By Johnson D’Silva The casino debate has once again returned to the centre of Goa’s political discourse following former Chief Minister Francisco Sardinha’s reported acknowledgement that casinos were brought to the state during his tenure. Predictably, the remark has provided fresh ammunition for political parties seeking to blame one another. But Goa’s casino story is far more complicated than a convenient one-line accusation against either the Congress or the BJP.

History must be examined in its entirety. Selective facts may suit political narratives, but they do not give Goans the complete picture.

One of the most important aspects often overlooked in the present debate is the political character of the government headed by Francisco Sardinha between November 1999 and October 2000. It cannot simply be described as a Congress government.

In the 1999 Goa Assembly election, the Congress had emerged with 21 seats in the 40-member House. However, subsequent political defections and realignments dramatically changed the situation. Sardinha broke away from the Congress and formed the Goa People’s Congress. He then headed a coalition government in which the Bharatiya Janata Party was a partner.

This distinction becomes crucial when political parties attempt to assign exclusive responsibility for the casino industry to their opponents.

Casinos Did Not Begin With One Government

The history of offshore casinos in Goa predates the Sardinha government.

The legal foundation was created when the Goa gambling law was amended in 1996 to permit offshore casinos. Subsequently, during the government headed by Pratapsingh Rane, licences were issued for offshore casino operations. Contemporary accounts place the first offshore casino licence in 1997.

Therefore, the suggestion that offshore casinos suddenly arrived in Goa only after Sardinha became Chief Minister does not tell the complete story.

At the same time, Sardinha cannot be separated from the history either. Another significant offshore casino licence was issued on December 2, 1999, when he was Chief Minister. Sardinha also held the Home portfolio during this period.

But there is another fact that cannot conveniently disappear from this chronology: the BJP was a coalition partner in Sardinha’s government.

This means the political history of casinos cannot credibly be reduced to a simple argument that one party introduced them while another remained completely outside the process.

What Happened After the First Casinos?

More importantly, Goa’s casino controversy did not end with the amendment of the law or the granting of the first few licences.

What began as a limited policy subsequently grew into a much larger industry. Governments changed, Chief Ministers changed and political alliances changed, but casinos remained.

Licences were dealt with, operations continued, permissions and renewals came under successive administrations, and the casino industry gradually became deeply associated with Goa’s tourism economy.

That raises a much bigger issue than merely identifying the government that granted the first licence.

If political parties genuinely want an honest debate, they must explain what they did when they subsequently came to power.

Did they oppose the policy?

Did they cancel licences?

Did they prevent expansion?

Did they attempt to phase casinos out?

Or did they continue collecting revenue while publicly blaming their political opponents?

These are the questions that matter.

BJP Cannot Erase Its Role, Congress Cannot Escape Its Own

The BJP cannot selectively remember the casino decisions taken during Congress-led governments while forgetting that it was itself a coalition partner in the Sardinha government.

Equally, the Congress cannot simply wash its hands of decisions taken during governments led by its leaders or during periods when it exercised political power.

Accountability cannot depend on which party happens to be sitting in the Opposition.

If casinos are harmful to Goa today, political leaders must explain why governments across different periods allowed them to survive and grow.

The responsibility, therefore, cannot conveniently be placed at the doorstep of one individual, one Chief Minister or one political party. Goa’s casino industry is the result of policy decisions made and continued across different governments and political formations.

The Bigger Question Goa Must Ask

The debate over “who brought casinos to Goa” may generate political headlines, but it risks distracting from the more important question:

Why did successive governments continue, renew and allow the expansion of a policy that many Goans believe has damaged the state’s social fabric and image?

Goa does not need casinos to establish itself on the world tourism map. Its beaches, villages, natural environment, architecture, heritage, cuisine, music and hospitality had given the state an international identity long before casino tourism became prominent.

The question, therefore, is what kind of tourism model Goa wants for its future.

If casinos were initially defended as an additional tourist attraction and a source of government revenue, then after decades of their presence it is reasonable to demand a transparent assessment of their overall impact.

What has been their economic contribution?

What have been the social costs?

What has been their impact on law and order?

Has their presence changed Goa’s tourism image?

And, most importantly, have successive governments ever undertaken an honest assessment of whether the benefits outweigh the consequences?

These questions deserve answers based on facts rather than political slogans.

Put the Entire Casino Record Before Goa

Francisco Sardinha’s reported remarks should become an opportunity to open the entire casino file rather than start another round of selective blame.

Let the government place before the people the complete chronology—from the legal amendments that permitted offshore casinos, to the first licence, subsequent licences, renewals and expansions.

Let Goans know which government granted each licence, which ministers handled the relevant portfolios, which political parties were part of those governments and what decisions successive administrations took regarding casinos.

Such disclosure would settle the political argument far more effectively than accusations and counter-accusations.

Yes, Sardinha was Chief Minister when an offshore casino licence was issued in December 1999. But the legal framework permitting offshore casinos had already been created earlier, and the first offshore licence had been issued before his government came to power. It is equally relevant that Sardinha headed a coalition in which the BJP was a partner.

Those facts must stand together.

No party should be permitted to select only the portion of history that suits its present political narrative.

The casino story of Goa is not the history of one party alone. It is a story of decisions made, accepted, continued or expanded under multiple political administrations.

If Goa is now going to have a serious debate about casinos, let it be based on the entire record.

Goans deserve the complete truth, not selective political history. Goa’s history cannot—and should not—be rewritten for political convenience.