“The claim that no political nexus has been established in this case should not be read as a proclamation of innocence. It only shows that investigators did not find enough proof, not that the ecosystem of influence does not exist. A racket of this scale cannot flourish without networks. The public deserves clarity on who orchestrated the collections, who controlled the communication channels and how the money flowed. Saying that no officials or politicians were involved does little to help job-seekers who are still waiting for accountability.
The investigation also raises a larger concern about the culture of recruitment in the public sector. Over the years, job scams have become frighteningly common across states.”
The announcement by the Goa Crime Branch that it has found no political or official involvement in the cash-for-jobs scandal linked to the BES21 recruitment episode lands with a dull thud. For many Goans who watched the case unfold with frustration, the statement feels less like closure and more like a reminder of how easily public trust can be dismissed. Hundreds of job-seekers came forward saying they were coaxed into paying for positions that later turned out to be either non-existent or completely outside the lawful recruitment process. Their stories painted a picture of anxiety, hope and manipulation. Yet the final word from investigators reduces the matter to a technical conclusion, leaving the core questions unanswered.
A job scam is never only about money. It is about the crushing of a dream. Most victims come from families that stretch their limited incomes to fund their children’s education. When these young people enter a system that promises stable government work, they bring both ambition and responsibility. They often become easy targets for middlemen who operate in the grey zone between influence and crime. That is why such rackets find fertile ground in societies where public recruitment lacks transparency. When these families pay lakhs, they don’t pay for privilege. They pay for the assurance that the state will offer their child a future.
The claim that no political nexus has been established in this case should not be read as a proclamation of innocence. It only shows that investigators did not find enough proof, not that the ecosystem of influence does not exist. A racket of this scale cannot flourish without networks. The public deserves clarity on who orchestrated the collections, who controlled the communication channels and how the money flowed. Saying that no officials or politicians were involved does little to help job-seekers who are still waiting for accountability.
The investigation also raises a larger concern about the culture of recruitment in the public sector. Over the years, job scams have become frighteningly common across states. False promises, forged letters and manipulated merit lists slip into the system with ease. Each time such a case breaks out, authorities reassure people that strict action will be taken. Yet the pattern keeps repeating. This shows that the administrative machinery is not merely vulnerable but actively being exploited. A state cannot claim to be serious about employment generation while allowing these breaches to persist.
If the Crime Branch is confident that it has ruled out political interference, it must still explain how an elaborate operation involving large sums of money prospered without the knowledge of insiders. Job-seekers do not hand over money to strangers without some assurance that the person has access. Someone must have presented themselves as a link to the system. Someone must have created the illusion of legitimacy. These details remain unaddressed. Saying that the investigation is complete offers no comfort to people who feel they were abandoned by the very institutions meant to protect them.
Criticism is not about doubting the intent of investigators. It is about demanding a higher standard of accountability. A state cannot simply announce that a scandal has no official roots and expect people to move on. The victims deserve an honest explanation of what went wrong. They deserve compensation or at least an official process through which their losses can be documented and acknowledged. More importantly, they deserve reforms that make future scams harder to execute. Recruitment should rely on digital tracking, public disclosure of selection criteria and independent oversight. If the government is serious about rebuilding faith, it must show that it is willing to confront the uncomfortable truth that fertile ground for such scams still exists.
The cash for jobs case is not just a criminal complaint. It is a story of broken trust. The state now faces a choice. It can treat the Crime Branch’s statement as the end of the matter, or it can recognise that the damage runs deeper. People look to public institutions for fairness. When that fairness is compromised, even once, it echoes for years. The true test is not in closing an investigation but in rebuilding the credibility that has been eroded.
