Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
It is comforting to believe that Goa is an exception – a place where communities coexist without friction, where history has somehow resolved what the rest of India still struggles with. That belief is convenient. It is also misleading. “Communalism does not begin with speeches. It begins at tables where prejudice is whispered – and ends on stages where it is applauded.”
Goa has never been free of communal undercurrents. They exist in drawing rooms, at dining tables, in offhand remarks that rarely make it into public record. Prejudice here, as elsewhere, has long survived in the private sphere- contained, coded, and often denied.
What has changed is not the existence of these fault lines. It is their visibility – and their validation.
Gautam Khattar targets Saint Francil Xavier
At a recent public function, Gautam Khattar delivered remarks targeting Saint Francis Xavier, a figure deeply embedded in the religious and cultural life of the state. The speech, now widely circulated, has triggered outrage across communities, with institutional condemnation and calls for legal action.
This is not an isolated incident. It is a signal.
From Private Prejudice to Public Performance
Communalism evolves in stages. It begins in the private domain—casual, deniable, often dismissed as “just opinion.” But when that same prejudice is given a public platform, amplified through microphones and legitimised by silence, it crosses a threshold. It becomes political.
A speech like this does not create division from nothing. It draws upon what already exists, giving it language, confidence, and permission. It tells those who hold similar views that they are no longer alone—and more importantly, that they are no longer required to be quiet.
That shift -—from whisper to declaration – is where the real danger lies.
The Legal and Moral Line
India’s legal framework does not leave such matters to interpretation. Speech that insults religious beliefs or promotes enmity is not protected expression – it is subject to law.
When a public figure targets a revered figure like St. Francis Xavier, the issue is not merely cultural sensitivity. It is whether the line into hate speech has been crossed. Complaints have reportedly been filed. Civil society has responded. The archdiocese has issued a strong condemnation. The process has begun.
But process alone is not enough. What matters is whether it leads to credible accountability.
The State Cannot Be a Bystander
In moments like this, the role of the government becomes decisive. The response of Chief Minister Pramod Sawant has so far emphasised maintaining harmony. That is necessary – but it is not sufficient. How is it that the Chief Minister acts with abruptness when he hears of forced conversions in some remote corners, takes action, and jails the alleged offenders only to have courts release them soon enough. The CM must act in several ways.
One, he should sack the Minister, Mauvin Godinho, who sat there seemingly unaware of the seriousness of what was happening. Tow, the Centre must intervene and even dismiss the State government and impose President’s rule till communal incidents are investigated. Until then, we cannot have Pramod Sawant serve as Chief Minister. The incident is serious enough to warrant his resignation.
Harmony is not preserved by appeals alone. It is preserved by action that demonstrates consequence. If the state hesitates – if it treats such incidents as aberrations rather than symptoms – it risks normalising them. And once normalised, they do not remain isolated. They multiply.
Selective firmness is read as selective tolerance. And selective tolerance is how division deepens.
No More Myths
It is time to move beyond the myth of Goa as untouched by communalism. The reality is more complex – and more urgent. Goa is not uniquely immune. It is uniquely aware of what is at stake.
Its history, its demography, its lived culture—all of these demand a higher standard of political responsibility. Not because conflict does not exist, but because it has, for the most part, falsely claimed that it has been managed, contained, and resisted.
That resistance is now being tested.
What Must Be Defended
The outrage that followed this incident is significant—not because it proves Goa is harmonious, but because it shows that many Goans are unwilling to accept the erosion of mutual respect.
That refusal matters.
But it must be matched by institutional resolve:
- The law must act where violations occur
- Political leadership must speak with clarity, not caution
- Public platforms must not be handed to those who trade in provocation
This is not about preserving an illusion. It is about preventing a deterioration.
The Real Question
Goa does not stand at the beginning of communal tension. It stands at a crossroads – between keeping its contradictions contained or allowing them to be weaponised.
What happened at that public function is not the origin of the problem. It is a test of response.
Closing
Communalism survives in silence. It grows in hesitation. And it triumphs when it is allowed to speak without consequence. The question before Goa is no longer whether it has fault lines. It is whether it will allow them to become fault fractures.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.