Do they get an ordinance too?
When a five star hotel was ordered to demolish a significant part of its structure a few years ago, the state government intervened swiftly. Within days, it had drafted and passed an ordinance with retrospective effect going back over 40 years, to pre-empt the impending demolition. Faced with unprecedented flak, the government had then justified its action saying that it saved 600 jobs, which could have been lost if the demolition had gone ahead.
A recent High Court judgment has ordered the Mormugao Municipal Corporation (MMC) to demolish 330 houses in Vasco’s Khariwaddo by 15 February. On Thursday, residents of Khariwaddo held a public meeting to voice their protest as well as to debate the best course of action to take. Councillors of the Vasco municipality as well as other local leaders spoke at this meeting.
Most of them pointed out – quite correctly – that locals had been carrying out fishing activities in the area since generations, and their rights could not simply be wished away merely because the Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) needs the area for its expansion plans. Others revealed that the issue dated back to 1998, when the MPT first identified 194 homes to be demolished for its expansion, but that the port authority had, in the same year, signed an MoU with the government and leaders of the fishing community that their homes would not be demolished until a full-fledged alternative fishing jetty was built.
In situations like these, justifications are all very fine, but what is of essence is action. What should the residents of Khariwaddo do now? Some spouted the usual platitudes, asking the residents to “stand together” against the High Court order (Exactly how does one do this?). Others were more practical, urging residents to join together and appeal the judgment. Still others were against a common legal strategy, saying that all the threatened homes should go for stay orders, individually but simultaneously.
But it was one particular Councillor that said the government should intervene with an ordinance, exactly the way it did when the Supreme Court ordered the demolition of part of a five star hotel. This, she said, would save both livelihoods as well as houses.
She is right. If 600 jobs were at stake in the proposed demolition of part of the five star hotel, how much more is at risk – in terms of both livelihoods and residences – if 330 homes of fisherfolk are demolished at Khariwaddo? Over 2,000 people will be out on the streets, and their earning members will be unable to continue with their traditional occupations.
These people are no less ‘aam admi’ than those who allegedly stood to lose their jobs if part of that five star hotel came down. They are being offered ‘alternative accommodation’ at a place where it is highly difficult, if not impossible, to continue with traditional fishing. The alternative jetty that was to be built for them at Katem Baina has not even begun construction.
So is Goa’s ‘aam admi’ government going to give them an ordinance too?
High time
They posed to be ‘high security’ but were only ‘high priced’. And it was ‘high time’ that the government scrapped the contract with Delhi-based firm Shimnit Utsch for the so-called ‘high security’ registration plates, which seemed more scam than security measure.
The authorities should first find out why countries in Europe as well as the UK, Canada and the United States, which have the maximum number of cars, find these systems completely unnecessary.
