“There is also a fundamental question of safety. Protests inside government offices create unpredictable situations. Nobody can fully anticipate mob behaviour once emotions run high. In the TCP office protest, women and children were reportedly present. One shudders to think what might have happened had the situation spiralled out of control. If an untoward incident had occurred, who would have taken responsibility? Democratic protest is a right, but it also carries the obligation to ensure that no harm comes to innocent people.
Equally troubling is the trend of targeting private residences. Protest has always been a part of Goa’s political culture, but there has traditionally been an unwritten line that was rarely crossed. Demonstrations were held in public spaces, outside government offices, or at designated grounds.”
With elections barely months away, Goa is witnessing a familiar rise in protests and political mobilisations. Some of these agitations stem from genuine public concerns, particularly over planning and land issues. Others, as often happens in an election cycle, carry the unmistakable undertone of political positioning. In such a charged atmosphere, it becomes important to separate legitimate democratic protest from actions that risk crossing into disorder.
Chief Minister Pramod Sawant on Wednesday stated that files went missing after protestors entered the TCP office, and also alleged that the residence of Minister Vishwajit Rane was attacked, with attempts made to assault and abuse him. These are serious claims. If true, they cannot be brushed aside as routine political activity. The Chief Minister has promised strong action, and to that extent, his statement carries weight. Government offices are public institutions, and any intrusion that disrupts their functioning or risks damage to official records raises legitimate concerns.
There is also a fundamental question of safety. Protests inside government offices create unpredictable situations. Nobody can fully anticipate mob behaviour once emotions run high. In the TCP office protest, women and children were reportedly present. One shudders to think what might have happened had the situation spiralled out of control. If an untoward incident had occurred, who would have taken responsibility? Democratic protest is a right, but it also carries the obligation to ensure that no harm comes to innocent people.
Equally troubling is the trend of targeting private residences. Protest has always been a part of Goa’s political culture, but there has traditionally been an unwritten line that was rarely crossed. Demonstrations were held in public spaces, outside government offices, or at designated grounds. Taking protests to someone’s home introduces an element of personal intimidation that weakens the moral legitimacy of any movement. Even the most justified cause risks losing public sympathy when agitation begins to look like harassment.
This does not mean that all protests are unjustified. Far from it. Public anger over planning decisions and development policies is real and cannot simply be dismissed as politically motivated. The Opposition and civil society have every right to question government actions. But the method of protest matters as much as the cause. When protestors take the law into their own hands, they hand the government an opportunity to shift the focus from the issue to the incident.
In this context, the hunger strike undertaken by activist Viresh Borkar stands out as an example of protest in its most principled form. A hunger strike follows the Gandhian tradition of peaceful resistance, appealing to the conscience rather than provoking confrontation. Such actions command respect even from those who may disagree with the demands. They keep the focus firmly on the issue instead of the spectacle.
At the same time, public movements must guard against the tone and language used by their leaders. The rhetoric employed by Manoj Parab against both the ruling party and the Opposition has often appeared excessive and, at times, arrogant. Strong criticism is part of democracy, but when language becomes needlessly aggressive, it risks alienating potential supporters and diluting the seriousness of the cause. A movement that claims moral authority must also demonstrate restraint in words as well as actions.
The government, for its part, must also avoid painting every protest as politically motivated. Dismissing all dissent as election-driven only deepens public mistrust. Genuine concerns need genuine responses, not just political counterattacks. Transparency and dialogue remain the most effective ways to defuse tensions.
Goa has a long and proud tradition of peaceful protest. That tradition must be preserved. Agitations must remain democratic, disciplined and focused on issues rather than individuals. Crossing the line into intimidation or disorder weakens democracy instead of strengthening it.
As the state moves closer to elections, protests will undoubtedly intensify. That is to be expected in any vibrant democracy. But both protestors and the government must remember that the legitimacy of any movement lies not only in what it demands, but also in how those demands are pursued.
