“This is precisely where the political positioning of Utpal Parrikar now faces its biggest test. For the past few years, Utpal has attempted to carve out a political space in Panaji by invoking legacy and presenting himself as the natural inheritor of his father’s political influence in the capital.
But Panaji’s electorate appears to be sending a different signal.
Municipal elections are rarely won through sentiment. They are won through organisation, neighbourhood level networks and the ability to mobilise voters ward by ward. In this arena, Monserrate has built a structure over decades that continues to dominate the city’s civic politics.”
The results of the elections to the Corporation of the City of Panaji have once again confirmed a political reality that Panaji has known for decades. Power in the capital city does not necessarily follow party lines. It follows influence. And in Panaji, that influence continues to revolve around one man: Atanasio Monserrate.
The BJP backed panel sweeping 27 out of 30 wards may officially be projected as a victory for the party. But anyone familiar with Panaji’s political landscape knows that the real story is different. This election was less about the strength of the BJP and far more about the continuing dominance of Monserrate’s political machinery.
In fact, Panaji’s political history offers a clear pattern. Parties may change, alliances may shift and narratives may evolve. Yet the central figure in the city’s municipal politics has remained remarkably constant.
Even during the era of the late Manohar Parrikar, arguably Goa’s most influential political leader, Monserrate’s grip over the capital’s local politics was never easy to break. Parrikar represented the BJP’s ideological and organisational strength in Goa, but Monserrate commanded the ground level networks that often determine outcomes in municipal contests.
The CCP results have once again demonstrated that reality.
This is precisely where the political positioning of Utpal Parrikar now faces its biggest test. For the past few years, Utpal has attempted to carve out a political space in Panaji by invoking legacy and presenting himself as the natural inheritor of his father’s political influence in the capital.
But Panaji’s electorate appears to be sending a different signal.
Municipal elections are rarely won through sentiment. They are won through organisation, neighbourhood level networks and the ability to mobilise voters ward by ward. In this arena, Monserrate has built a structure over decades that continues to dominate the city’s civic politics.
The sweep of 27 wards is not merely a comfortable majority in the Corporation of the City of Panaji. It is evidence of how firmly that structure still operates.
For Utpal Parrikar, this election underscores a difficult truth. Political legacy does not automatically translate into political control. Panaji voters may respect the memory of Manohar Parrikar, but respect alone does not dismantle an entrenched political network.
The contrast between the two political styles is striking.
Manohar Parrikar built his reputation through governance, intellectual authority and party organisation. Monserrate, on the other hand, has thrived through a deeply rooted local network that operates across wards, communities and civic issues.
Different approaches. Different strengths. But in municipal politics, Monserrate’s method has repeatedly proved effective.
Utpal Parrikar’s political challenge therefore becomes far more complex than simply opposing the BJP or questioning Monserrate’s style of politics. If he intends to emerge as a serious force in Panaji, he must confront the political structure that has dominated the capital for years.
And that structure is not defined by party labels.
It is defined by Monserrate’s ability to influence candidates, shape panels and maintain a loyal base that delivers results election after election.
The latest CCP verdict reinforces this dynamic. Even when contests are framed as BJP versus opposition, the underlying reality remains that Monserrate’s political machinery continues to dictate the outcome in the city.
For Utpal Parrikar, the lesson from this election should be clear.
Panaji’s politics cannot be challenged through symbolism alone. Legacy politics, however powerful the name behind it may be, cannot substitute the painstaking work of building a grassroots network.
Until that happens, the capital’s civic politics is likely to remain under the shadow of a familiar figure.
Because if this election has proven anything, it is that while parties may claim victory, Panaji still moves to the rhythm set by Babush Monserrate.
