On June 18, 2025, Goa’s Art and Culture Minister Govind Gaude was unceremoniously dropped from the state cabinet, a decision that coincided with Goa Revolution Day—a symbolic irony not lost on observers. The move came barely three weeks after Gaude publicly alleged corruption in the Department of Tribal Welfare, a portfolio directly overseen by Chief Minister Pramod Sawant. Gaude’s sacking has sparked intense debate: does it signal the government’s intolerance for dissent, or is it a calculated effort to shield systemic corruption?
The hypocrisy is glaring—when Gaude himself faced corruption allegations, he appeared to enjoy the protection of the same government that now ousted him for speaking out. This episode, coupled with earlier accusations by former BJP minister Pandurang Madkaikar, orveven by Babus Monserrate and Michael Lobo exposes a troubling pattern of corruption and its protection in Goa, which can be analyzed through Michel Foucault’s lens of “speaking truth to power” (parrhesia).
Govind Gaude, a 53-year-old tribal leader and theatre actor-turned-politician, has been a prominent figure in Goa’s political landscape. Representing the Priol constituency, Gaude’s journey from an independent MLA supporting the BJP to a full-fledged party member reflects his adaptability. He served as a minister in the Sawant-led cabinet since 2019 and retained his position after joining the BJP ahead of the 2022 elections. Despite many accusations, Gaude remained unscathed, seemingly shielded by the government’s patronage.
The tide turned on May 25, 2025, when Gaude, speaking at a “Prerana Din” event organized by the Tribal Welfare Department, criticized the department’s inefficiency and alleged corrupt practices. He claimed that contractors’ files were processed “on the sly” at Shram Shakti Bhavan, hinting at bribery. These remarks directly challenged Chief Minister Sawant, who holds the Tribal Welfare portfolio.
CM Sawant responded by warning of “appropriate action” for Gaude’s “irresponsible statements,” and the BJP’s state president, Mr. Damodar Naik, emphasized the need for “party discipline.” Gaude attempted damage control, claiming he was “misquoted” and affirming his friendship with Sawant, but the die was cast. On June 18, Governor PS Sreedharan Pillai accepted Sawant’s recommendation to drop Gaude from the cabinet.
Gaude’s cryptic tweet, calling his sacking a “reward” for standing up for downtrodden communities, underscored his defiance.The timing and context of Gaude’s removal raise questions. When accused of corruption himself, Gaude faced no repercussions; yet, when he pointed fingers at the government, he was swiftly ousted.
Congress leader Rajesh Verenkar noted, “The person who spoke out against corruption has now been dropped from the Cabinet. This shows that the government does not want good leaders.” Similarly, Goa Forward Party chief Vijai Sardesai remarked, “Gaude was not dropped when we blamed him for corruption in renovation work; he was protected by the Govt; now dropped because he spoke of corruption within govt.” These criticisms suggest a government that selectively punishes those who expose its flaws while shielding loyalists embroiled in scandal.
Gaude’s case is not isolated. In March 2025, former BJP minister Pandurang Madkaikar, a four-term MLA from Cumbarjua, accused the Sawant government of rampant corruption. After meeting BJP national general secretary B.L. Santhosh, Madkaikar told the media, “It’s not corruption, it’s loot. Loot is going on in Goa. All ministers are busy counting money.” He claimed to have paid a bribe of Rs 15-20 lakh to a minister’s personal assistant to process a file, though he refrained from naming the culprit, promising to do so if he left the BJP. The allegations triggered a political storm, with opposition parties demanding a CBI probe and an FIR. Madkaikar’s accusations were met with mixed responses. Chief Minister Sawant dodged direct comment, while BJP national general secretary Arun Singh dismissed the claims as “false,” asserting the government’s honesty.
Ministers like Mauvin Godinho and Vishwajit Rane challenged Madkaikar to provide proof, and the party signaled potential disciplinary action. Madkaikar later backtracked, claiming the matter was “closed” and that he expected Sawant to act as his predecessor Manohar Parrikar would have. However, a North Goa court in June 2025 directed the police to register an FIR based on Madkaikar’s statements, citing a viral video as sufficient evidence.
Activists like Kashinath Shetye, who filed the complaint, argued that retracting such allegations without investigation undermines public trust. Madkaikar’s case mirrors Gaude’s in its exposure of systemic corruption and the government’s reluctance to address it. Both men, once beneficiaries of the BJP’s patronage, faced repercussions only when they criticized the system.
Madkaikar’s sidelining after his 2022 election exclusion and Gaude’s sacking suggest a pattern: loyalty to the party trumps accountability, and dissent is punished.
Michel Foucault’s concept of parrhesia—speaking truth to power despite personal risk—provides a lens to understand Gaude and Madkaikar’s actions. Parrhesia involves courageously voicing uncomfortable truths, often at the cost of one’s position or safety, to challenge authority. Gaude’s allegations against the Tribal Welfare Department and Madkaikar’s claims of ministerial “loot” embody this principle.
Both men, as insiders, appear to have risked their political careers to expose corruption within their own party, fulfilling Foucault’s criteria of speaking frankly and critically to those in power.
However, Foucault also notes that parrhesia is fraught with danger, as power structures resist such challenges. In Goa, the BJP’s response—sacking Gaude and pressuring Madkaikar to retract—illustrates this resistance. The government’s selective protection of the corrupt further aligns with Foucault’s observation that power often manipulates truth to maintain control. When Gaude faced corruption charges, he was shielded, likely because he remained loyal. His dismissal only after criticizing CM Sawant’s department suggests that the government prioritizes silencing dissent over addressing corruption.
Similarly, Madkaikar’s allegations were dismissed until public and judicial pressure forced action, indicating a reluctance to confront internal rot unless external forces intervene.
The cases of Gaude and Madkaikar reveal a deeper malaise in Goa’s governance. The BJP, which campaigned on anti-corruption rhetoric, appears to tolerate malfeasance when it serves political ends. Historical context reinforces this: in 2017, senior BJP leader Wilfred Mesquita accused the party of inducting “corrupt” Congress defectors like Mauvin Godinho and Madkaikar himself, exposing the BJP’s willingness to embrace tainted leaders for electoral gains.
Congress’s Yuri Alemao called Gaude’s allegations proof of the BJP’s corruption, demanding an Anti-Corruption Branch probe. Goa Forward Party’s Vijai Sardesai argued that the government’s inaction normalizes “loot.” AAP’s Amit Palekar and Revolutionary Goans’ Viresh Borkar echoed calls for investigations, framing the BJP as a party that protects its own while targeting critics. These demands, however, face an uphill battle in a state where the ruling party controls key institutions.
The government’s response—swift punishment for whistleblowers like Gaude and initial dismissal of Madkaikar’s claims—suggests a strategy of containment rather than reform. By protecting loyalists and punishing dissenters, the BJP maintains a facade of integrity while allowing corruption to fester. This selective justice undermines public trust and perpetuates a cycle where power insulates itself from accountability.
The dropping of Govind Gaude and the sidelining of Pandurang Madkaikar highlight a troubling reality in Goa: speaking truth to power, as Foucault’s parrhesia demands, comes at a steep cost. Both men, once protected by the BJP when accused of corruption, faced repercussions only when they exposed the government’s flaws. This contradiction exposes a system that shields the corrupt as long as they remain loyal, while punishing those who dare to challenge it.
The BJP’s actions—sacking Gaude, pressuring Madkaikar, and deflecting calls for probes— appear to reveal a government that is more concerned with control than transparency. It also manifests that BJP itself plays opposition where elected opposition appears to be missing and when this play come biting it, it drops its own ‘barking dogs’
As Goa approaches the 2027 assembly elections, these episodes fuel anti-BJP sentiment, as noted by opposition leaders. Yet, without systemic reforms, the cycle of corruption and protection is likely to persist.
Foucault’s parrhesia reminds us that truth-telling is essential for challenging power, but in Goa, the price of such courage is exclusion from the very system one seeks to reform. Until institutions prioritize accountability over loyalty, corruption will continue to enjoy protection, and the voices of truth will remain silenced.
