A day after it withdrew the Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code that had been imposed in North Goa to force owners of premises let out to tenants to complete the tenant verification forms, it went ahead and withdrew another notification that had been published just days earlier. This time it was the order notifying 56 villages as urban areas that the government withdrew, after the objections raised by the villages that had had their status changed from rural to urban.
If Section 144 of the CrPC and the urban area status to the villages could be so easily withdrawn, was it even necessary to impose them in the first place? The withdrawal spree may not be over yet, as the same evening that the urban area status was withdrawn, the Excise Department was directed to reconsider the proposed excise tax hike on liquor in Goa. The Chief Minister also assured to contemplate exempting Goa’s heritage drink feni from the duty tax. If these two proposals that were made in the Budget are withdrawn, then it is clear beyond doubt that there is something plainly wrong with the planning and decision taking process in the government.
Both the decisions of withdrawals are victories for the people who had questioned the moves, but they will be seen as backtracking by a government that is unsure of the decisions it takes, especially as the withdrawals happened without much of a fight from the government. This confusion in the government is strange and it does appear as if it is the bureaucracy that is making the mistakes. Take for instance the imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC in North Goa. This was not imposed by the South Goa District Magistrate, and a few days later, when it was withdrawn, there was a new District Magistrate in place in North Goa. What does this signify?
Again, where the urban areas notification was concerned, it was actually census towns that should have been notified so as to ensure the census process, but when the notification came it was called urban areas that led to major protests. All this does raise questions on how these decisions have been taken, and whether the government and the bureaucracy are applying their minds to the situation. These are two minute storms that could have been avoided if only a little thought process had gone into the decision making. Obviously the decisions were taken without visualising the consequences and hence the withdrawals that came so soon.
Besides, where from did the idea of a tax on feni that has been named as the heritage drink of Goa and has been bestowed with a geographical indication (GI) tag come? It has all the markings of a bureaucratic hand, rather than that of a politician who would weigh the consequences of such a move before making it. Feni is a locally-made drink and also consumed locally. It is a very small quantity that is sold outside, so the tax would apply only to the local consumer who would have to pay more. If the idea was to reduce drinking, it might have worked, but that would affect the local industry.
Decision making has to be streamlined and made systematic so that the future consequences are taken into account. It reflects badly on the government when it begins to backtrack on issues. To avoid this, participatory planning is an option, but of course not for every decision. It is for the government to find a way to make it happen without the possibility of objections that will force a reversal of the decision that has been taken.
