“Shah’s figures show a massive increase in drug seizures. According to him, agencies seized 1.19 crore kilograms of narcotics worth Rs 1.89 lakh crore between 2014 and 2026, compared with 26 lakh kilograms worth Rs 40,000 crore between 2004 and 2014. These figures demonstrate increased enforcement, but seizures alone cannot answer the most important question: Who is behind the supply chain?
That is where Goa needs to look beyond statistics.
The drug trade survives because there is money, protection, logistics and a market. A trafficker does not operate in isolation. Someone transports the substance, someone stores it, someone distributes it, and someone collects the money. If the police repeatedly catch the people at the bottom of the chain while the larger network continues to function, then the war is being fought at the wrong level.”
Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s message from Panaji was unequivocal: the Centre has a zero-tolerance policy towards narcotics and Goa must strengthen coordination between its police force and central agencies to dismantle drug networks operating in the tourism sector. That is a welcome declaration. But for Goa, the real question is not whether the government has the will to seize drugs. It is whether the political and police establishment has the will to go after the entire network behind them.
Drug trafficking is not an ordinary law and order problem. Goa is a tourism destination with a thriving nightlife economy, a long coastline, a large floating population and an international tourism footprint. These conditions make the State vulnerable to organised drug trafficking. When drugs become deeply embedded in the tourism economy, merely arresting users or recovering consignments will never be enough.
Shah’s figures show a massive increase in drug seizures. According to him, agencies seized 1.19 crore kilograms of narcotics worth Rs 1.89 lakh crore between 2014 and 2026, compared with 26 lakh kilograms worth Rs 40,000 crore between 2004 and 2014. These figures demonstrate increased enforcement, but seizures alone cannot answer the most important question: Who is behind the supply chain?
That is where Goa needs to look beyond statistics.
The drug trade survives because there is money, protection, logistics and a market. A trafficker does not operate in isolation. Someone transports the substance, someone stores it, someone distributes it, and someone collects the money. If the police repeatedly catch the people at the bottom of the chain while the larger network continues to function, then the war is being fought at the wrong level.
Another uncomfortable question cannot be avoided. Whenever allegations or cases raise questions about possible political or police connections to the drug trade, the response cannot simply be dismissal. Allegations are not convictions, and nobody should be branded guilty without evidence. But allegations involving those entrusted with enforcing the law deserve independent and transparent investigation.
Because if the police are expected to investigate the drug network, they must also be above suspicion.
The same principle applies to politics. No political party can claim that drugs are somebody else’s problem. If organised narcotics networks have succeeded in establishing themselves in Goa, the political establishment must ask how they were allowed to grow and who benefited from their existence.
Shah himself linked the drug menace to a larger national security concern. Narcotics trafficking can intersect with organised crime and, in some cases, narco terrorism. Once illegal money begins financing criminal networks, the problem moves far beyond recreational drug use. It becomes a threat to institutions, young people, tourism and internal security.
The improvement in Goa’s conviction rate from 22 per cent to 53.2 per cent, which Shah praised, is certainly significant. His target of 70 per cent is even more ambitious. Better investigation, prosecution and use of the new criminal laws should be welcomed.
But conviction statistics must not become the only measure of success.
The real test is whether Goa can dismantle the supply chain.
If the State wants to eradicate drugs, it needs intelligence-driven policing, financial investigations, monitoring of suspected networks, stronger coastal surveillance and effective coordination with central agencies. More importantly, investigations must follow the money. Assets, bank transactions, properties and businesses connected to major traffickers should be examined.
There must also be institutional protection for officers who investigate powerful networks.
Goa cannot afford a situation where an ordinary person fears the consequences of drug abuse while influential people involved in the ecosystem remain untouched. Nor can the State win this battle if enforcement becomes selective.
Shah has set the political direction clearly. Sawant and the Goa Police have been praised for their performance. Now comes the harder part.
Goa needs to prove that zero tolerance means zero tolerance for everyone.
Not merely for the consumer.
Not merely for the small peddler.
Not merely for the person caught carrying a packet.
But for the entire network, including anyone who enables, protects or profits from it.
Only then will the fight against drugs move from impressive statistics to genuine eradication.
