CLEOFATO ALMEIDA COUTINHO
In a year, Goa will celebrate four dec ades of Statehood. The movement for Statehood was targeted to pro tect the ‘idea of Goa’. The geographical identity was secured through political struggle which culminated in the 1967 Opinion Poll, and the Konkani language was also confirmed in 1985, though there remains a dispute over the Roman script. With the identity and language issues settled, all that was required was the tailoring of economic & land poli cies for Goa’s unique geographical land scape, taking into consideration the size of the State and the scarcity of land. It was political sagacity that made the de mand for Statehood. As a Union Territory, Goa had a leg islative assembly, though the ultimate authority rested with the Central Gov ernment through the Lieutenant Gover nor. Mature political wisdom prevailed in demanding Statehood to empower legislators to make laws and policies towards securing the State’s economic growth at a fast pace.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Yet, there is no record of any case being delayed due to central decision-making; neither is there any record of the Lt. Governor stalling bills passed by the legislature. The only known confrontation occurred when Lt. Governor Gopal Singh—an au thoritative figure himself and an aide to Indira Gandhi—bypassed the local ad ministration and directly coordinated with the Central Government to deploy 14 companies of the CRPF at the time of the language dispute. Goa’s political leadership wanted Goa with federal powers without central interference. The massive funds that came to UT Goa after Liberation permitted the building of primary schools and a road network in villages. The Selaulim and Tillari irrigation projects were made possible due to resources flowing from the Central Government. During the UT days, the Union government absorbed Goa’s fiscal deficit and financed its de velopment requirements through con tinuous grants-in-aid, thus providing financial cushioning given the state’s restrictive revenue generation. These development projects did not place a tax burden on the local population. In fact, it is a matter of record that grants were so much in excess that unutilised funds were returned to the Centre. Cur rently, as a State, Goa has to generate its own revenue through market loans and the normal tax devolution mechanism managed by the Finance Commission.
It can always be contended that the ex ploitation of Goa through uncontrolled mining, aggressive tourism, and casinos is a direct result of the lack of a financial cushion available to the State. Prior to Statehood, the need for de manding special status to protect Goa’s lands and culture did not arise. Though there was migration into the State, the fear of Goans becoming a minority did not stare them in the face until the new economic reforms (post-1991) un locked the gates of the tourism industry and triggered a real estate boom. Those who struggled for Statehood could nev er have dreamt that we would get legis lators who would be in the real estate business themselves, introducing laws like Sec. 16B, Sec. 17(2), and 39A to the existing TCP Act of 1974, fuelling the destruction of Goa’s land and natural landscape. Statehood gave politicians the power to make laws facilitating the conversion of green cover, orchard lands, agricultural lands, forests, lakes, and tanks—blowing up the very ‘idea of Goa’. The biggest con played on Goans is the narrative that these laws are re quired to develop Goa.
The identity and culture of a place can never be measured by financial cost— but not when the very tools meant to prioritise the protection of identity, culture, land, and modernisation are in stead used to transition into unchecked infrastructural growth and a model of non-sustainable development. Instead of making laws to protect, when laws destroy the land and landscape, is it not time to make an assessment of the cost this small state is suffering as a result of Statehood? When political autonomy and legislative power are used to de stroy a paradise for private gain, is it not time to ask whether the cost at which statehood came was worth it? Goa as a UT had 28 MLAs and a com pact 4-member council of ministers. Goa as a State is now burdened with 40 MLAs and a jumbo cabinet of 12, forcing the State to independently raise funds. The State’s administrative expenditure has hit the roof. To sustain itself, succes sive state governments have depended heavily on borrowing, throwing Goa into a severe public debt trap that has reached an estimated Rs 30,945 crores, with outstanding liabilities crossing Rs 35,312 crores. The great principle of fast law-and-policy making and localised control promised by statehood has only helped the real estate sector convert land and zones. The laws passed by the State assembly have made Goa’s land a lucra tive tool for amassing wealth through regional plans and zoning changes to benefit powerful real estate lobbies on suitcase-to-suitcase basis.
Land is now a primary tool of corruption. A lack of vision has made Goa a place of no opportunities, leading to out ward migration and a consequent in flux of unregulated inward migration. The volume of real estate in terms of apartments and villas for the rich and elite from other parts of the country has overwhelmed this state, and locals have been priced out of their own land. The State assembly and the government have done nothing to protect Goa from being overwhelmed. Instead, policies and laws are framed to help wealthy buyers and mega-resorts. Water and electricity are diverted from locals to hotels, resorts, and short-term rental spaces.
They forgot that Goa is also a place where locals live. Goa has achieved economic success through indiscriminate mining, una bashed tourism, and casinos. Goa has the highest per capita income and a high GDP. Whether that is a direct result of Statehood or the acceleration provided by the grants during the Union Territo ry days is something that needs study. The drivers of the economy—mining, tourism, and real estate—are also the drivers of demographic shifts and envi ronmental degradation, leading to the destruction of the very idea of Goa. (The writer is a designated Sr. Ad vocate and a political thinker)
