The unhappiness and share of struggle of the people are the same. The state of not giving any importance to their opinion is the same at all three places. Although the people from the rest of the Pernem backed the airport, the tears of people affected by the project are yet to dry. They are still awaiting justice.
The High Court has now ordered that the Kul Mundkar lawsuits be settled within six months and if it is complied with then it would help to resolve the issue to a great extent. The question is to decide what the locals want or do not want in their village. In fact, the senior ecologist and the former head of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, Dr Madhav Gadgil, in his report says that the issue of development is not a matter of just a few people and should be universalised. “Political leaders and babus should not define the definition of development by merely sitting in Delhi. There must be public participation in decision making. It is only appropriate for safeguarding the environment and democracy. Decide how to develop by taking the villages in confidence,” stated his report. This report by the Gadgil Commission, just like reports from previous government councils, was also suppressed.
Those in power till now have only neglected the suggestions made by study committees for the alternative and eternal development. The question arises when the government itself is in denial. In a meeting which was held this Sunday at Kudal-Maharashtra, they passed a resolution opposing the project at Barsu. People from the Konkan region are once again protesting against the proposed refinery. All this is happening in Ratnagiri, the neighbouring district of Sindhudurg, with which our State shares a border and hence, we cannot turn a blind eye towards this.
The attitude of those implementing the projects is universal; and social workers, environmentalists have experienced it many times before. The basic question is of land ownership and it has only intensified since it was not solved for years. The owners and Kul of the land acquired for Mopa airport were unclear. The heirs of the ones who were registered as Kul were unclear. Which is why it became easy for the government to keep the matter pending in the court. Those who were eligible for the compensation, albeit a pittance, got trapped in the process. If the law of ‘land is of the one who cultivates it’ was applied and if the lawsuits under Kul Mundkar Act were settled in a time-bound manner, then the matter would not have become this complicated. The land owners would have been able to decide whether they want to give their lands or not.
Whether it is Jaitapur, Barsu or Mopa plateau, the issue is the same – on one hand are the land owners and on the other are those cultivating the land. As per the law, the government sends notices to the land owners regarding land acquisition. The Kuls and the farmers cultivating the land get to know about it. Land owners calculate the compensation they are going to get without doing anything, while the Kuls - the ones who cultivate the land, are left with no option other than to look at their medium of earning being taken away from them. This is what prompts them to clash with the system. The system cannot run away from its responsibility by labelling the protestors as anti-development. The government should take note that all questions will ultimately be settled if the land ownership issue is first resolved.
Looking at Devaris (sacred groves), lands of Devasthanams (temples), Inams and Watans, the complexity is great. The rulers who claim to bring development have failed to solve this basic question till now and that is the truth. Our State is also part of the Konkan region and the spirit to fight against the system is the same everywhere. It is not new for Goa or the Konkani people from neighbouring districts to actively oppose the projects imposed by the government and not accept them blindly. In fact, the fire within people to fight against injustice is very much alive and is evident from the protests at Barsu against the proposed refinery. The public from all three places have given out a message that the blueprint of the development should not be based on some imported format and that it should not be anti-people. In democracy, it is expected that their cries be heard by the governance system. It is also time for people to elect only sensible representatives. There have been projects implemented before and lessons should be learnt regarding who benefitted from them. It is a vicious cycle that Project Affected Persons (PAP) are not getting the benefits as they do not have ownership of the land. To break this cycle, the question of land ownership has to be first solved. That is the similarity between the public outcry of the villagers of Maharashtra’s Barsu and Goa’s Mopa.