Democracy gives every citizen the right to protest, question the government and demand accountability. Peaceful dissent is not a favour granted by those in power. It is a constitutional right. But does this right also give anyone the licence to insult religious beliefs, provoke communities or threaten journalists performing their duty? The answer is an emphatic no.
The controversy surrounding the CJP protest in Panjim has raised questions that Goa cannot afford to ignore. Slogans such as “Hinduwad Murdabad” were reportedly raised during the demonstration, while a journalist recording the protest was allegedly threatened by some youth. Chief Minister Dr Pramod Sawant has ordered an inquiry. It is now the responsibility of the authorities to establish the facts and determine whether any laws were violated.
However, the questions go beyond the slogans allegedly raised at one protest. They concern the purpose of political demonstrations, the responsibilities of their organisers and the possibility of legitimate public issues being overshadowed by religious provocation.
If the protest was organised over the NEET controversy or to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, why did religious slogans reportedly become part of the demonstration? What connection did they have with the stated demands? Were they raised spontaneously by a few individuals, or did they reflect a broader political message? These are legitimate questions that deserve clear answers.
A protest must be judged by its purpose, its conduct and the message it seeks to convey.
There is nothing wrong with young people questioning the government, demanding electoral accountability or expressing anger over perceived injustice. In fact, a healthy democracy depends on citizens who refuse to remain silent. But when a demonstration about a specific public issue becomes entangled in religious rhetoric, its original purpose risks being lost.
Questions have also been raised about placards reportedly displayed at earlier CJP protests, including one said to express support for Umar Khalid. These claims must be independently verified. A placard, a slogan or an individual’s political opinion cannot automatically establish the intentions of an entire organisation. Nevertheless, organisers must be prepared to explain the message conveyed at their demonstrations, particularly when it risks inflaming public sentiment.
Goa is a state where people from different religions, communities and regions have lived together for generations. Its social harmony should never be taken for granted. At a time when political debates across the country are increasingly coloured by religious identity, Goa must be careful not to import the same atmosphere of suspicion and confrontation.
At the same time, the fact that some protesters are reportedly non-Goans cannot itself become an argument against their participation. Goa welcomes people from different parts of the country, and every citizen has rights under the Constitution. Their place of origin is irrelevant when determining whether their conduct was lawful. Anyone who breaks the law must be held accountable, irrespective of whether they are Goan or from elsewhere.
The alleged threat to a journalist, however, deserves particular attention. A journalist recording a public demonstration is performing a legitimate professional responsibility. Protesters may disagree with the coverage, question a report or challenge a journalist’s interpretation. They cannot resort to intimidation. The freedom to protest and the freedom of the press are both essential to democracy. Neither can survive if the other is silenced through threats.
The government must therefore ensure that the inquiry is impartial, transparent and based on evidence. It must establish what slogans were raised, whether threats were made, who was responsible and whether any unlawful activity occurred. Action should follow where the evidence warrants it. Equally, nobody should be condemned merely because allegations have been made.
The organisers, too, have a responsibility. They must clarify the objectives of the demonstration and distance themselves from any unlawful conduct, if established. Silence can create suspicion, while sweeping allegations against all protesters can deepen divisions. Both approaches serve little purpose.
There is also a larger political danger. When religious provocation takes centre stage, the substantive issues that bring people onto the streets often disappear. NEET irregularities, electoral accountability and other questions of public interest deserve serious debate. They should not become casualties of slogans that divide people along religious lines.
Goa does not need imported political hostility or manufactured communal confrontation. It needs informed debate, responsible activism and institutions that act without fear or favour.
The right to protest must be protected. But that protection cannot become a shield for intimidation or unlawful conduct. Equally, allegations of provocation must not become an excuse to suppress legitimate dissent.
The question before Goa is not whether people should be allowed to protest. They must. The real question is whether those who take to the streets are prepared to defend the democratic values they claim to uphold.
Are we protesting to protect our rights, or are legitimate causes being used to create divisions among Goans?
The inquiry must provide the answers. Until then, facts must take precedence over speculation, and democratic dissent must remain firmly separated from intimidation and religious hatred.
