Having watching the Parriker v/s Parriker interview, one point stood out for me:
I agree with Rajan that part of saving our environment would mean Western styled conservation, where modifications can be carried out to existing structures but nothing additional can be built on the land, and certainly not monstrosities such as housing complexes. Manohar Parriker's counter point is also a valid one, in that such a move would necessarily mean compensating those that are adversely affected by such laws. There are families in Goa (such as ourselves) who want to conserve their land in perpetuity. There are also families in Goa, (such as my in-laws), who have had their land cannibalized by migrant squatting and have lost tracts of land (this is not second-hand hearsay, it does happen and is a reality in Goa). In order to avoid cannibalization of land from both ends, the issue must become a referendum on what Goans want to do with their land. Do families want to conserve it or destroy it? If we have a clear vote on this issue, we can enact laws that will protect the land in perpetuity. It will also show us clearly who, despite the hoopla and the cries of NGOs, is willing to put their money where their mouth is, and seriously engage in the only remedial action that will save our land. I can bet, our polity will be the first to be against any such referendum and subsequent conservation. selma ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com