The script in the controversy surrounding Art and Culture Minister Govind Gaude has seen a considerable shift ever since it took centrestage on Sunday. Initially brimming with tension and threats of disciplinary action, the BJP seems to have mellowed down, possibly reflecting tactical considerations rooted in political calculations, tribal sensitivities, and the party’s internal dynamics.
Gaude’s outspoken allegations of corruption within the Tribal Department, which he claimed involved the clearance of contractor files in exchange for bribes, sparked a firestorm. The party ranks initially responded with stern warnings, and Chief Minister Pramod Sawant publicly criticised Gaude for making “irresponsible” statements. The party’s high command appeared poised to take stern action, possibly including a cabinet reshuffle or disciplinary measures, to rein in what was perceived as a reckless breach of discipline.
However, within days, the BJP’s stance appears to have softened. The party decided to issue Gaude a show cause notice and granted him a personal hearing with party president Damodar Naik, steps that could mean strategic leniency. This softening could be a result of an afterthought on adverse political implications, especially considering Gaude's large tribal influence. The body language of Chief Minister Sawant may still exude disappointment, but his reluctance to comment on the course of action indicates that defusing the situation could be the preferred option. The fact that the party president chose to hold a direct meeting with Gaude before announcing any action indicates a preference for dialogue and reconciliation rather than confrontation.
An important factor in this calculus appears to be the support Gaude received from the United Tribal Associations Alliance (UTAA). Prakash Velip, UTAA president, publicly backed Gaude, asserting that his remarks were aimed at the bureaucracy and not at the Chief Minister. Velip’s intervention, along with the recent tribal gathering where tribal leaders met the CM to discuss grievances, likely played a pivotal role in encouraging the party to adopt a more cautious approach. The tribal community’s backing for Gaude may have prompted the government to reconsider hardline disciplinary measures to avoid alienating a significant electoral bloc.
Gaude’s large tribal following makes him a valuable political asset. Also, the government will have to secure the tribal goodwill and prevent any erosion of support among scheduled tribes, especially when Goa is warming up to the 2027 assembly election.
On the flip side, a climbdown of this nature carries its own risks. Gaude's charges would be seen as an endorsement, albeit indirectly, and here is where the government risks legitimising accusations of corruption. A concession at this stage might be perceived as an implicit endorsement of the corruption charges. It could also set a problematic precedent of prioritising electoral interests over everything else. One may argue that the government’s move to diffuse the crisis could be a tactical retreat, but it comes at the price of sacrificing accountability for electoral convenience. The challenge lies in balancing political pragmatism with the imperative of addressing corruption transparently and decisively.
While the BJP will handle Gaude in its own way, the underlying issues of corruption and governance require serious attention. The government must now navigate carefully to uphold integrity and closely examine the charges made by the Art and Culture minister so that the pursuit of political expediency does not compromise its credibility and commitment to good governance.
