The criticism has essentially stemmed from the opinion that the section was imposed only to curtail any anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests and that it had nothing to do with any terror related inputs. It is clear that there have been several anti-CAA protests in the State, and some of them have drawn a rather large number of people. It is also clear that the government is not satisfied with the turn that the protests are taking, and the recent statement from the Church calling for the CAA to be withdrawn has put the government on the defensive.
The issue has generated enough polemics to lead the Chief Minister to state that he would review the order imposing section 144 of the CrPC and consider withdrawing it. The tourism industry in Goa was also apprehensive of the move, fearing that it would lead to fewer tourists coming to Goa. In this politicians too have weighed in over the last few days, with lot of criticism on the move. On Sunday, demanding that it be immediately withdrawn, Leader of the Opposition Digambar Kamat has said that this is completely uncalled for. He questioned whether this move was only to ‘create confusion and divert peoples’ attention from core issues like fiscal mismanagement, Mhadei, failure on mining resumption, deteriorating law and order and rising unemployment’.
On Sunday there also came a fresh statement from the North Goa District Magistrate that was an attempt at clearing apprehensions over the enforcement of Section 144 of the CrPC. The clarification was that the order was meant as only a preventive measure and does not in any way prevent the assembly of more than four persons. The further explanation is that this was meant only to step up the alertness, essentially to impose tenant verification on all the owners of houses, buildings, flats and other residential accommodation, private guest houses, paying guest accommodation, etc, so that the antecedents of all the persons are verified before letting out their premises on lease, rent or on hire basis to such persons.
The government has advised people not to panic stating, “these orders have been issued routinely as part of general preparedness in the past too for the entire State by both the district magistrates.” In the past district magistrates have periodically issued circulars that make it mandatory for tenant verification to be conducted by the owners who lease their premises to others, and for the police to ensure that this is done by the owners. But, this circular in the past has never been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC. This is the first time such a move has taken place, and as such it created a controversy. Why the sudden deviation from the old method to bring in a section that curtails the movement of people?
It is increasingly clear that either the government or the bureaucracy – one of them for certain – are taking decisions without applying their minds thoroughly. Recently there was a controversy over the circular on the urban status that was granted to 56 villages, that has led village gram sabhas to take decisions opposing the move. The clarification of the government on this decision, that the circular was merely to facilitate the decadal census has not been accepted by the people. The debate is still on, and there is a movement to stop the move to bestow urban status on the villages. The administration has to ensure that their decisions and their moves do not create undue apprehension in the minds of the people.
As the Chief Minister said, the decision to impose Section 144 of the CrPC needs to be reviewed and perhaps even withdrawn. A terror threat is a serious issue and precautions must be taken on this count. But the people’s freedom cannot be curtailed without very definite reasons for this.
