Tension prevailed over Colva on Tuesday after Police Inspector Vikram Naik and his team made an abrupt entry to the Colva Church ahead of a meeting of villagers at a chapel to discuss an ongoing mega project issue and the right of way. The police overreach and poor crisis management, especially in communally sensitive situations, do not bode well for the State. For a State that is rocked by builder lobbies and Delhi realtors, this becomes a more complex issue because authorities and police are often seen with the suspicion of connivance.
It appears that lessons were not learnt from past mistakes. The police were faced with a similar situation in the sensational Velim church attack case of February 25, 2012. CID officers had barged into the church premises late into the night on the pretext of gathering intelligence, triggering an angry reaction and hostility from agitated parishioners. In the subsequent case, the court, while acquitting the priests and villagers, held that the police had no authority to visit the church office at that time.
While it is difficult at this stage to delve into the merits or demerits of the disputed Colva project and the related issues, the PI's decision to make a pit stop at the church raises serious questions. Was the PI seeking the parish priest’s intervention to diffuse the chapel meeting? Or did the PI seek to question the parish priest on his announcement earlier in the day about the scheduled meeting? Did the PI take requisite permissions from seniors before making his presence at the church, and whether an entry was made in the station diary?
A police team entering a church premises sends a ‘negative’ message across the laity. There are local sensitivities involved, especially in minority-dominated areas like Salcete. Fortunately, the team left much before the villagers rushed to the church seeking answers. The decision to enter the church without prior notice, without coordinating with the parish priest or local leaders, and without clear authority, was a blatant breach of protocol. Such actions ignore the delicate fabric of community sentiments, especially when the situation involves disputes.
Such high-handedness and unchecked police actions have the potential of triggering public outrage, and this is where public trust in the police institution is eroded. Police need to be proactive to diffuse a crisis. De-escalation should be the sole focus. When there is a suspicion of police being in alignment with builders and lobbies, such hyper-active behaviour makes it even worse, and people lose confidence in policing. The PI’s moves were perceived as pro-builder and anti-people, which is why the environment escalated into anger and fury.
The police role should be to uphold law and order while respecting community sentiments, not to act as agents of vested interests or to trigger unrest through reckless actions. We have seen in the past how police have acted at the behest of powerful lobbies — the June 22, 2024, Assagao house demolition case is yet another stark reminder where investigations revealed high-level police collusion. The then DGP was eventually shunted out of the State.
The police leadership must take responsibility for such failures. Senior police officers should stick to clear guidelines and protocols in specific situations, especially in those involving religious communities. Dialogue and diplomacy should have been applied strategically to diffuse the situation, not aggressive policing. With Goa witnessing increasing volatility, it’s high time police officers stress more on conflict resolution and community engagement and shun such miscalculated adventures.
