“At one level, the Gram Sabha’s intent is clear. There is resentment against what many locals perceive as unchecked entry of outside business interests, particularly in tourism. Shack operations, homestays, adventure tourism and small commercial projects have altered village economies and landscapes. Locals fear being reduced to low-paid labourers in their own villages while ownership and profits move elsewhere. In that sense, the Khola resolution reflects a wider sentiment seen across Goa.
However, sentiment cannot override constitutional reality. Goa is not a closed territory. It is a state within the Indian Union, governed by the Constitution of India.”
The resolution passed by the Khola Gram Sabha strikes an emotional chord that is easy to understand in today’s Goa. Anxiety over land, livelihoods and cultural dilution is real, especially in villages facing rapid tourism led change. The demand to protect local entrepreneurs and ensure that the benefits of development flow to Goans is neither new nor illegitimate. But the question that must be asked, calmly and firmly, is this. Can such a resolution stand the test of law, and more importantly, does it offer a workable solution or only the comfort of symbolism?
At one level, the Gram Sabha’s intent is clear. There is resentment against what many locals perceive as unchecked entry of outside business interests, particularly in tourism. Shack operations, homestays, adventure tourism and small commercial projects have altered village economies and landscapes. Locals fear being reduced to low-paid labourers in their own villages while ownership and profits move elsewhere. In that sense, the Khola resolution reflects a wider sentiment seen across Goa.
However, sentiment cannot override constitutional reality. Goa is not a closed territory. It is a state within the Indian Union, governed by the Constitution of India. Article 19 guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business anywhere in the country, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. A village panchayat does not have the authority to impose blanket bans based on domicile or place of origin. Any such discrimination is legally vulnerable and likely to be struck down if challenged.
Panchayats are important institutions of local self-government, but their powers are not absolute. They function within the framework of state laws and constitutional limits. Trade licences, NOCs and permits cannot be denied solely on the basis that an applicant is a non Goan, a term which itself has no clear legal definition. If the state government itself cannot bar Indians from doing business in Goa without specific legislation, a gram sabha resolution certainly cannot.
There is also a practical contradiction at play. Tourism, which many villages now depend on for income, is by its nature an open industry. Visitors come from outside, capital often comes from outside, and skills and networks are rarely confined to one geography. To suggest that tourism can be sustained while excluding all non-locals from participation is unrealistic. It risks discouraging investment, creating legal disputes and fostering an inward looking economy that ultimately hurts locals too.
This does not mean that the concerns raised at the Khola Gram Sabha should be dismissed. On the contrary, they point to failures of regulation and governance. The real issues are not whether an entrepreneur is Goan or non Goan, but whether businesses are compliant, environmentally responsible, fair to local workers and beneficial to the village. Questions raised about undocumented shack owners, employment of locals and transparency in licensing are valid. These are areas where panchayats do have authority and responsibility.
Instead of passing sweeping resolutions that may not survive legal scrutiny, gram sabhas would do better to demand stricter enforcement of existing laws. Panchayats can insist on proper documentation, limit the scale of tourism projects based on carrying capacity, ensure local employment quotas where permissible, and oppose projects that violate zoning or environmental norms. They can also lobby the state government for policies that genuinely prioritise local entrepreneurs through subsidies, training and access to finance.
There is another risk in resolutions like Khola’s. They blur the line between protection and exclusion. Goa’s identity has always been shaped by openness, migration and exchange. Turning economic anxieties into an outsider versus insider binary may offer short term political satisfaction, but it can deepen social divisions and distract from the real culprits: weak enforcement, political patronage and unplanned growth.
The Khola Gram Sabha has every right to debate the future of its village. It’s call for cleanliness drives and concern over the unsafe Saleri bridge show a commendable focus on basic governance. But when it comes to economic rights, the rule of law cannot be replaced by popular resolutions. If Goa wants to protect local interests, it must do so through constitutionally sound policies, not through measures that promise more than they can legally deliver.
The decision may feel good. Whether it can be achieved, or should be, is another matter altogether.
