Uber isn’t banned in Goa. It’s simply been mathematically eradicated.
“Vacationers hold asking: why no Uber in Goa? The reply isn’t coverage. It’s simple arithmetic.”
That’s how Lokesh Ahuja, a enterprise planner and IIM alumnus, opens a LinkedIn submit that’s now stirring dialog far past company circles.
His breakdown of Goa’s ride-hailing void doesn’t hinge on authorities bans or outdated legal guidelines. It rests on arduous, native economics—and a staggering electoral calculus.
Begin with the numbers. Goa has 24,000 taxi drivers. Most are sole breadwinners, supporting households of 4.
That’s roughly 100,000 individuals tethered to the taxi economic system. However these drivers aren’t simply behind the wheel. “Drivers additionally act as fee brokers—guiding vacationers to resorts, cruises, outlets, shacks,” Ahuja notes. Their earnings ripple by way of your entire tourism sector.
Issue that in, and the variety of livelihoods related to this casual community balloons to 200,000.
Now apply politics. About 75% of these people are probably eligible voters. That’s 1.5 lakh votes—multiple in ten of Goa’s complete citizens. “No politician’s touching that,” Ahuja writes. “Lose 1.5 lakh votes. Acquire zero.”
Why zero? As a result of Goa’s locals aren’t asking for Uber. With 882 autos per 1,000 individuals—4 instances the nationwide common—residents drive themselves. The one ones craving ride-hailing providers are vacationers. And vacationers, Ahuja dryly factors out, don’t vote.
The implication is evident: introducing Uber isn’t simply economically disruptive—it’s political suicide.
The calculus could change ultimately. An getting old inhabitants, shifting to nuclear households, and rising urge for food for comfort might construct native demand for taxis once more. Till then, the cab wars keep “parked,” as Ahuja places it, and Uber stays on the surface.
“Goa doesn’t want coverage reform,” he concludes. “It wants the mathematics to vary.”
