“A government office is not a private entity. It is a public space meant to serve everyone. When its functioning is blocked, it is not just officials who are affected. Ordinary citizens who need certificates, permissions, and approvals are also denied access. Files remain pending. Work is delayed. Services come to a halt. A protest meant to defend public interest ends up inconveniencing the very public it claims to represent.
This is where democratic protest risks slipping into something else. A peaceful protest is one that allows dissent without disrupting the basic functioning of the state. Demonstrations outside offices, rallies, memoranda, and even sustained sit-ins in designated areas are all part of democratic expression.”
The overnight protest at the TCP office by villagers opposing the Section 39A zoning changes reflects a growing pattern in Goa’s public life. Anger over land policies is understandable. Suspicion over zoning changes is not new. But when protesters prevent a government office from functioning, the issue is no longer just about planning laws or public consultation. It becomes a question about the limits of protest in a democracy.
Protest is not only legitimate in a democracy. It is necessary. Many policy decisions would go unquestioned if citizens did not organise and raise their voices. In a small state where land is deeply tied to identity and livelihood, zoning changes can provoke genuine fear. Villagers who feel threatened by planning decisions have every right to demand answers and accountability. They have every right to assemble, to shout slogans, and to insist on being heard.
What they do not have is the right to bring a public institution to a standstill.
A government office is not a private entity. It is a public space meant to serve everyone. When its functioning is blocked, it is not just officials who are affected. Ordinary citizens who need certificates, permissions, and approvals are also denied access. Files remain pending. Work is delayed. Services come to a halt. A protest meant to defend public interest ends up inconveniencing the very public it claims to represent.
This is where democratic protest risks slipping into something else. A peaceful protest is one that allows dissent without disrupting the basic functioning of the state. Demonstrations outside offices, rallies, memoranda, and even sustained sit-ins in designated areas are all part of democratic expression. But physically preventing an office from operating crosses a line. It replaces persuasion with pressure and dialogue with disruption.
The precedent this sets is worrying. If one group can shut down a government office because it disagrees with a decision, others will feel justified in doing the same. Every contentious policy could then lead to blockades and occupations. Governance would become hostage to whoever can mobilise the largest crowd. The rule of law cannot operate on such terms.
This does not mean the authorities are blameless. Protests of this intensity usually come after prolonged frustration. People do not sit overnight outside offices unless they feel ignored. A lack of transparency and poor communication often push citizens to take extreme steps. When people believe decisions are being taken without their participation, protest becomes inevitable.
But administrative failures cannot justify obstruction. If anything, they make it more important for institutions to remain functional. Zoning decisions require scrutiny and review. They involve technical and legal processes that cannot move forward if offices are paralysed. Preventing officials from working does not strengthen public participation. It weakens the very system through which decisions can be questioned and corrected.
There is also a broader danger in normalising such tactics. Each successful blockade encourages the next one. Over time, disruption becomes an accepted method of negotiation. Respect for institutions erodes. Dialogue becomes secondary to confrontation. Democracy begins to function not through debate but through pressure.
Goa has seen its share of protests over land and planning issues, many of them justified. Public vigilance is necessary in matters that shape the state’s future. But vigilance must operate within a framework that allows institutions to function. Otherwise, the system itself begins to break down.
The right to protest is fundamental, but it is not absolute. It exists alongside the rights of other citizens and the need for governance to continue. Protest should aim to influence decisions, not immobilise administration.
The villagers protesting the zoning changes deserve to be heard. Their concerns deserve attention. But stopping a government office from functioning is not democratic engagement. It is coercive pressure.
If every disagreement leads to an occupation and every policy dispute to a shutdown, the consequences will extend far beyond a single zoning issue. Democracy depends not only on the right to dissent but also on the responsibility to exercise that right without paralysing the system itself.
