If a political agitation is to be carried out, there should be no objection to doing it openly under a political banner or party flag. However, gathering people in the name of “Goenkars” (Goans) and then using the platform to serve personal political interests must stop.

With only a year left for the Assembly elections, it is natural for political parties and aspiring candidates to become active. In this period, the government will promote its schemes and projects, while the opposition will attempt to mobilize people against government decisions, projects, or laws to sustain its political relevance.

However, taking people to the streets every time does not necessarily resolve issues. If all other options are exhausted without result, then as a last resort, mobilizing public strength to exert pressure on the government may be justified. The 44-day sustained struggle by Chimbelkar, which ultimately succeeded, has boosted morale and increased public confidence. At the same time, it has also inspired certain political aspirants to take people to the streets. To satisfy this urge by dragging ordinary poor citizens into agitations and using them for political mileage is inappropriate.

Residents of Siridao–Pale launched an agitation demanding the withdrawal of Section 39(A). They declared that they would not leave the office premises until the cases were withdrawn and stayed there overnight. The following day, the police used force to evict the protesters. The incident involving MLA Viresh Borkar during this action was condemnable and deserves criticism.

In anger over the treatment meted out to him, MLA Viresh Borkar decided to go on an indefinite hunger strike. Today marks the fourth day, and his health is deteriorating. Protesters have now expanded their demand from St. Andre to the complete withdrawal of Section 39(A) across the state. There are also demands for action against the police officers who used force against Borkar. While seeking accountability from the police may be justified, is adopting this route appropriate for scrapping the controversial Section 39(A)?

To repeal this law, the government would have to issue an ordinance. However, since the Assembly session has already been announced, an ordinance cannot be promulgated; the decision must be taken directly in the Assembly. The opposition has found ready ammunition in the draft Goa Agricultural Land Protection Bill prepared by retired Justice Ferdino Rebello, which has been submitted to all 40 MLAs. Leader of the Opposition Yuri Alemao has introduced this draft in the Assembly through a Private Member’s Bill.

As an MLA, Viresh Borkar’s true test lies in debating this bill in the Assembly and compelling the government to accept it. Instead of spending time on a hunger strike, he should study the issue and contribute effectively during the Assembly session. The government cannot revoke the law merely because people protest on the streets or issue executive orders in such circumstances. The matter must await deliberation in the Assembly.

When the very demand of the agitation does not align with administrative procedure, how can it be achieved? What then is the purpose of bringing people onto the streets with an unattainable demand? If the intention of some is merely to gather crowds for political publicity, then unnecessarily holding people to ransom is wrong. Many participate in such agitations out of love for Goa and a desire to protect it. If certain political leaders use their presence to push personal agendas, it would be unfortunate.

If a political agitation is to be undertaken, let it be done openly under a political banner or flag. But mobilizing people in the name of Goans and then using the occasion to serve personal political interests must not continue.