Hibernation, it appears, is not a phenomenon restricted to frogs, bears, and other creatures of the wild. In Goa, it has become a well-established political survival strategy. Few exemplify this better than Churchill Alemao and Francisco alias Mickky Pacheco, who, after years of near-total political silence, have suddenly awakened to the unmistakable scent of approaching elections.
For years, both leaders remained largely absent from the political frontline. Yet, as election season inches closer, they have emerged from their prolonged slumber with renewed enthusiasm, eager to reclaim relevance in a political landscape that may have already moved on without them.
Churchill Alemao's latest political manoeuvring is particularly noteworthy. After spending considerable time criticizing the Congress, extending support to the BJP, and singing praises of Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, he is now reportedly sending signals that he wishes to return to the Congress fold. Such dramatic political reversals have become so commonplace that they barely raise eyebrows anymore. In Goa's politics, yesterday's enemy often becomes today's indispensable ally, but deep inside a BJP agent.
Mickky Pacheco's journey has been no less fascinating. Throughout much of his active political career, he positioned himself firmly against the Congress. Yet when electoral prospects demanded it, he attempted to cozy up to the very party he had spent years opposing, seeking a Congress ticket. When that effort failed, he reverted to a familiar script - launching attacks against the party, publicly criticizing it, and resigning from the membership he had conveniently acquired while pursuing a ticket.
In recent years, Pacheco has also managed to find a place within Chief Minister Sawant's political orbit. However, despite this proximity, he continues to offer unsolicited advice to the Congress through what often appears to be a willing and ever-available media platform. One could almost mistake him for an unofficial Congress strategist, except that he has no formal association with the party.
His latest intervention saw him advising the Congress to replace GPCC President Girish Chodankar, warning that he would otherwise refuse to support the party. It was a curious declaration, considering support is generally offered by allies rather than by political outsiders issuing public ultimatums. Yet another BJP agent.
The reality, however, is that both Alemao and Pacheco are widely perceived by their critics as spent political forces whose electoral influence has significantly diminished. There is a growing belief that either would struggle to make a meaningful impact at the ballot box and could even risk forfeiting their deposits if they chose to contest.
More importantly, critics argue that both leaders function, directly or indirectly, as BJP agents. Their renewed interest in the Congress, according to this view, is not motivated by ideological alignment or political conviction but by a desire to weaken the party from within. The concern is not merely about entry into the Congress but about the possibility of influencing decisions, securing tickets, and eventually benefiting the BJP's broader electoral strategy.
Alemao's political trajectory is often cited in support of this argument. He supported the BJP while facing the Luis Berger case and was subsequently discharged by the court. Critics contend that political debts rarely disappear and that the BJP now expects its own return on investment. The alleged objective, they argue, is simple: infiltrate the Congress, secure tickets for himself and his daughter, and if circumstances permit, once again shift loyalties in favour of the BJP.
His record certainly provides ample material for political scrutiny. As the lone NCP MLA elected in 2017, he supported the BJP throughout its tenure. Then, in 2022, he contested on a TMC ticket while simultaneously attempting to forge an alliance with the Congress. Few politicians have demonstrated such flexibility in political affiliations while maintaining a straight face.
The Congress, for its part, has repeatedly accommodated and rehabilitated Alemao over the years. Yet at 77, many observers believe his political relevance has steadily faded since the 2022 elections. Rather than seeking yet another comeback, critics suggest he should gracefully continue his retirement from active politics instead of repeatedly asking both the Congress and the electorate for one more opportunity.
Pacheco's political career has similarly remained on the margins following his conviction for assaulting a Kadamba Transport Corporation driver. Having spent a prolonged period outside mainstream politics, his recent attacks on the Congress have surprised many observers, particularly given his lack of any formal alliance with the party.
His demands have gone far beyond criticism. Not only has he called for the removal of GPCC President Girish Chodankar, but he has also threatened to launch a third front or even float a new political party altogether. Such declarations generate headlines, but many view them as little more than political theatrics designed to maintain visibility.
Behind the rhetoric, critics believe the real objective remains unchanged: secure entry into the Congress, influence its internal dynamics, and ultimately tilt the political balance in favour of the BJP.
As election season approaches, Goa's political wildlife has clearly emerged from hibernation. Whether voters welcome these familiar faces back into public life or simply view them as relics of a bygone political era remains to be seen. One thing, however, is certain—the timing of their sudden awakening is unlikely to be mistaken for a coincidence.
Wednesday, 3 June 2026
Tuesday, 2 June 2026
Rahul Gandhi's democracy sermon collapses in Goa – By Nisser Dias
Few politicians in India speak more passionately about democracy than Rahul Gandhi. Whether addressing audiences in India or abroad, the Leader of the Opposition consistently warns about threats to democratic institutions, concentration of power, and the erosion of transparency under the BJP-led government.
But before preaching democracy to the nation and the world, Rahul Gandhi would do well to look within his own party.
The manner in which Amit Patkar was replaced as the Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC) president raises uncomfortable questions about the Congress party's commitment to the very democratic values it claims to champion. If the party cannot uphold transparency and consultation in its internal affairs, how convincing are its lectures on democracy to the rest of the country?
The controversy surrounding Patkar's removal and the appointment of Girish Chodankar exposes a troubling contradiction. While Chodankar has maintained that discussions on the leadership change were taking place openly, Patkar himself has publicly stated that he was neither informed nor consulted. Even South Goa MP Capt. Viriato Fernandes has expressed surprise over the development, claiming he was kept completely out of the loop.
If key stakeholders within the party were unaware of such a significant decision, who exactly was consulted?
The episode creates the impression that decisions are still being taken by a select circle rather than through a transparent and participative process. The involvement of the party high command, the Goa desk leadership, and a handful of influential leaders has fuelled the perception that a small coterie continues to wield disproportionate influence over Congress affairs in Goa.
That perception is politically damaging.
Nobody disputes that party positions are temporary. Leadership changes are a normal part of political life. Every office bearer eventually steps aside, and parties must constantly adapt to changing political realities. The issue is not that Amit Patkar was replaced. The issue is how he was replaced.
The timing makes the episode even more intriguing. With Assembly elections approaching, Patkar was widely expected to focus on his electoral prospects in Curchorem. If the party believed that organisational responsibilities were affecting his ability to prepare for the electoral battle, there was a straightforward and democratic way to handle the transition.
The leadership could have consulted Patkar. It could have discussed succession plans with party workers. It could have sought consensus on who should lead the organisation into the elections. If multiple names emerged, the high command could then have exercised its authority and made a final decision.
Instead, the leadership change appears to have been executed in a manner that has left many party workers questioning both the process and the motives behind it.
The statements made after the fact have only deepened the controversy. Aldona MLA Carlos Alvares' observation that Patkar "could have done better" raises more questions than it answers. If there were genuine concerns about Patkar's performance, why were they not raised openly earlier? Why was there no visible effort to guide, advise, or strengthen the party organisation while he was at the helm?
Were party leaders dissatisfied but silent? Or were plans already being drawn up behind closed doors?
Neither possibility reflects well on a party that prides itself on democratic values.
The larger issue extends beyond Goa. Rahul Gandhi has built much of his political narrative around defending democracy. That message resonates with many Indians who believe democratic institutions must be protected and strengthened. However, credibility in politics depends not merely on what leaders say but on what they practice.
Democracy cannot be a slogan for public rallies and international forums while internal party decisions are perceived as opaque, centralised, and exclusionary.
The Goa episode may appear to be a state-level organisational matter, but it carries national implications for the Congress party's image. It highlights the growing gap between the party's rhetoric and its actions.
If Congress wishes to present itself as the guardian of democratic values, it must begin by institutionalising those values within its own organisation. Internal democracy, transparency, consultation, and accountability cannot be selectively applied.
Otherwise, every speech delivered by Rahul Gandhi on the importance of democracy will be met with a simple question:
If democracy is not visible within the Congress party itself, why should voters believe it will flourish under a Congress government?
But before preaching democracy to the nation and the world, Rahul Gandhi would do well to look within his own party.
The manner in which Amit Patkar was replaced as the Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC) president raises uncomfortable questions about the Congress party's commitment to the very democratic values it claims to champion. If the party cannot uphold transparency and consultation in its internal affairs, how convincing are its lectures on democracy to the rest of the country?
The controversy surrounding Patkar's removal and the appointment of Girish Chodankar exposes a troubling contradiction. While Chodankar has maintained that discussions on the leadership change were taking place openly, Patkar himself has publicly stated that he was neither informed nor consulted. Even South Goa MP Capt. Viriato Fernandes has expressed surprise over the development, claiming he was kept completely out of the loop.
If key stakeholders within the party were unaware of such a significant decision, who exactly was consulted?
The episode creates the impression that decisions are still being taken by a select circle rather than through a transparent and participative process. The involvement of the party high command, the Goa desk leadership, and a handful of influential leaders has fuelled the perception that a small coterie continues to wield disproportionate influence over Congress affairs in Goa.
That perception is politically damaging.
Nobody disputes that party positions are temporary. Leadership changes are a normal part of political life. Every office bearer eventually steps aside, and parties must constantly adapt to changing political realities. The issue is not that Amit Patkar was replaced. The issue is how he was replaced.
The timing makes the episode even more intriguing. With Assembly elections approaching, Patkar was widely expected to focus on his electoral prospects in Curchorem. If the party believed that organisational responsibilities were affecting his ability to prepare for the electoral battle, there was a straightforward and democratic way to handle the transition.
The leadership could have consulted Patkar. It could have discussed succession plans with party workers. It could have sought consensus on who should lead the organisation into the elections. If multiple names emerged, the high command could then have exercised its authority and made a final decision.
Instead, the leadership change appears to have been executed in a manner that has left many party workers questioning both the process and the motives behind it.
The statements made after the fact have only deepened the controversy. Aldona MLA Carlos Alvares' observation that Patkar "could have done better" raises more questions than it answers. If there were genuine concerns about Patkar's performance, why were they not raised openly earlier? Why was there no visible effort to guide, advise, or strengthen the party organisation while he was at the helm?
Were party leaders dissatisfied but silent? Or were plans already being drawn up behind closed doors?
Neither possibility reflects well on a party that prides itself on democratic values.
The larger issue extends beyond Goa. Rahul Gandhi has built much of his political narrative around defending democracy. That message resonates with many Indians who believe democratic institutions must be protected and strengthened. However, credibility in politics depends not merely on what leaders say but on what they practice.
Democracy cannot be a slogan for public rallies and international forums while internal party decisions are perceived as opaque, centralised, and exclusionary.
The Goa episode may appear to be a state-level organisational matter, but it carries national implications for the Congress party's image. It highlights the growing gap between the party's rhetoric and its actions.
If Congress wishes to present itself as the guardian of democratic values, it must begin by institutionalising those values within its own organisation. Internal democracy, transparency, consultation, and accountability cannot be selectively applied.
Otherwise, every speech delivered by Rahul Gandhi on the importance of democracy will be met with a simple question:
If democracy is not visible within the Congress party itself, why should voters believe it will flourish under a Congress government?
Monday, 1 June 2026
Amit re-built the house. Congress handed the keys back to the man who burnt it down. – By Nisser Dias
Just months before Goa heads into another crucial Assembly election, the Congress party appears to have found a novel strategy for revival: revisit the very chapter many workers believe contributed to its last major setback.
The appointment of Girish Chodankar as president of the Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC), replacing Amit Patkar, has triggered a wave of resignations and exposed deep cracks within the party's state unit. What should have been a routine organisational reshuffle has instead snowballed into a full-blown rebellion, with workers openly questioning the wisdom of the Congress high command.
Almost immediately after Chodankar's appointment was announced, resignations began pouring in. From office-bearers to social media team members and block-level leaders, several party workers have chosen to walk away rather than work under the former GPCC chief.
Their grievance is straightforward. According to many within the party, Amit Patkar spent over four years rebuilding an organisation that had been left demoralised and fragmented after the 2022 Assembly elections. Patkar inherited a weakened party and, despite political challenges, managed to restore some degree of organisational stability.
Now, many workers fear that progress has been abruptly reversed.
The discontent is so intense that some disgruntled party members have reportedly even urged South Goa MP Captain Viriato Fernandes to resign in protest. While such a demand may appear extreme, it reflects the depth of frustration among grassroots workers who feel ignored by a leadership change they neither expected nor wanted.
Under Patkar's leadership, the Congress managed to secure a significant political victory in South Goa by winning the Lok Sabha seat through Captain Viriato Fernandes, a result that demonstrated the party's ability to challenge the BJP when united and organised.
The party also performed strongly in the Zilla Parishad elections, further indicating that the Congress machinery was slowly recovering from the wounds of 2022.
Those achievements may not have transformed Congress into a dominant force overnight, but they offered something the party desperately needed—hope.
Among those who have stepped down is GPCC General Secretary Manisha Usgaonkar, alongside several other office-bearers and party functionaries. Their resignations have sent a clear message: this is not merely dissatisfaction over a change in leadership, but a loss of confidence in the direction the party is taking.
And that raises an uncomfortable question. Why would the Congress choose to replace a sitting state president with a leader whose previous tenure culminated in one of the party's most disappointing electoral performances in Goa?
Chodankar led the Congress into the 2022 Assembly elections. The result was disastrous. The party's campaign was marred by confusion, delayed candidate announcements and controversial decisions that left many loyal workers feeling sidelined.
Instead of nurturing second-rung Congress leaders and strengthening the party's grassroots base, efforts were allegedly directed toward attracting leaders from rival camps. In constituencies that had long been considered Congress strongholds, dedicated party workers complained of being overlooked while outsiders were courted.
Many within the party still recall how candidate selection remained shrouded in uncertainty even as rival parties had already completed substantial groundwork on the campaign trail. While the BJP and other parties were well into election mode, Congress appeared to be struggling with its own internal calculations.
Following the electoral debacle, Chodankar resigned, accepting responsibility for the defeat. In politics, resignations after defeats are generally seen as acknowledgements of failure. In Congress, however, they increasingly seem to resemble temporary sabbaticals.
Four years later, the man who stepped down after the loss has been brought back to lead the party into another election cycle.
The timing has left many bewildered.
With the 2027 Assembly elections approaching and the party needing unity, momentum and organisational discipline, the Congress high command has instead sparked a controversy that has energised its critics and demoralised sections of its own cadre.
Adding to the intrigue is the manner in which the leadership change was executed. Party insiders describe it as a "midnight coup" carried out with remarkable speed and minimal consultation. The secrecy surrounding the decision has only fuelled speculation and resentment.
Of course, the Congress can replace those who resign. New faces can always be appointed. Vacant positions can always be filled.
What cannot be replaced so easily are the voters these workers influence.
Every block president, office-bearer and grassroots activist represents a network of supporters. When such individuals leave, they rarely depart alone. They take with them relationships, goodwill and votes accumulated over years of political work.
For a party that has repeatedly struggled to convert support into electoral victories, losing even a small segment of its committed cadre is a luxury it can ill afford.
The larger concern is whether the Congress leadership has correctly read the political mood in Goa. At a time when the party needed to project stability and preparedness, it has instead reignited memories of 2022.
One of the most controversial episodes then was the reported effort to offer a Congress ticket to former BJP Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar after his defeat within the BJP. For many Congress workers, the move was baffling. Instead of nurturing second-rung leaders and rewarding party loyalists, the leadership appeared more interested in importing political talent from outside.
The discontent deepened in constituencies such as Shiroda, traditionally considered a Congress stronghold, where local workers alleged that staunch BJP functionaries were being encouraged and promised tickets at the expense of long-serving Congress members.
The irony is difficult to miss. As Goa inches closer to another Assembly election, Congress workers were hoping the party would learn from its mistakes.
Instead, many feel the party has simply decided to reappoint them.
And if the current exodus continues, the Congress may soon discover that preparing for elections and preparing for farewells are not always very different exercises.
After all, in politics, history does not always repeat itself.
Sometimes, it gets reappointed.
The appointment of Girish Chodankar as president of the Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC), replacing Amit Patkar, has triggered a wave of resignations and exposed deep cracks within the party's state unit. What should have been a routine organisational reshuffle has instead snowballed into a full-blown rebellion, with workers openly questioning the wisdom of the Congress high command.
Almost immediately after Chodankar's appointment was announced, resignations began pouring in. From office-bearers to social media team members and block-level leaders, several party workers have chosen to walk away rather than work under the former GPCC chief.
Their grievance is straightforward. According to many within the party, Amit Patkar spent over four years rebuilding an organisation that had been left demoralised and fragmented after the 2022 Assembly elections. Patkar inherited a weakened party and, despite political challenges, managed to restore some degree of organisational stability.
Now, many workers fear that progress has been abruptly reversed.
The discontent is so intense that some disgruntled party members have reportedly even urged South Goa MP Captain Viriato Fernandes to resign in protest. While such a demand may appear extreme, it reflects the depth of frustration among grassroots workers who feel ignored by a leadership change they neither expected nor wanted.
Under Patkar's leadership, the Congress managed to secure a significant political victory in South Goa by winning the Lok Sabha seat through Captain Viriato Fernandes, a result that demonstrated the party's ability to challenge the BJP when united and organised.
The party also performed strongly in the Zilla Parishad elections, further indicating that the Congress machinery was slowly recovering from the wounds of 2022.
Those achievements may not have transformed Congress into a dominant force overnight, but they offered something the party desperately needed—hope.
Among those who have stepped down is GPCC General Secretary Manisha Usgaonkar, alongside several other office-bearers and party functionaries. Their resignations have sent a clear message: this is not merely dissatisfaction over a change in leadership, but a loss of confidence in the direction the party is taking.
And that raises an uncomfortable question. Why would the Congress choose to replace a sitting state president with a leader whose previous tenure culminated in one of the party's most disappointing electoral performances in Goa?
Chodankar led the Congress into the 2022 Assembly elections. The result was disastrous. The party's campaign was marred by confusion, delayed candidate announcements and controversial decisions that left many loyal workers feeling sidelined.
Instead of nurturing second-rung Congress leaders and strengthening the party's grassroots base, efforts were allegedly directed toward attracting leaders from rival camps. In constituencies that had long been considered Congress strongholds, dedicated party workers complained of being overlooked while outsiders were courted.
Many within the party still recall how candidate selection remained shrouded in uncertainty even as rival parties had already completed substantial groundwork on the campaign trail. While the BJP and other parties were well into election mode, Congress appeared to be struggling with its own internal calculations.
Following the electoral debacle, Chodankar resigned, accepting responsibility for the defeat. In politics, resignations after defeats are generally seen as acknowledgements of failure. In Congress, however, they increasingly seem to resemble temporary sabbaticals.
Four years later, the man who stepped down after the loss has been brought back to lead the party into another election cycle.
The timing has left many bewildered.
With the 2027 Assembly elections approaching and the party needing unity, momentum and organisational discipline, the Congress high command has instead sparked a controversy that has energised its critics and demoralised sections of its own cadre.
Adding to the intrigue is the manner in which the leadership change was executed. Party insiders describe it as a "midnight coup" carried out with remarkable speed and minimal consultation. The secrecy surrounding the decision has only fuelled speculation and resentment.
Of course, the Congress can replace those who resign. New faces can always be appointed. Vacant positions can always be filled.
What cannot be replaced so easily are the voters these workers influence.
Every block president, office-bearer and grassroots activist represents a network of supporters. When such individuals leave, they rarely depart alone. They take with them relationships, goodwill and votes accumulated over years of political work.
For a party that has repeatedly struggled to convert support into electoral victories, losing even a small segment of its committed cadre is a luxury it can ill afford.
The larger concern is whether the Congress leadership has correctly read the political mood in Goa. At a time when the party needed to project stability and preparedness, it has instead reignited memories of 2022.
One of the most controversial episodes then was the reported effort to offer a Congress ticket to former BJP Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar after his defeat within the BJP. For many Congress workers, the move was baffling. Instead of nurturing second-rung leaders and rewarding party loyalists, the leadership appeared more interested in importing political talent from outside.
The discontent deepened in constituencies such as Shiroda, traditionally considered a Congress stronghold, where local workers alleged that staunch BJP functionaries were being encouraged and promised tickets at the expense of long-serving Congress members.
The irony is difficult to miss. As Goa inches closer to another Assembly election, Congress workers were hoping the party would learn from its mistakes.
Instead, many feel the party has simply decided to reappoint them.
And if the current exodus continues, the Congress may soon discover that preparing for elections and preparing for farewells are not always very different exercises.
After all, in politics, history does not always repeat itself.
Sometimes, it gets reappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)