What's Goa’s carrying capacity for performative outrage? -Soter

 Lead article published in oHerald on April 27, 2025

It is not that individuals suddenly abandon their values, but that the environment in which they act steadily reshapes what feels acceptable.

In recent months, Goa has been grabbing the national headlines for all the wrong reasons. Thanks to digital technology, there is no end to the streaming of hot and sensational news spewing from an overdose of Goa’s model governance and a culturally decaying society. The bubble of political genius leading to economic prosperity is bursting with sex scandals, deaths from drug overdose in educational institutions and at beachside night parties, hate campaigns, horrific road accidents, political defections, and even the hijacking of election processes. The government hides its embarrassment behind claims of a conspiracy to malign Goa’s image, and in some cases, even registration of an FIR by the cops to intimidate whistle-blowers. Nothing seems impossible; the sky is the limit in such a toxic social and political environment.

In recent years, Goa has witnessed a surge in protests over illegalities, immorality and crime. Conversations increasingly lament a perceived decline in morality, whether it is political corruption, lawlessness, substance abuse, casinos, reckless driving, religious polarisation, or the erosion of social responsibility. But beneath the cycle of outrage lies a denial, a more uncomfortable truth, one that fewer are willing to confront. The result is a civic culture that oscillates between spikes of anger and long bouts of resignation.

The question is whether Goa has the carrying capacity for such episodic, performative, and quickly dissipating mode of protests, and how much change such outrage can deliver.

The image of Goa as a permissive, “anything goes” destination reinforces patterns of abuse and violence that spill beyond tourist enclaves into local life. Alcohol-fuelled nightlife, drug-linked party circuits, and a growing tolerance for exploitative practices have, over time, been packaged as part of the “Goa experience.”  When local livelihoods depend on demand, and demand is driven by indulgence, there is an inherent incentive to promote, or at least overlook, misbehaviour and public nuisance. Activities that once might have been questioned are normalized as 'responsible' if they contribute to local income.

When economic gain is tied to practices that strain ecosystems and dilute cultural meaning, lines become harder to draw. Regulations are seen as obstacles rather than safeguards. Public spaces are treated as expendable, and accountability is diluted. It is not that individuals suddenly abandon their values, but that the environment in which they act steadily reshapes what feels acceptable.

While Goans decry the environmental degradation, unchecked development and influx of migrants, there is no drop noticed in the local mood and participation when it comes to booze, food and music festivals all around the year. Goans decry the nuisance caused by tourism-related activities, but at the same time participate in the noisy cultural festivals promoted by the tourism industry. They endorse the propaganda that Goa is about indulgence unlimited. This is definitely not consistent behaviour.

To express outrage at this immorality and crime while continuing to endorse their underlying drivers is to ignore cause and effect. It is about normalisation of hypocrisy - decrying overdevelopment while quietly benefiting from it, condemning corruption while navigating it as a necessity, celebrating culture in public while neglecting it in private life.

Goa is not merely being “lost” to external forces. It is, in many ways, the predictable outcome of a collective and cumulative contradiction, a society that wants to enjoy the benefits of rapid economic growth while preserving the illusion of an untouched paradise. It is being hollowed from within, through everyday compromises, selective denial, and a growing disconnect between public posturing and private reality. In simpler terms, it is about Goans wanting to eat the cake and keep it too.

In the given circumstances, protecting one’s “individual sanity” becomes crucial. It is not a retreat into apathy, as some might argue, but a refusal to participate in collective self-deception. It means recognising that not every slogan reflects substance, and not every public movement is rooted in integrity. It requires the courage to step back from the performative urgency of outrage and turn the focus inwards. It requires sustained introspection and action to ensure that our thinking, attitudes and actions do not enable the very situation we are politically engaged in battling.

Performative outrage thrives on visibility, not depth. It rewards the quickest take, the sharpest barb, the most shareable image. It does not reward the slow, unglamorous work of understanding how a problem is structured, who benefits from it, and what it would take to dismantle it. A society that avoids self-examination cannot sustain genuine reform; it can only recycle outrage in increasingly hollow forms.

Those in positions of power understand this rhythm all too well. They have learned that time is on their side. If they can withstand the initial surge of public anger, they can often outlast it. Each unfinished episode of outrage chips away at public trust. People begin to doubt whether speaking up makes any difference. Fatigue sets in, cynicism follows.

The challenge is to resist the pull of immediate emotional reaction. Not every alarming post in social media reflects the full picture. Seeking out primary sources, local reporting, and diverse perspectives becomes essential in navigating a landscape where influence is often performed rather than practiced.

Such introspection and restraint is neither glamorous nor immediately rewarding. It does not produce viral moments or visible victories. But it is the foundation if any meaningful change is to come about. Saving Goa requires a shift from reaction to reflection. It must move from expression to strategy, from visibility to impact. Not every issue demands the same kind of response, and not every response should be immediate. There is value in pausing long enough to understand what, exactly, is at stake. Without this groundwork, even the loudest protest risks missing its mark and ends up compounding and complicating the problem.