“The development also exposes the growing factional tensions that have been simmering within the RGP for months. The party that once positioned itself as a fresh alternative to traditional Goan politics now appears increasingly consumed by internal battles. Instead of discussing policy, governance and public issues, the conversation has shifted to loyalty tests, internal power struggles and allegations of conspiracies.
What makes the situation even more intriguing is the absence of action against certain other figures who have publicly disagreed with the party leadership. Critics are already asking why some members were expelled while others were spared. The most frequently raised question concerns Viresh Borkar.”
The Revolutionary Goans Party’s decision to expel ten members in one stroke has triggered a larger debate that goes beyond disciplinary action. At the heart of the controversy lies a simple but important question: Is there still space for internal democracy within the RGP, or is the party increasingly moving towards centralized control where dissent is viewed as disloyalty?
In its June 16 statement, the RGP accused the expelled members of anti-party activities, conspiring to split the party, attempting to change the party president and Core Executive Committee, and trying to gain control over the party’s football symbol. These are undoubtedly serious allegations. Any political organization has the right to protect itself from genuine attempts to destabilize its structure.
However, what remains unclear is whether the accused members were given an opportunity to defend themselves before such a drastic decision was taken. Political parties often speak about transparency, accountability and democratic values when criticizing opponents. The same standards should apply within their own organizations. Expelling ten members at once is not a routine disciplinary measure. It is a political statement.
The development also exposes the growing factional tensions that have been simmering within the RGP for months. The party that once positioned itself as a fresh alternative to traditional Goan politics now appears increasingly consumed by internal battles. Instead of discussing policy, governance and public issues, the conversation has shifted to loyalty tests, internal power struggles and allegations of conspiracies.
What makes the situation even more intriguing is the absence of action against certain other figures who have publicly disagreed with the party leadership. Critics are already asking why some members were expelled while others were spared. The most frequently raised question concerns Viresh Borkar.
If the party’s justification is that public criticism, social media activity and actions perceived as damaging to the party’s image amount to anti-party conduct, then many observers will naturally wonder why the same standards have not been applied uniformly. Selective disciplinary action often creates the impression that rules are being enforced politically rather than constitutionally.
The leadership may argue that every case is different and that evidence against the expelled members was stronger. That explanation may well be valid. Yet the burden of proving consistency falls on the leadership itself. Without transparency, perceptions of favoritism and political calculation are inevitable.
There is another political dimension that cannot be ignored. The expulsions come at a time when the RGP continues to struggle with relevance in Goa’s rapidly changing political landscape. The party has seen electoral setbacks, internal disagreements and declining public visibility. In such circumstances, leadership challenges become particularly sensitive.
This naturally leads to speculation about the future role of Manoj Parab, one of the party’s most recognizable faces. Whether the recent developments are directly linked to creating conditions for a stronger Manoj Parab comeback is something only the party leadership can answer. However, political observers will undoubtedly connect the dots. When rival voices within an organization are weakened or removed, questions about leadership consolidation become unavoidable.
The larger concern is existential. The RGP was built on the promise of offering a different political culture. It appealed to voters who were frustrated with personality driven politics and opaque decision making. If the party begins to resemble the very political structures it once criticized, it risks losing the moral advantage that made it attractive in the first place.
A healthy political party is not one without disagreements. It is one that can accommodate disagreements without descending into purges. Debate, criticism and competing viewpoints are signs of political maturity, not weakness. Expulsions should be the last resort, not the first response to internal conflict.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether the expelled members were right or wrong. The issue is whether the process inspires confidence among party workers and supporters. If members begin to believe that questioning leadership decisions can result in expulsion, internal democracy will inevitably suffer.
The RGP leadership may have won a short term battle by removing dissenting voices. The real question is whether it has strengthened the party or merely deepened the perception that the space for internal democracy is shrinking. In a party already fighting for political relevance, that is a question that cannot be ignored.
