Special Status Moves
It’s less than a decade since state authorities led by the political elite in Goa were falling over themselves, rolling out the red carpet to industry by offering huge tracts of land as enticement to promoters wishing to set up base here. It took a people’s movement, the anti SEZ protests and the increasing public anger and disenchantment with land grabbing ~ for state authorities to sniff the public mood, sense the depth of public sentiment and rising anger and do a quick about turn. On Monday, the State Assembly passed a resolution urging the central government to accord special status to Goa under Article 371 of the Constitution of India or any other provision for regulating ownership and transfer of land and conservation of land. It’s a welcome step indeed for Goa ~ one Goa hopes will be pursued with vigour and speed ~ but the question remains, does the State government have any less a role in protecting Goa, its land and the idea of statehood?
This was not the first resolution of its kind. In August 2008, two legislators moved a resolution urging the State government to pursue special status for Goa with the Centre to protect the State’s unique identity. Pursuing the matter at the Centre was MP Shantaram Naik, who in 2010 presented a memorandum to the Prime Minister stating the urgent need to consider Goa’s case for special status under Article 371. He was told at the time, as was former chief minister Digamber Kamat, that state governments had enough provisions to legislate land transfer, without the Centre’s aid. In March 2008 however, Dayanand Narvekar’s amendment to the Registration Act, that sought to give powers to sub registrars to scrutinize sale deeds and refuse registration to land transfers not in accordance with public policy ~ was referred by the Governor to the President, and consent was withheld for the same. Yet, other states have managed to place effective curbs, especially on the sale and alienation of agricultural land to non agricultural uses and users in their states. Has not Maharashtra done so? The Himachal Pradesh Tenancy Land Reform Act debars non agriculturalists and non domiciled people from purchasing more than 500 sq m of land in non rural areas, and non agriculturalists from owning agricultural land. Non domiciles have to get state government permissions to invest in property above these limits. Similar provisions are in place in Uttaranchal. Though urban development authorities are now permitting developers to sell apartments within the limit for built up property, and there are circumventions of the law, in that domiciles are shown as partners in land transactions ~ the revenue laws have managed to put the brakes on any rampant sell out of those state’s farm lands and beautiful Himalayan hillscapes to speculators and the like.
Contrast this to Goa, where politics and land dealing are closely enmeshed. What percentage of the state’s farm land and other spaces have been sold to all manner of buyers from here, the rest of India and abroad ~ is anybody’s guess. Rhetoric aside, is the conversion of agricultural land being stopped in its tracks? The Goa Land Use (Amendment) Bill, 2012 that seeks to amend the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 ~ and prevent sale/conversion of tenanted and non tenanted agricultural land ~ was only moved last year. It is not yet an Act, reportedly before a select committee. What of the irretrievable changes already effected? And the big question is how serious are we? And are we doing enough to pursue these goals with what powers in revenue matters the State already has? Or is putting the entire onus on the Centre a convenient strategy, a fog of smoke and mirrors to borrow a phrase? As has been pointed out, there are other avenues to protect tribal land under the Constitution that have hardly come up in mainstream public political discourse in Goa.
This is not to argue that Goa ought not to pursue special status with the Centre. But let’s recognize the procedure can be tedious, pursuing a constitutional amendment took other regions thirty years to effect. The point is that very little, but political will, prevents Goa from using the current statutes to both legislate to protect its own interests, and implement current laws to achieve the same.
On the questions of in-migration and consequent loss of identity, the co-relation between constantly ratcheting up growth multipliers in indiscriminately inviting investment and big projects that have little use for Goan labour and much avarice for Goa’s land and markets ~ is a no brainer. In-migration has grown concurrently with growth in the industrial, tourism, real estate and mining sectors. Migration of skilled and unskilled labour from low growth peripheral areas to high growth centres is basic economics. The co-relation is inevitable (high growth~high in-migration). How the State decides to go, is all the choice it has.
