Suraj Nandrekar
The confrontation at the Town and Country Planning office in Patto over Section 39(A) approvals has quickly escalated from a local grievance into a full-fledged political spectacle. What began as a protest by villagers from Siridao and Palem against land use permissions has now turned into a test of political restraint, with opposition leaders appearing more eager to exploit the moment than resolve the underlying concerns.
There is no question that land use decisions under Section 39(A) of the TCP Act deserve scrutiny. Villagers have a legitimate right to question how such approvals affect their environment, water resources and long-term sustainability. Public consultation and transparency are not optional extras in planning decisions; they are essential safeguards. If residents fear that development will strain water supplies or alter the ecological balance of their villages, their concerns must be heard and addressed through institutional channels.
However, the events at the TCP office suggest that the protest crossed from civic action into political theatre. The presence of multiple opposition leaders at what was essentially a departmental office turned an administrative grievance into a confrontation. Demonstrations at government offices are not new, but when elected representatives themselves become central to the disruption of official functioning, the line between protest and provocation begins to blur.
The alleged manhandling of an MLA by police is a serious matter and must be impartially examined. Any excessive use of force by law enforcement deserves accountability. But the immediate escalation into calls for suspensions, privilege motions and hunger strikes suggests a rush to politicise the issue before the facts are fully established. Democratic institutions function best when processes are followed, not when outrage is manufactured in real time.
There is also a broader concern about the increasing tendency of political actors to transform every local agitation into a state-level confrontation. The TCP issue is complex, involving planning norms, environmental considerations and legal frameworks. It cannot be resolved through slogans or symbolic protests alone. By framing the issue as a battle between villagers and the government, opposition leaders risk oversimplifying a policy matter that requires technical and administrative solutions.
Equally troubling is the message such confrontations send about governance. Government departments cannot function if they are routinely besieged by protests led by elected representatives themselves. MLAs have multiple formal avenues to raise grievances, including legislative debates, committee reviews and direct engagement with ministers. Resorting to street-level confrontation as a first response undermines the very institutions they are elected to strengthen.
The villagers’ concerns about land use and water scarcity are real and deserve careful consideration. But those concerns risk being overshadowed when political leaders turn protests into platforms for visibility. The focus shifts from policy to personalities, from planning to posturing. In the long run, this does little to resolve the issues on the ground.
This episode also highlights the need for the government to be more proactive in communicating planning decisions. Public distrust often grows in the absence of clear information. If approvals under Section 39(A) are being granted, the rationale must be explained transparently and early. Engagement after protests erupt is always more difficult than consultation before decisions are made.
At the same time, the opposition must reflect on its own role. Holding the government accountable is a core democratic responsibility, but accountability must not slip into opportunism. When every administrative dispute becomes a political flashpoint, the space for constructive dialogue shrinks.
The TCP protest should have been an opportunity to address legitimate planning concerns. Instead, it risks becoming another example of how quickly governance issues can be consumed by political contest. If there is a lesson to be drawn, it is that both the government and the opposition must exercise restraint. Development disputes require dialogue, not drama.
