What happened at the Moira Gram Sabha is shameful more so because the Sarpanch
is a learned advocate who cannot be said to be ignorant of the law. The over
obliging police inspector over stepped his mandate. The Sarpanch can order
withdrawal of a person under rule 16 for disregarding authority of person
presiding, obstructive or offensive conduct or interrupting the meeting by
taking the assistance of the police . Only 'withdrawal' not 'detention'. Venita
is not an anti-social or was not under influence of alcohol or mentally unsound
that required her to be restrained by keeping her in police custody. Though the
rule gives the powers to the Sarpanch to remove a member it needs to used with
utmost restraint. Even the Speaker of the Assembly or Parliament will first
appeal for order repeatedly, then adjourns the meeeting and will use his power
to remove a member only as a final resort.
Another case for worry is the outraging of the modesty of a woman by some
physically intimidating and abusive men. Sarpanch and the Gram Sabha members
should have come to the rescue of the woman instead of being silent spectators.
Everyone in the Gram Sabha are guilty of aiding and abetting the abuse and
threats against the woman. If the Sarpanch knew that Venita was not eligible to
attend the gram sabha why was he quiet until she spoke? What did the offensive
article in the newspaper have to do with the issue of RP2021 being raised? Was
the offensive article part of the agenda in the notice or included after
required applications required under the rules?
This all goes to prove that the Sarpanch and Gram Sabha members had malafide
intentions to cause harm to Venita and suppress her freedom of speech. Such
abuse against women is not uncommon. Over a year ago Anna Coelho, again a
Coelho, was abused wih filthy language at the Socorro Gram sabha by a former
Sarpanch. A compalint was lodged with the police and the Goa State Women's
Commission. The women's rights groups are suprisingly silent on this Moira
incident.
-Soter D'Souza
