########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
----- Forwarded message from Cecil Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:23:19 +0530 From: Cecil Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The debate so far... Ethel <ethel.dacosta at timesgroup.com> wrote a fiery article in Goan Observer questioning the GHAG objectives. Cecil <cpinto at sancharnet.in> wanted to know how much was spent on 'publicity' by the GHAG, as compared to actual activities. Rajiv < rajivd_goa at sancharnet.in> replied on behalf of the GHAG Now writer and activist Margaret < mmasc at sancharnet.in> gives her take below. ======== Margaret... Some comments on Rajiv's rejoinder to Ethel's article, beginning with this one: ------- Ethel.. “…‘working with the government’ “ ------- Rajiv... There is a broader logic at work behind our policy of working in partnership with the government whenever possible. We know that saving one or two buildings here and there only amounts to winning small battles, nay, skirmishes. The big picture is that our state has some wonderful heritage sites, both natural and man-made, and we need broad, effective laws and a comprehensive list to back it up for there to be any hope of saving whatever is left of our heritage. This, as mentioned earlier, requires enormous political will on the part of the government, and would be impossible to achieve if we were seen as inimical to the government. Our brand of activism has never been one of confrontation and street tamashas, and we are prepared to concede a few small battles to win the war. Nevertheless, ‘working with the government’ is a case-by-case policy, and we have opposed the government on many occasions in the past, notably in the case of the de-notification of the Massano De Armorim buildings, which was eventually reverted to its original status due to pressure from us. ---------------------------------------------------- Margaret... I agree mostly with all the previous points, but, sorry, this one is simply a bold faced lie. And although I have kept my mouth shut previously, thinking it was best in the interest of the larger conservation picture, I have now changed my mind. I have changed my mind, because increasingly, I see GHAG as not representing the public interest as much as its own, or rather as representing Heta Pandit; as an organisation that routinely manipulates other activists and member of the art community indiscriminately towards its own ends which are never clearly spelt out at the beginning; as not being transparent to the public, nor to those whose help it solicits; as not providing any support to other conservationists due to its fear of taking any strong stand on conservation vis a vis the government; and yet, as seeing Heritage as its own unique preserve. And here I am in full agreement with Ethel. Re Massano de Amorim: I was personally asked by Heta to coordinate an activist movement to oppose both the weird and ridiculous proposal by the then Municipality to redesign the Municipal Garden, as well as the demolition of the Massano de Amorim buildings. I had, she indicated full authority to proceed as she would be out of town for some time, and as the Garden and Massano de Amorim issues were of great urgency. Accordingly, I put together a think tank consisting of concerned citizens and NGO reps from Goa Foundation, Goadesc, GHAG, the Saligao consumer forum and others. We came with a two fold plan: 1) to stage a music festival at the garden to show how it can be publicly utilised as a community event centre on World Heritage Day; 2) to publicly promote, in between sets, the issue of the Massano de Amorim buildings. I solicited musicians, who agreed to play free to the cause I had laid out as above; I contacted light and sound people to donate what was required, which they did; I contacted citizens and journalists to participate in the event. Heta was in fact out of town during the preliminary discussions, represented in the meetings by her first lieutenant, Raya Shankhwaler, GHAG's only real job was to obtain permission from the Municipality for the event, which they did. Heta Pandit only appeared for the last meeting, at which point she fully endorsed all that we had done. But here is what transpired subsequently: The morning of the event itself, Heta met with me and summarily informed me in what has become her trademark autocratic Queen of Sheba mode that she had invited Mr Parrikar to attend the event and therefore GHAG would not speak on conservation issues, nor, indeed, on anything at all, and (here's the real zinger) neither would she "permit" anyone else to speak. As though Goan heritage belongs to GHAG exclusively, we would, she had "decided," simply use the event as a "celebration of World Heritage". I argued, you can bet your booties, but, as Heta Pandit well knew, it was too late for me to call off all the musicians, NGO reps, journalists, etc--basically hundreds of people who were donating their time, talent, efforts, attendance on my word that this was going to be what I had said it was. In view of the gag order, and in view of the fact that we (I) had stupidly suggested GHAG obtain the Municipal permissions, on the even of the event, I and other NGO reps, concerned citizens did not speak on the microphone about any Goan conservation issues, but we did move through the crowds distributing buttons and informing people on the issues. When Mr Parrikar, who had earlier indicated that he wished to appear incognito, and unofficially, arrived, I have to say I was physically sickened by the sycophantic manner in which Heta Pandit stuck by his side during the entire period of his attendance. If the Garden and the Massano de Amorim issues were taken into account by the Parrikar Govt, it was not due to the non-efforts of GHAG but because Parrikar is a man of extraordinary intelligence with eyes and ears everywhere, and was fully aware that the large public turn-out for this event, comprised of people from all over the state, was a verdict on both issues. Ethel at that time raised the issue in print that the event was certainly not what she had been given to understand it should be, and I admit, I played it down, at Heta Pandit's explicit request, and, as I mentioned above, because I thought it would interfere with the cause of conservation in general. However, were I to publish the entire history of my correspondence with Heta regarding this event and its fallout, in which her unbelievable arrogance is readily apparent, I believe even the earnest Rajiv D' Sliva would have to rethink his POV. From my own POV, there WAS no pressure from GHAG, and that was precisely the problem. ----------- Ethel... “…the GHAG has made huge monies, for sure.” ------ Rajiv... This is the allegation that pains me the most. I assume that Ethel’s allegation is that the members are personally making money, for there is surely nothing wrong with an NGO trying to build up its corpus? We are an NGO, governed by strict rules and regulations, and our accounts are open to anybody who is interested. I believe it reflects the state of our society when nobody can believe that a bunch of people can get together and work together just for its stated aim to promote the cause of heritage in Goa. All I can say is that we put in our time, effort and money, into something that we believe in, and we sometimes find it amusing when we hear these ‘money-making’ allegations. Ironically, the facts are just the opposite. Despite all the so-called publicity it is still as difficult as ever to generate funds for our activities we are still effectively running on large, generous loans from a couple of our members which we are yet to repay. Forget about making money, we haven’t even broken even yet. ---------- Margaret... Perhaps it would help for GHAG to be more transparent on how it uses the money it receives. As for working "together", here's the test: let any member of GHAG express an opinion in strong opposition to Heta Pandit's and see how long the togetherness lasts. For anyone who doesn't get this yet, GHAG is Heta Pandit, and its members, in my opinion, are yes-men/women, not thinkers or decision makers. ----- Ethel... “…to further their bank balance and careers.” ----- Rajiv... Well, all I can say is that my career sure doesn’t feel any ‘furthered’. Can this kind of activism actually further careers? If an Architect takes out a month or so every year for voluntarism that brings no grist to the mill, how can it be said that his career has been furthered? The bottom-line is, none of us within the group knows or bothers to think whether all this will further or harm our careers, but we have thus far been doing it regardless. I can’t say for how much longer, though. ------- Margaret... While I think Rajiv probably believes the above to be true and may very well be for himself, it isn't true for all the members. Heta Pandit's career has been furthered, without question, and so has Raya Shankhwalker's, and I think it is totally safe to say that they do consider their careers when making decisions about GHAG. And yes, activism can indeed further careers, and it has in cases to numerous to record here. If Rajiv doesn't know this it is simply because he hasn't lived long enough, and is refreshingly naive about such matters. ------ Rajiv... So much for Ethel’s article. She also made some astounding self-congratulatory statements which staggered me, but which I will not take up now, as it doesn’t concern the GHAG. -------- Margaret... Yes, well, that's Ethel. But at least some of her allegations, though clearly not fully investigated, are right on the money (no pun intended, but I guess it works) --------- Rajiv... Now, coming to the queries raised by you, Cecil, these are the figures involved in the Tonca Pillar Restoration: For the restoration: Dismantling, shifting and rebuilding of the Pillar - Rs. 75,000/- (As far as we know; the contractor was paid directly by the CCP) Site studies, measured drawings, working drawings etc. Rs. 10,000/- This was paid partly to two young architecture students, who carried out the work, and partly for material costs involved in generating drawings and documentation. Architects from within the GHAG on a voluntary basis carried out co-ordination, planning and supervision. For the inauguration: Publicity material like invites, posters etc. Rs. 9,000/- Envelopes for the invites were donated by a well wisher of the group. One of the members of the GHAG paid for the courier charges for the invites, amounting to Rs. 5,500/-. Press ad Rs. 6,700/- Ghode-Modni Dance troupe Rs. 2000/- Lighting arrangements Rs. 1500/- Sound and projection system for the audio-visual presentation Rs. 5000/- Snacks and refreshments were donated by a city restaurant. Chairs and other arrangements were made by the CCP. ------- Margaret... Thanks for the info Rajiv, it truly does make a difference. And, I agree, publicity is not really the issue. After all, Ethel herself received considerable personal publicity for all her activist events. So what, if the larger purpose is achieved? But I strongly suggest that if GHAG wants to receive public endorsement for its work, it should reconsider its frequently autocratic stance. Margaret Mascarenhas ======= ----- End forwarded message -----