Impunity is not accidental; it is permitted. And once permitted, it rarely remains contained
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 untrue.
Communalism in Goa did not arrive overnight. It has lived quietly in private spaces—at dining tables, in coded conversations, in prejudices politely disguised as opinion. What has changed today is not its existence, but its endorsement. What was once whispered is now performed.
And when hate finds a microphone, silence from power is never neutral.
A Speech, an Absconder, and a System That Looks Away
At a public function, YouTuber Gautam Khattar delivered remarks targeting Saint Francis Xavier—a figure deeply embedded in Goa’s religious and cultural identity. The outrage that followed was immediate and widespread. Civil society responded. Religious institutions condemned it. Complaints were filed.
Yet the most telling fact remains this: the man is still on the run. Fury in Goa among Christians grows. In any functioning system, a person accused in a matter of this seriousness — fuelling religious provocation — would have been apprehended swiftly. The delay is not procedural. It is political. One cannot escape the conclusion that he is being shielded.
This is not an administrative lapse. It reflects a deeper malaise: a system that distinguishes between offences it pursues and offences it protects.
Private Prejudice to Political Project
Communalism evolves. It begins in private, grows through repetition, and matures when it is politically legitimised.
A speech like this does not emerge in isolation. It draws strength from a larger ecosystem—one where majoritarian assertion is normalised, dissent is delegitimised, and historical figures are selectively targeted to provoke.
Across India, under the political climate shaped by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological affiliates like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), communal rhetoric has steadily moved from the fringes to the mainstream. Goa is no longer insulated from that shift.
This is not about one speech. It is about a pattern.
The Law is Clear. The Silence is Not
India’s legal framework leaves little ambiguity. Sections of the IPC dealing with hate speech, including those penalising the promotion of enmity between communities, are explicit.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that secularism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and that the state has a duty to act firmly against communal incitement.
The question, then, is not whether the law applies.
The question is: why is it not being applied with urgency?
Selective Action, Selective Outrage
The contrast is stark.
In cases involving alleged religious conversions, the state machinery often acts with speed—detentions are made, arrests follow, and public messaging is immediate. Courts may later dismantle these cases, but the political signal is already sent. In this case, however, the accused remains absconding.
Selective enforcement is not a minor flaw. It is a dangerous signal. It tells citizens that the law is not blind — it is calibrated. And when law becomes selective, justice becomes negotiable.
State Govt Hesitates, the Centre Watches
Chief Minister Pramod Sawant has spoken of maintaining harmony. But harmony cannot be maintained by rhetoric alone. It requires visible, credible action. The silence of Narendra Modi at the national level is equally telling. When leadership chooses restraint in moments that demand clarity, it is read not as neutrality, but as calculation.
There is a growing perception—difficult to dismiss—that political cost, not constitutional duty, is guiding response. And that perception is corrosive.
No More Illusions
Goa must confront an uncomfortable truth: it is not immune to communalism. It is increasingly vulnerable to its political use.
The memory of past tensions—including incidents like the 2006 Curchorem episode—reminds us that the state has seen how quickly social fabric can fray when provocation meets inaction.
What is different today is the scale of political backing that such provocations appear to enjoy.
What is at Stake
The public outrage in this case matters. It shows that many Goans are unwilling to accept the erosion of mutual respect.
But outrage alone is not enough.
Institutions must act. The law must be enforced without hesitation. Political leadership must speak without ambiguity. And those who enable such platforms—whether through presence or silence—must be held accountable.
This is not about preserving an image of Goa. It is about protecting its reality.
The Real Question
The issue before Goa is no longer whether communal fault lines exist. It is whether the state will allow them to be deepened — and weaponised — under political patronage. But the people are pushing back – not Christians alone, but those who believe in a fair and just society. The government has failed to rein in the culprit.
Communalism does not grow because people speak. It grows because power decides not to act.
When the accused can remain on the run, when governments appear reluctant, and when hate is amplified without consequence, the message is unmistakable: Impunity is not accidental. It is permitted. And once permitted, it rarely remains contained.
_____________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
