I do not wish to comment on Everette’s point of retaining Dabolim only (letter titled ‘Capitalize on Parrikar’s sabbatical’ (Herald, 4 May), but would like to clarify the statement that ‘it can be resolved only through politics and not by apolitical forums of the clergy supported by Archbishop’s house’.
Firstly, we need to understand the difference between ‘Politics’ and ‘Political party politics’. Whether we like it or not, we are involved in ‘politics’ when we vote during elections. This is a political action that we take, because we are in fact determining who should govern us and who shouldn’t. On the other hand, ‘political party politics’, is the politics of a particular political party, which we may subscribe to or not. So even though one may not belong to or affiliated with any particular political party, we are involved in politics, . From what I understand, it is In this sense, the GFDO is an ‘apolitical party forum’, i.e. not affiliated to any political party, but it definitely is involved in politics, by telling the government what it should do about the Dabolim airport.
Secondly, history is full of examples where forums, movements, action groups, which are not affiliated to any political party, but have still been successful in achieving their respective goals, on the national level as well as locally. Just to give one local example. The Goenchea Ramponkarancho Ekvott (GRE). which is not affiliated to any political party. Yet it has achieved certain of its goals, such as reservation of a 5 km exclusive fishing zone for traditional fishermen and a fishing ban during the monsoons.
So the point that the airport issue can be resolved ‘not by apolitical forums’ is not quite correct. Mass based people’s movements, with no political party affiliations, can bring about change. It’s called ‘people’s politics’.
Reggie Gomes, Santa Cruz
