean slower hiring, reduced investment, and cautious spending. Trade policy may look distant, but it quietly influences jobs and incomes here at home.
Earlier discussions between India and the US involved a possible 18% tariff structure. On paper, 15% seems better. But the earlier framework was clearer and more stable. The new 15% tariff comes with a 150-day time limit and the possibility of court battles. In business, predictability is often more valuable than small numerical advantages. Companies can manage higher costs if they are stable; uncertainty is harder to manage.
There are some exemptions. Certain medicines, critical minerals, defence-related goods, and some products from Canada and Mexico are excluded under special agreements. So the rule is not entirely universal. But for a large share of imports — including many low-cost online products — the 15% tariff applies.
Another important change concerns the “de minimis” rule. Earlier, goods valued at 800 dollars or less could enter the US without paying import tax. This allowed online sellers and platforms to ship small packages directly to American consumers easily. That benefit is now effectively suspended. The administration has confirmed that even these small parcels will face the new tariff. In addition, a major tax bill passed recently will permanently phase out the de minimis system for commercial shipments by around mid-2027.
Trump has also mentioned other legal tools. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows tariffs on industries linked to national security, such as steel, aluminium, and automobiles. Some of these sectors already face tariffs of 25% to 50%. The new 15% global tariff will not be added on top of those existing Section 232 tariffs. Another option, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allows long-term tariffs on countries accused of unfair trade practices. However, both Section 232 and Section 301 require detailed investigations and take months to implement. Section 122, in contrast, acts quickly.
What happens on the ground? Studies from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggest that most of the cost of earlier tariffs was ultimately paid by American companies and consumers. When importers pay more, they try to pass that cost along the supply chain. This leads to higher prices for goods like home appliances, furniture, and vehicles. Some companies delay hiring or postpone expansion plans.
Not everyone loses. Certain domestic industries benefit from protection. For example, US shrimp fishermen have said that higher tariffs on imported shrimp made their local products more competitive. In trade policy, one sector’s protection often means another sector’s higher cost.
The broader issue is stability. Tariffs are powerful economic tools. But when they change frequently or face repeated legal challenges, businesses struggle to plan. They hesitate to invest, hire, or sign long-term contracts. Uncertainty itself becomes a cost.
Trump believes America has been disadvantaged in global trade and wants to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Many supporters agree that protecting key industries and reducing dependence on foreign supply chains is important. The debate is less about the objective and more about the method. A major trading nation needs policies that are clear, predictable, and legally sound.
Trade policy may appear technical, but it has everyday consequences. It can influence the price of shoes in a shop, the hiring decision of a factory in Chennai, or the expansion plan of an exporter in Gujarat.
Trump’s 15% global tariff and its 150-day timeline are not just political headlines. They represent a shift in how trade costs are distributed across countries and consumers. And in global economics, the final bill almost always reaches ordinary people — whether they wrote the rules or not.
(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany.)
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or position of the publication, its editors, or its management. The publication is not responsible for the accuracy of any information, statements, or opinions presented in this piece.
