Goa continued to confront drowning tragedies, with the week opening with the rescue of six youngsters who had ventured into the dense forest area to reach the scenic Vajrasakala Waterfall near Virdi Dodamarg. Also, the body of the youth who drowned at the Surla waterfall was recovered on Monday. In the first six months of 2026 alone, close to 75 people have lost their lives to drowning, and the numbers are steadily going up.
In response, the South Goa District Collector invoked Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, imposing a 60-day blanket ban on swimming, bathing and entering waterfalls, abandoned quarries, rivers and lakes. The administration has defended the order as a necessary measure to curb risky behaviour and strengthen enforcement. However, it raises an important question: can a prohibition genuinely prevent tragedies, or does it merely create the appearance of action while shifting responsibility away from the State?
The truth is that no government notification, however stringent, can stop someone from drowning. It may be noted here that swimming or bathing is banned at these sites, but visiting is allowed. It may also be noted that visitors have not been deterred by deaths. The problem is not the absence of laws; it is the absence of people on the ground to enforce them.
Data from Drishti Marine, the agency entrusted with coastal safety in the state, reveals that most monsoon drowning deaths occur at inland water bodies where there is little or no monitoring. While the agency maintains lifeguard services across 54 popular beaches, its responsibility extends to only four freshwater locations statewide. That leaves vast stretches of Goa's hinterland where social media enthusiasts, adventure seekers and, at times, intoxicated visitors venture during the monsoon without any safety net.
The rescue of six young men stranded overnight at Vajrasakala Waterfall illustrates this reality. Trapped after rising waters cut off their escape route, with relentless rain and no mobile connectivity, they survived not because a prohibitory order existed, but because emergency responders mounted a difficult overnight rescue with the help of forest officials, fire personnel and local villagers whose knowledge of the terrain proved indispensable.
The vulnerable areas cannot be secured through prohibition. That episode also exposes the limitations of imposing a ban without the capacity to enforce it. Expecting police inspectors and mamlatdars to monitor hundreds of scattered waterfalls, rivers and abandoned quarries tucked away in dense forests is simply unrealistic. Warning boards and red flags are routinely ignored by visitors chasing social media content or taking unnecessary risks, often after consuming alcohol. In such circumstances, the possibility of an FIR is unlikely to deter someone already standing at the edge of a slippery cliff. Drunken driving is prohibited, but that does not deter motorists.
If the government is serious about reducing drowning deaths, it must move beyond blanket prohibitions and adopt a more practical strategy centred on prevention. A notification by itself cannot save lives. What is needed is the deployment of trained lifeguards and emergency responders at vulnerable locations during the monsoon. We reiterate the importance of involving local communities. Locals, especially along the hinterland, possess generations of knowledge about seasonal water flows and rapidly changing river conditions. By training and compensating local volunteers as safety marshals, the government can establish a trusted, permanent presence at high-risk sites, something no periodic police patrol can realistically provide.
The Collector cannot take comfort in a prohibitory order; instead, she should look beyond, show a sustained commitment to safety without denying people access to most scenic parts of Goa.
