What seems like a very rationale plea has to be seen vis-a-vis the backdrop against which it is made. A campaign against mining has heated up in Goa, the Leader of the Opposition suggests some involved with this campaign might be violent Naxalites, and the Navhind Times of which Sinha is editor is owned by a prominent mining empire here.
By starting off on an evocative note, the editor makes the reader believe that he thinks just like you or me. That's nice! Yet, by solidly supporting every ruling dispensation in Goa over the past 15 years, the newspaper and its editor cannot absolve themselves of all responsibility. Or simply blame someone else for having "stolen my beloved Mandovi". Isn't it ironic that affluent high-spenders who themselves add to the crowds in Goa can go ahead to critique the "overcrowding" as "unbearable"? Or say they would return to the place that was when they first came along and added to the load on it? Is this some second-class railway compartment syndrome, where we want people to squeeze in, but only as long as we get our own foothold there? > Goans feel estranged by present-day Goa, including me who was not born a > Goan. There are many of those, not born Goans, who have lived here for much > longer than me who must be feeling the same. I don't think this is only By faking a sense of empathy with the sentiments of the common citizen -- which have seldom found place in the newspaper Sinha edited, except in recent times when the arrival of the Times of India here made it hurriedly take on a very "pro-people" stance -- we are being taken down the garden path. > Although I am one with them with a banner in their procession-because my > Mandovi was robbed from me-I am still confused about what saving Goa means. > Does it mean freezing Goa, as it exists today? Does it mean stopping all > human activities that cause browning and overcrowding of Goa? No industry, > no commerce, no tourism, no airports, no flights, no railways, no highways-a > China-Walled island of sparse population and a great landscape? This is the crux of the matter. The problem and its solution are exaggerated. Hence, we can argue then that there is no way of tackling it! And our very eloquent friends in cyberspace (Selma, Eddie, please note) will also be quick to applaud, thinking that this indeed is the voice of reason. > I am yet to meet two people who have the same formula for saving Goa. And I > am yet to meet anyone who can tell me what to do after saving Goa. Instead of being rhetorical about this -- and placing the burden of proof on those protesting environmental degradation, it would be more honest for the editor in question to spell out his own stance on the protests over mining in the Goan hinterland, and explain how his paper the reported the "Naxalite" matter -- specially on the first day when the story broke here. By overstating the case to one of "saving Goa", it becomes easy to argue that no easy solution is possible in any case. If papers like The Navhind Times had to lend their voice to holding government (and corporations) accountable, together with the NGOs which they are quick to pillory, then a number of issues could have been closer to a solution. Including environmental ones which are causing daily problems in the lives of a growing number of people of Goa. > Many, I know, won't be happy when I say saving Goa is a fuzzy dream. A > misty, woolly, hazy dream. I in my editorials and my reporters in their > interviews have often asked the saviours of Goa: "Can Goa grow without > development projects?" And their answer has been the same-misty, woolly, > hazy-"See, we are not against development." Beyond that, nothing. No > blueprint. Nothing to guide us what to do after saving Goa. There seems to be a misty, wooly, hazy self-appointed role here of the editorial-writer and his reporters to ask people questions, to demand solutions from them, and to play judge. Shouldn't a newspaper, as we understand it today, simply report on what the people are saying? Has the Navhind being > Sometimes I feel the NGOs are more populist than politicians. "Let the > people decide," the politician says. "Let the people decide," the NGO says. > In actuality, they both make the decisions they want to make. Look at how > decisions are made by the NGOs. Do they convene gram sabhas and ask them to > make the decisions? It is the committees and sub-committees of the NGOs-and > in many cases, the professional vigilantists who own NGOs as organizations > of one man or woman-who make the decisions. All in the name of the people. > By the people, for the people, of the people. Just as the politician does. Yes, and the media is part of the self-appointed permanent government too. That's why we need to play our role with caution, with honest, and without vested interests. > I am with NGOs on all their vetoes. But I have a reason to ask them: What > next? Where does Goa go from here? How does it progress? As far as I know, > NGOs have not rejected the capitalist model. All these years, in all their > speeches and writings, civil society activists and intellectuals have not > provided an alternative model of development. They have portrayed > unscrupulous capitalists as demons but not found anything fundamentally > wrong with capitalism. Some capitalists in their eyes represent the devil > but capitalism is not rejected by them as evil. It need not be a zero or everything approach. Sinha seems to be wanting to push the activists into a position to say a wide 'nyet', at which point he would turn around and say they're being unrealistic. > development-who quarrels with them on this! But they are not clear how this > sustainable development will take place. They do not have any design for > Goa's future. They do not have a vision for Goa. Nowhere in the above debate does the writer spell out what "development" is. I guess it is a concept wide enough to include mining in Advalpal and Columb, regardless of what the villagers there feel about it. > As a journalist who has watched the Goa scene for many years, I can only This suggests some kind of omniscient powers ... I can say they don't exist :-) > draw attention to one big piece of harsh reality. Goa cannot live on its own > within a China Wall. Goan economy has never been self-sufficient-not even > during the Portuguese or pre-Portuguese times. The Portuguese left Goa as an > island of poverty and illiteracy. Central government investments in This is a post-1961 myth. Inspite of 451 years of colonialism, Goa was better off than the neighbouring districts of "British India" even in 1961, taking the widely accepted indices. This is not to suggest that I, tacitly or otherwise, support Portuguese colonialism. Yet, at the same time, I do not believe in the post-1961 myth-making that wants us to believe that only good things came after the Portuguese left, and that everything bad went along with them. > infrastructure and quantum growth in mining, industry and tourism and the > satellite enterprises contributed significantly to the high indices of > income, literacy and health that Goa today is famous for. Interesting to see how *mining* is slipped in here. I thought this piece was about the *Mandovi* being stolen, and how human-like editors also are. > Let us look at history: The Portuguese put up a China Wall, but that could > provide Goans only a hand-to-mouth existence. The result was that for many > Goans, the greatest dream was escape. Many of the Goans who we find in > Mumbai or in many countries today are descendants of Portuguese China > Wall-breakers. And even after *all* the post-1961 "development", Goans still continue to migrate. (While also receiving lectures, and actually getting taken in!) > When I see those fishermen and farm tenants in the tourist belt who were > poor and malnourished during the Portuguese times and have progressed to > have a better house and educated and healthy children; and when I see those > middle class Goans worming their way through the body-jammed Panaji Market > for green vegetables that come every day from Belgaum, I am the last to > believe that isolation is the best way to save Goa. This play with facts suggests (i) there are no or few "poor and malnourished" in Goa today (ii) and that there were no people doing reasonably well for themselves, or a local middle class, in Portuguese times. What a selective use of facts, and imagery! > Goa was always dependent on other regions for food, other needs and > employment. Today we are many times more dependent. Larger and larger number > of Goan youth are seeking opportunities for employment and self-employment > outside agriculture and fishing. Where do they go? One of the major fears > driving veto on all projects is the phobia of migrants-both from poor and > rich classes-swamping the natives. The NGOs' strategy to choke the migrant > flood is to choke growth. No growth, no migrants. But no growth also means > no growth for Goan youth who are no more doing agriculture or fishing. Who > is thinking about them? If we don't, they will break the China Wall and fly. Don't mix up extreme Rajan Parrikaresque arguments to throw out of the window more reasonable positions too. Even many rationale people without a "phobia of migrants" will be willing to acknowledge that there are serious environmental and "development" problems in Goa today. But, of course, as they say, those who pretend to be sleeping cannot be woken up. Likewise, if one would like to confuse the issues of ethnicity, malgovernance, environmentalism, popular protest, mining, and chauvinism ... in a way that hides from the reality. FN
