KARSTEN MIRANDA
MARGAO: The simmering opposition to the ongoing railway double-tracking work in Goa is gathering steam and urgency after former Railway Minister Suresh Prabhu spoke in Goa on the need for public hearings for major development initiatives.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Environmental activists in Goa are using Prabhu’s remarks to reinforce their long-standing opposition to the project, which they believe will harm both the environment and local communities.
Abhijit Prabhudesai, co-convenor of Goyant Kollso Naka (GKN) and a key figure in the 2020 Chandor protest, condemned the double-tracking plan as harmful to Goa’s ecology and economy. “The entire population of Goa opposes the double tracking, and democracy demands that it must be cancelled,” Prabhudesai asserted, reflecting widespread dissent. His criticism extended beyond the expansion project itself to the existing railway infrastructure, particularly the coal trains that pass through densely populated villages and the Western Ghats.
He accused the project of continuing a history of exploitation, claiming that the railway system had been forced on Goa to benefit Western industries while destroying local economies.
Prabhudesai further argued that the double-tracking project would serve only to perpetuate this exploitation. “This railway track was forced on Goa to destroy the self-reliant economies of India for the profits of Western industries,” he said, emphasising that the project would harm both the land and the communities living on it. His remarks highlight a widely held belief among activists that the project prioritizes industrial interests, particularly coal transportation, over the welfare of Goan communities and the environment.
Felix Furtado, a member of Ganv Bhavancho Ekvott (GBE), echoed similar concerns, acknowledging Prabhu’s statement as a positive development but warning that it might be too little, too late. “Suresh Prabhu should raise this issue in Parliament,” Furtado suggested, pushing for higher political intervention. He expressed frustration with the ongoing implementation of the project, particularly in the Velsao-Cansaulim region, which has already seen significant environmental damage despite legal challenges and community resistance. “The government is continuing with the project, despite the REC’s rejection of laying tracks in the UNESCO biodiversity hotspot,” Furtado stated, underlining the disconnect between regulatory decisions and the reality on the ground.
Orville Dourado Rodrigues, founder of Goencho Ekvott (GE), also welcomed Prabhu’s statement but emphasized the legal implications it might carry. Rodrigues noted that Prabhu’s comments about the mandatory requirement for public hearings for major projects post-1998 could strengthen the legal case against the double-tracking project. “This statement comes at a time when there is sustained opposition to the railway expansion through heavily populated areas like Dabolim, Issorcim, and Velsao,” Rodrigues said, adding that these villages, whose ancestors welcomed the railway in the 1890s, now face severe disruption.
Rodrigues suggested constructive alternatives to the project, calling for a public hearing and a moratorium on construction activities until the concerns of local communities were properly addressed. He also advocated for following the recommendations of the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which had suggested using the Krishnapatnam port on the East Coast for transporting hazardous cargo like coal, thereby protecting Goa’s UNESCO-recognized biodiversity hotspots. Rodrigues concluded by questioning the purpose of the second track, asserting that it was primarily intended for transporting coal from Mormugao to northern Karnataka.
The Save Mollem group, another key opponent, raised concerns about industrial activities in ecologically sensitive areas, particularly in light of the proposal to handle iron ore at Kalem Railway Station in the Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. The group expressed hope that public concerns would be considered during the upcoming review of permissions for such activities under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972.
