There is need to balance tourism, tradition and community concerns in policy decisions
In the aftermath of the recent Goa Assembly session, issues such as the late-night sound ban and the anti-bullfight approach in Goa have come in for a possible rethink. So far, no change has been made in either position, though there have been indications and hints that this might be possible. Regardless of the outcome, such issues are worth doing some thinking over, because they reflect the conflicts within different segments of our society. Besides, they outline the approaches our lawmakers take (or don’t) towards issues affecting diverse sections differently.
Firstly, there has been a push for the late-night sound extension, in the name of tourism and weddings. Support for reducing the ban hours has come from business groups for understandable reasons. However, the Travel and Tourism Association of Goa has said that the deadline at the most can be extended to 11 pm. Besides the tourism sector, it is undeniable that the 10 pm deadline has affected musicians, party celebrants, wedding functions and tourists, among others. In a sense, this has changed Goa’s style of celebrations. If an evening wedding celebration has to wind up music by 10 pm, it means that the show would have to start before sunset. On some days of the year, the government has given exemptions, but overall, the ban stays in place. That is one side of the story.
The 10 pm sound ban in Goa is also simultaneously justified on health and civic grounds, protecting sensitive residents from excessive noise pollution. This especially covers children, the elderly and those with health issues. That it simultaneously hits wedding bands, local musicians, shacks and nightlife venues hard is uncontested. Residents in party hubs like Anjuna and Vagator still complain of sleepless nights and selective enforcement.
A balanced way forward could involve zoning. This could imply later hours in designated nightlife areas but strict limits in residential zones. Real-time public noise monitoring and uniform enforcement without favouring big clubs or foreign DJs could surely help too. There is also a need for regular dialogue between residents, musicians, tourism bodies and authorities. In addition, Goa could definitely gain from the promotion of alternatives like soundproofed venues or “silent discos” (some of which have already been experimented with). This would ensure that both community peace and Goa’s cultural-tourism vibrancy are preserved. We have been trying to find a solution to this imbroglio for over a decade now.
The other pressing and long-unsolved issue, though it might seem like a trivial one, is that of bullfights. Animal rights activists successfully accused the bullfight organisers of cruelty and made their point through the courts.
The case to reduce the severity of, or remove, the ban on bullfights in Goa could be framed on both, the traditional role of this sport in Goa and the fact that it is a distinct local sport. In the Goan ‘dhirio’, two bulls lock horns without the deliberate killing of an animal seen in Spanish bullfights. The pro-dhirio camp refers to ‘jallikattu’. Regulated events could be held under veterinary supervision, with limits on harm and welfare safeguards to preserve an important rural pastime while addressing cruelty concerns. Reducing the severity of this could benefit the associated livelihoods and tourism niches. It might also be true that controlled legalisation could be better than unregulated underground events. These two issues remind us of the diverse interests within the same society. The government needs to make a serious effort to find a solution to these issues.
