This song is especially relevant in Goa at this point of time, for if we are not able to curb the onslaught on our environment we too may have to apologise in advance to the generations that will be coming after us and inhabiting this our land.
Today’s Goa is one that is hurtling towards ‘development’, a term used to denote concretisation of any available space. It matters not whether the space is in an urban area or a rural area, we go by the logic of if it’s there and is unoccupied, then it should be built upon. That’s unfortunate, for development plans should revolve not just around what is required for the current times, but take into consideration what we will leave behind for future generations. For centuries the people who came before us have been keeping behind them an inhabitable world, bequeathing a land that would sustain those who came after them. That is what should remain the focal point of any planning for the present and for the future, and when drafting policy.
But that is not happening. Policies, laws, rules are currently being formulated based upon today’s immediate needs, overlooking the future sustainability of the planet. If much of this unplanned development was overlooked by the people, something changed earlier this month, and a larger number of people are beginning to sit up and take notice of the manner in which the State is being developed. Conversations across Goa over the weekend veered around to the coconut tree, or rather as it will now be known, the coconut palm. There is a disbelief that the tree, under whose shadow generations have grown and been nurtured and sustained by its fruit, has suddenly been declassified as a tree and set aside as a palm.
That’s not something to worry about, a section may say, just a change in classification. You can rationalize it by falling back on one of William Shakespeare’s most famous quotations – ‘a rose by any other name will not smell less sweet’ – a gem that is often used in discussions and debates, when somebody wants to prove a point. The change in classification of the coconut tree will not change the fruit that the tree gives, but in this case it could severely restrict its growth in numbers, even drastically reduce the number of trees that today sway across the State. Truly, amending Shakespeare’s words to suit present times in Goa, one can safely say that a coconut tree by any other name will still give the same fruit. But, that would depend on the tree surviving on the sands of Goa.
There is growing incredulity across sections at the move to strike off the coconut tree from the list of trees under the Forest Act. Yes, coconut farmers will benefit from the amendment to the Forest Act, people who are troubled by the nuts or the fronds falling on their houses will also be in a position to address this without the hassles of approaching the Forest Department to cut the tree, but there are few who believe that the amendment was brought about to serve this purpose. Doubting government’s intentions comes easy in Goa, given that the number of times the government has moved in the interest of the people is far less than the times policy and laws have been initiated to benefit corporate.
The agendas of the governments are far different from the agendas that the people have. The cacophony of words that is unleashed during an election campaign is tuned to give the people what they want to hear. The actions that follow after the election victory do not necessarily move along the lines of the campaign promises. This occurs across parties and individuals.
The reclassification of the coconut tree is an example of how the sustainable environment in the State is being slowly but surely tampered with. Plainly put, sustainable development is such progress that meets the needs of the present but does not compromise on the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This responsibility has been underlined by UNESCO recognising that present generations have the responsibility of ‘ensuring that the needs and interests of the present and future generations are fully safeguarded’. It further maintained that the present generations have the ‘responsibility to bequeath to future generations an Earth which will not one day be irreversibly damaged by human activity’.
We have then a responsibility that has been determined in the current era, but generations before us ensured that the Earth they left behind would take care of us. If the people are unaware of this responsibility, then every action of the government is eliciting an opposite reaction from the people and they are beginning to sit up and take notice. There is a change in the way people are now viewing and attempting to understand the manner in which policies are being drafted and laws being legislated. It can be judged by the people hugging coconut trees in protest of the government’s decision. Every tree hugged is symbolic of the people embracing the environment and pledging to maintain it for us today and for those who will come after us to inhabit the land we will leave behind.
(The writer is Executive Editor, Herald.)
