If herd mentality continues to govern protest, then only those causes accompanied by shocking visuals will receive attention
The assault on activist Rama Kankonkar has become more than a criminal episode; it has become a mirror reflecting Goa’s uneasy relationship with protest, unity and fear. The video of the brutal attack spread rapidly across the State, prompting an immediate wave of outrage and visible solidarity. Crowds gathered, statements were issued, and the incident seemed to awaken a collective conscience. Yet, as with many episodes in Goa’s civic life, the question remains whether this unity will extend beyond the moment, or whether it will dissipate into the sussegad indifference that too often defines the public mood.
Episodic outrage
and herd mentality
Social psychology provides a useful lens for understanding this pattern. Studies on social proof and herd behaviour show that individuals often decide their own responses based on what they see others doing (Drury, 2020). In moments where injustice is visible, such as the circulation of a video showing violence, anger spreads rapidly. This emotional contagion creates the impression of fearlessness, as individuals draw strength from the presence of others and join the bandwagon of protest. In this sense, Kankonkar’s assault triggered a clarion call, a mass performance of solidarity in which many felt compelled to participate because their peers were already present.
Yet this solidarity is selective. Once the initial shock fades, and once the threat of sustained confrontation emerges, the same citizens retreat into silence. Academic research suggests that this retreat is driven not by apathy but by fear of repercussions (Schwarze, Kawakatsu, Iams, Fefferman, & Eissa, 2024). To take forward the cause for which the activist suffered is to risk becoming the next target of intimidation, retaliation or ostracism. Herd mentality explains not only why people come together suddenly but also why they disperse just as quickly.
The assailants and
the shared will
Equally important is the psychology of the assailants. Theories of collective behaviour explain how individuals who might hesitate to act alone can commit violence with confidence when operating under a shared will. The concept of groupthink (Janis, 1972) and the mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999) show how attackers justify their actions to themselves and to each other. By diffusing responsibility within the group, by blaming the victim as an obstacle to development, or by claiming to serve a greater good, they suspend individual moral judgment. This explains why the assault on Kankonkar was not the act of a lone perpetrator but of several men acting in unison with common intention.
Criminological theory reinforces this point. Sutherland (1947/2013) argued that criminal conduct is learned through association, where values and techniques are transmitted in group settings. Violence against activists becomes normalised when powerful actors, either explicitly or tacitly, sanction such acts. It was a calculated deterrent designed to silence dissent, warning others of the consequences of defiance. The assailants were not merely expressing personal anger but were enacting a social lesson, making visible the risks of standing in opposition.
Selective enforcement
and institutional fear
The speed with which the police arrested the assailants only adds to the paradox. The same machinery that proved efficient in this case often falters when addressing land grabs, illegal conversions or cases of national significance. The contrast is glaring. Officers act decisively when evidence is irrefutable and public pressure is overwhelming, yet they hesitate when investigations touch politically protected interests. This asymmetry reflects the precarious position of institutions dependent upon the pleasure of ruling parties at the union level. Policing, like protest, becomes selective: vigorous when safe, restrained when dangerous.
Beyond the comfort
of sussegad
The danger of this pattern is that it leaves activists isolated. While crowds may briefly echo their grievances, the deeper struggles remain theirs to fight alone. Villagers in Velsao should not be left to resist double tracking by themselves, just as inhabitants of Vasco or Vagator cannot afford to treat environmental degradation as someone else’s problem. A collective voice against oppression is required, one that transcends parochial boundaries and recognises that every local battle is part of a broader struggle for the State’s survival.
Goans must therefore step out of their sussegad comfort zone. Comfort has long been celebrated as part of the Goan way of life. The comfort of silence enables the slow degradation of land, culture and environment. To continue on this path is to wake up one day to find that Goa’s distinctiveness has been absorbed into a homogenised national framework, pleasing to the ruling party but alien to the people it displaces.
Carrying forward
the selfless work
The lesson from Kankonkar’s assault must not be that brutality deters protest but that it necessitates continuity. If the causes for which he stood are abandoned, then the assault succeeds in its true objective: silencing not just one man but the principle of resistance itself. It is the duty of citizens to ensure that activism does not end with the activist. Carrying forward the selfless work of individuals such as Kankonkar is the only way to preserve what remains of Goa’s integrity. Otherwise, outrage without continuity becomes a performance, comforting in the moment but meaningless in the long term.
The future of Goa depends on whether unity remains selective or matures into endurance. If herd mentality continues to govern protest, then only those causes accompanied by shocking visuals will receive attention. If assailants continue to act with impunity under shared will, then intimidation will remain the price of dissent. Breaking this cycle requires two things: first, that citizens assume responsibility for issues beyond their immediate locality, and second, that institutions enforce the law consistently, regardless of political pressure. Only then will outrage become transformation, and only then will Goa protect itself from the slow suffocation of its identity.
