The acronym NIMBY (Not in my Backyard) appears to have been especially coined for Goa. And the supporters of the NIMBY movement appear to have scored a victory when the Chief Minister, Manohar Parrikar, with a touch of frustration, announced in principle that the IIT project would be shifted from Canacona and is likely to head towards the Ponda taluka, a decision which would be frozen and officially notified sometime in July.
It is interesting though that a project as significant as the IIT, is being shifted, purely based on people’s protests. If that is the yardstick, then the Leading Hotels projects in Tiracol and the Vani Agro beer and spirits factory project in Sanguem should have been blocked since there are far more genuine reasons for these projects not to happen than the IIT.
Therefore while there cannot be a blanket condemnation of the NIMBY principle, opposition to projects needs to be dealt with on a case to case basis with the genuineness of facts, and not the compulsions of politics, deciding the responses to opposition.
In the village of Loliem and the taluka of Canacona, the opposition to the IIT project has been massive and intense. At the same time there were strong voices of credibility who wanted the taluka to transform due to the IIT project, in the face of environmental reasons, to oppose it, by the anti lobby, along these lines :
a) The Plateau is sacred land and cannot be diverted from traditional uses b) The land is on a plateau and the plateau will get destroyed.
Herald has argued, with absolute respect to those opposing IIT that, these concerns need to be established beyond doubt and not used as a tool to merely block the project. However if traditional land use – which is still in practice – is going to get affected and evidence shown, the cause for opposition gets stronger, but this can’t be a conclusion yet.
Secondly, the argument against building institutions on plateaus needs to be evaluated against the backdrop of several of Goa’s best educational institutions built on plateaus – the GEC in Farmagudi, the Goa University and BITS Pilani campus in Sancoale.
The big question is this. Shouldn’t a decision to move the IIT away from Loliem been taken with a little more thought. Shouldn’t the cons against the project be evaluated and the studies ad reports being undertaken by the technical education department be examined first?
However there’s is a flip side to this. There is one argument that just doesn’t cut ice – that Goa does not need an IIT at all. That is too sweeping an assumption. Therefore if an IIT in Goa, per se, is needed, then it is natural that it will move away from an area of opposition and conflict and move to an area where it will be welcomed with least resistance.
This isn’t by any stretch an argument that all projects should be allowed to come irrespective of the environment and local consequences. But an opposition space here does exists and local movements are the only way a government can have checks and balances without unloading projects that will do harm locally. At the same time, this also cannot be an argument in favour of opposing each and every project due to the NIMBY factor.
It is no case to say that manufacturing projects which are employment friendly, educational and IT projects coupled with activities which are suited to Goa’s skyline and environment like food processing, agriculture, backwater tourism, fisheries dependent, should be blocked by the NIMBY movement.
Ultimately when a decision to move the IIT from Loliem in Canacona, is inked, people across both sides of the argument should agree that that the reasons not to have it on the Bhagwati plateau were strong and proven. Or else, the decision will look to have been taken simply to avoid noise, disturbances and protests. That will set off a very unfortunate trend and legitimise NIMBY as an acceptable policy.
And that will be Goa’s loss, cutting across both pro and anti-groups.
