“Responsibility, therefore, must be fixed at three levels. First, on the individuals who carried out the assault. They cannot be allowed to hide behind the fact that they are “just attendants.” Second, on the contractor who hired them and placed them in a position of authority over the public. And third, on the municipal body that awarded the contract without insisting on safeguards. Unless these three layers of responsibility are addressed, the Mapusa incident will repeat itself elsewhere.
It is worth remembering that parking attendants are not policemen. Their role, at best, is to issue a ticket and collect a fee. They are not law enforcers. They are not supposed to intimidate. Yet, in Mapusa, they behaved as though the streets belonged to them. That inversion of roles is at the heart of this controversy. The law belongs to the people and its enforcement to the state, not to private hands.”
The recent assault in Mapusa over a parking dispute is not a minor scuffle. It is a serious breach of law and order, and one that raises urgent questions about responsibility, policing, and the way parking is being managed in our towns. At its core, this is not about a parking fee. It is about who gave parking attendants the authority to raise their hands against locals, and why accountability appears one-sided.
Eyewitnesses claim that within minutes of an argument, a group of attendants gathered to assault locals. This was not a case of tempers flaring between two individuals. It looked more like a coordinated response, which points to a larger problem. If attendants are able to assemble and attack so quickly, are they acting independently or under the protection of those who employ them? And if so, why has the case been booked primarily against local Goans, while the attendants and the contractor behind them seem untouched?
This is where the role of the police comes under scrutiny. Assault is assault, no matter who commits it. If locals are booked for their actions, then so should the attendants who resorted to violence. Justice cannot be selective. By not filing cases against the attendants and contractor, the authorities risk sending a dangerous signal: that private employees hired for public services can use force against citizens without fear of consequence.
This raises another troubling question: who is checking the background of these attendants? Parking contractors hire whoever they wish, without oversight. There is no verification of whether these men have criminal records or whether they are trained in handling disputes. A parking lot is not a battlefield, yet in Goa, it is beginning to feel like one. Locals are expected to pay fees, but they are also expected to keep quiet if they are mistreated. That is not how a public service should function.
Responsibility, therefore, must be fixed at three levels. First, on the individuals who carried out the assault. They cannot be allowed to hide behind the fact that they are “just attendants.” Second, on the contractor who hired them and placed them in a position of authority over the public. And third, on the municipal body that awarded the contract without insisting on safeguards. Unless these three layers of responsibility are addressed, the Mapusa incident will repeat itself elsewhere.
It is worth remembering that parking attendants are not policemen. Their role, at best, is to issue a ticket and collect a fee. They are not law enforcers. They are not supposed to intimidate. Yet, in Mapusa, they behaved as though the streets belonged to them. That inversion of roles is at the heart of this controversy. The law belongs to the people and its enforcement to the state, not to private hands.
For too long, parking has been treated as an easy revenue stream rather than a public necessity. Municipalities hand out contracts, contractors hire attendants, and citizens are left to deal with the consequences. The assault in Mapusa shows what happens when accountability is missing from this chain. It is no longer just a question of inconvenience or inflated fees. It has become a matter of safety and justice.
The immediate step must be clear: the police must book cases against all those involved in the assault, including the attendants, and investigate the contractor’s role. No one can be allowed to take the law into their own hands. Beyond that, municipalities must put systems in place that prevent such incidents. This could mean tighter checks on who is hired, clear instructions on conduct, and penalties on contractors when attendants misbehave.
Goans should not feel threatened when they park their vehicles in their own towns. The Mapusa assault must be treated as a warning, not brushed aside as a minor quarrel. Until responsibility is fixed, and until contractors and attendants are held to the same standards as the citizens they serve, parking will remain less about order and more about fear.
