Lead article published in oHeraldo on 23March 2026
What gets
repeatedly brushed under the carpet is the inconsistency of the Goa TCP Act,
1975, with the provisions related to decentralised planning and development in
Part IX and IXA of the Constitution.
The
weeks gone by have been witnessing an unprecedented spike in protests against
the destruction of hills, fields, forests, sand dunes, water bodies and other
natural resources across this ecologically fragile State of Goa. Villages are
being ravaged by mega commercial and housing projects beyond the carrying
capacity of the existing basic infrastructure. The environmental impact and social
consequences of the government’s unsustainable and chaotic development are
increasingly becoming visible and felt across the State. This plunder is
resulting in strain on the coastal ecosystems and basic infrastructure like
roads, water and power supply, sewerage, garbage disposal, and health issues
due to rising pollution levels, besides other related problems.
There
is no doubt that the crisis arising from failure of governance in Goa is
traumatic for the common man who is left clueless and helpless in the prevailing
chaos. The public outrage against various development projects is very much
justified, because ultimately it is the common man who is left to bear the
brunt of such non-participatory, non-transparent bureaucratic paternalism in
planning and development processes. The cost of such governance failure is the
loss of precious lives in road fatalities, natural calamities and health
hazards. What makes matters even worse is the offensive approach of the
government towards citizens who rightfully come on the streets with their
problems.
It
is in such times of frustration, distress and desperation that political
narratives about a threat to Goa’s ecology and identity tend to strike an
instant emotional connection with the public. The emotional reaction to the
situation from citizens tends to blind reason, thereby becoming a fertile
ground for political manipulation. Any truth or attempt to reason gets
outshouted by the propaganda machinery of the powerful political lobbies at
play to keep the public constantly charged emotionally, giving no time to
think.
Amidst
such an environment, wherein opportunistic forces tend to exploit public
emotions, observing the propaganda patterns adopted for the protests and
movements and subjecting them to critical thinking becomes necessary. This
could avoid political disillusionment setting in after repeated deception from
illusions of change forwarded for selfish political and business gains. It is
in this above context that citizens need to ask the question: Is the pattern of
the current protests against the large scale conversion of land use in 2026 any
different from the anti-RP2011 agitation which swept Goa in 2006? Is the
narrative and control of what is claimed to be a ‘People’s Movement’ actually participatory,
or, is it remotely driven by hidden political and real estate considerations?
The
propaganda patterns of 2006 leading to the anti-RP 2011 agitation and the
current hysteria around sections 39A and 17(2) of the TCP law are about attacking
isolated aberrations, rather than questioning the deeper structural
deficiencies in planning. Amplifying the noise about an ‘outsider’ threat from
real estate, destruction of natural resources, the convenient scapegoating or
villainizing of some or the other minister and bureaucrat as responsible for
the sell-out of Goa, and the timing of protest one year before the Assembly
election are all similar tactics which were employed in the anti-RP 2011
protests. The controversy around massive land zoning changes was central to the
2006 agitation, and now two decades later the same problem gets blamed on a
couple of problematic provisions of the very same planning law.
Could
it be that the episodic and recurring cycle of protests against land zoning
changes is the result of toying with some or the other sections of the TCP law
instead of questioning the system, more like treating the symptom instead of
the underlying disease? Is it really the particular sections of the TCP law
which are the cause of Goa’s destruction, or, a structurally flawed planning buoyed
by an outdated law? The recent debate on section 39A which beat around the bush
in the August House is perhaps enough of a clue about the political
reservations to nail and tackle the root cause head on. This observation is in
no way intended to give a clean chit to any minister in government when it
comes to their abuse of powers.
Amidst
all the technical and legal jargon around Goa’s destructive planning, what gets
repeatedly brushed under the carpet is the inconsistency of the Goa TCP Act,
1975, with the provisions related to decentralised planning and development in
Part IX and IXA of the Constitution. It was the historic passage of the 73rd
and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, in 1992, which fundamentally altered the
architecture of democratic governance in the country. It was meant to transform
governance by decentralising power and embedding democracy at the grassroots.
These
amendments constitutionalized Panchayats and Municipalities, mandating
participatory planning through local self-government institutions. The
amendments envisioned District Planning Committees (DPCs) that would
consolidate plans prepared by Panchayats and Municipalities into holistic district
development blueprints. The spirit was unmistakably that development must be
planned from the ground up, not imposed from above. But there is a strange silence
from politicians and technocrats on the failure of the government to
accommodate the District Development Planning under Article 243ZD of the
Constitution into Goa’s planning laws.
Some or the other provision like 39A and 17(2) may continue to provoke debate and public anger every time elections are due. But the planning disaster in Goa did not begin with isolated provisions in the law, nor will they end if the provision is amended or scrapped. It is the planning system that remains vulnerable to discretionary, technocratic and bureaucratic hegemony, instead of a decentralised approach, that needs to be addressed. Beyond the technical arguments also lies a fundamental democratic truth, that the laws which govern society are inseparable from the choices made in the voting booth. If citizens wish to have laws and better policies which promote a decentralised and participatory governance, the first step in saving Goa is to vote in lawmakers who will not get drunk with power.



