Words matter, especially when they come from those occupying positions of political responsibility. That is why the alleged social media remark attributed to Goa BJP Vice President Narendra Sawaikar—"It's not just cockroaches: they are termites!"—has drawn widespread criticism. If the remark was indeed aimed at the hundreds of youth who gathered at Azad Maidan in Panjim in solidarity with students protesting in Delhi, it was not merely inappropriate; it was insulting, dismissive, and unbecoming of a public leader.
These young people were not protesting for personal gain. They had assembled to express solidarity with students demanding accountability over the NEET examination paper leak controversy and calling for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Whether one agrees with their protests or not, they were exercising a democratic right guaranteed by the Constitution. They were protesting to safeguard their future which is being destroyed by the BJP. Branding such citizens as "termites" is a disturbing attempt to belittle legitimate dissent instead of engaging with it.
As an advocate, Sawaikar understands that democracy thrives on debate, criticism, and protest. The concerns raised by the youth are neither imaginary nor frivolous. Repeated allegations of examination paper leaks have shaken public confidence, leaving lakhs of students and their families anxious about the integrity of India's education system. When young people demand accountability, they deserve answers—not insults.
If anyone should be concerned about the metaphor of termites, it is the BJP itself. After all, termites do not destroy a structure overnight. They weaken it from within, silently eating away at its foundations until the damage becomes impossible to ignore. That analogy fits BJP far better when applied to institutions that have steadily lost public trust than to young Indians raising their voices.
Critics of the BJP argue that over the years, key democratic institutions have been weakened, public confidence has eroded, and political polarization has deepened. They point to controversies surrounding demonetisation, repeated examination paper leaks, the perceived misuse of investigative agencies, and increasing questions about institutional independence, not forgetting the embezzlement of Lord Ram temple funds. Whether one agrees with every criticism or not, these are serious public issues that deserve discussion — not ridicule.
Calling the youth "termites" turns reality on its head. The youth are not consuming the nation's foundations; they are demanding that those foundations be repaired. They are asking for transparent examinations, accountable governance, and institutions they can trust. They are trying to preserve the future, not destroy it.
If the termite metaphor is to be used at all, many would argue it is the conduct of the BJP's political machinery that invites such comparison. According to its critics, it is not protesting students but political actors who weaken institutions for partisan advantage who resemble termites—eroding public faith from within. The allegation is that the real damage comes from those who allow corruption, shield failures, and dismiss legitimate public anger instead of addressing it.
Goa itself has not been immune to these concerns. Environmental degradation, pressure on natural resources, concerns over governance, and allegations about declining public accountability have become recurring themes in public discourse. Many Goans fear that unchecked political power, rather than citizen activism, poses the greater threat to the state's future.
Perhaps what unsettles some political leaders is not the protest itself but what it represents. The gathering of youth at Azad Maidan was more than a demonstration over one examination controversy. It reflected growing frustration among a generation that feels its future is being compromised by administrative failures and political indifference. Dismissing that frustration with insults only widens the disconnect.
History has repeatedly shown that societies progress because young people question authority, challenge injustice, and demand reform. Every generation that enjoys democratic freedoms today owes a debt to young citizens who refused to remain silent. To label today's youth as "termites" is therefore not only unfair—it is an insult to the democratic spirit itself.
The real question is not whether the youth are termites. They are not. The question is whether those who undermine institutions, erode public trust, and weaken democratic accountability are doing precisely what termites do—eating away at the nation's foundations from within.
If the BJP wishes to answer its critics, it should do so through transparency, accountability, and better governance—not by demeaning the very young citizens whose confidence it seeks to win. India's youth deserve respect, not ridicule. And in a democracy, those who speak truth to power should never be treated as pests.
Wednesday, 22 July 2026
Wednesday, 3 June 2026
Political hibernation season ends as elections approach, BJP agents surface – By Nisser Dias
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)