The despair about the Goa CZMP 2019 refuses to abate. It is found that several seaside/riverfront heritage structures, as the popular Ponte de Linhares, forts and churches have been largely ignored. The CRZ 1991, under Section 6(i) (i) categorises historical and heritage areas as CRZ I, thus guaranteeing protection by law. Later, the CRZ 2011, through Section 4(ii) (i) again confirmed that (a) buildings of archaeological and historical importance, and (b) heritage buildings for the purposes of worship, as CRZ I (see section 7(k). In the recently proposed CRZ 2019, Section 2.1.1(xi) (xi) again classifies heritage sites as CRZ I. The sub-section 1.10 states (i) State archaeological agencies shall be responsible for conservation and protection of all archaeological and heritage sites; (ii) No activities that are detrimental to structures of archaeological and heritage value shall be permitted; (iii) It shall be ensured that these structures are preserved, and activities undertaken without changing the architectural design of the structure. Further, the draft CZMP 2019 also considers archeologically important heritage sites in Chapter 2(h). However, the CZMP has missed several ancient structures, edifices, particularly churches, and does not offer any recommendations for their preservation.
The following heritage complexes need urgent attention:
(1) Linhares causeway and other iconic heritage structures: The historic roadway is located in an intricate mangrove lagoon network, and hence an undisputedly CRZ I zone. The Ribandar causeway has been acclaimed as an engineering wonder of yesteryears. The causeway comprises a low bridge, 2.6 km long with 40 pillars, built with large laterite blocks, and reinforced with wooden beams. The passages under the 40 archways are now blocked due to siltation. Historians have described the precarious condition of the causeway, and therefore, the fate of this heritage structure is at stake. The miniature bridges at Patto and Siridao located in saline environments also date back centuries and do have heritage value. The landmark Adil Shah palace that housed the secretariat for decades, as also the series of old houses along the Mandovi river front, are all located within the CRZ limits. More importantly, at Sinquerim, a remarkable moat runs more than 1 km, from the beach up to the village road and beyond. The channel is about 20 m wide with retaining walls around 8 m high, dressed in large laterite blocks. This moat/creek links the sea with the river inland and gets converted into a saline water body. Such man-made assets have rarely found mention in heritage circles, but need to be preserved. Also, the ancient remnant port of Gopakapatnam is simply forgotten. Similarly, the ‘Rajvidhi’, the carriageway that originates in Old Goa and terminates at the ancient port at Siridao does qualify as a heritage asset. Most of the assets are in various stages of ruin, and need to be revived as conservation areas.
(2) Forts atop cliffs: Majority of the forts are identified on rocky cliff edges. In the CZMP, Tiracol and Chapora forts are shown, but not the entire property that is bounded by thick stone frontlines that almost touch the water line (HTL), as in Chapora; the walled structures at Sinquerim as the gun point are not given importance; only a part of Aguada citadel is shown, and the surrounding fort wall is missing; fort of Reis Magos is indeed considered; ancient structures atop Vasco headland do not appear; but surprisingly, the grand Cabo Palace does not feature as a heritage site; Cabo de Rama bastion is, however, prominently marked. All these are heritage campuses that need to be marked on the map. Considering the value of these coastal assets in terms of heritage tourism, it is found that appropriate conservation or restoration policies are lacking. The Ancient Monuments Act of ASI is in force for nearly 50 years, but not much headway is made in restoring ancient forts to their former glory. In view of the above, it appears that the existing instruments are found deficient in the wake of heritage conservation. Although CRZ 1991, 2011 and 2019 guarantee protection, India does not have a coastal (man-made) heritage conservation policy in view of the fact that the sea front forts are in various stages of degradation and some in ruins. Hence, new regulations have to be formulated, or existing strategies may need a revamp.
(3) Churches in CRZ: Ancient religious edifices are prominent all over Goa, including near shore areas. The church at Sinquerim is located atop a cliff, around 100 m from the water line. Churches at Penha de Franca and Ribandar are found along the opposite banks of the Mandovi. The one at Moira has a mangrove lagoon adjacent to it. At the Old Goa complex, the Se Cathedral falls outside CRZ, but these heritage churches are secured by the ASI. The Rachol church is situated some 60 m from the bank, and the one at Sancoale about 80 m away. In comparison, the younger churches at Agonda and Galgibaga are found along the open sea front, behind the frontal dune. The CRZ rules are clear that heritage buildings hitherto used for worship call for protection. The CZMP appears silent on this aspect.
Man-made bygone legacy found in the form of ancient iconic bridges, walled structures, majestic forts and imposing churches all over Goa are a patrimony of valuable assets created by our ancestors who obviously toiled for their upkeep. These structures have withstood the test of time. A policy for the conservation and restoration of man-made coastal heritage is lacking. The ASI has some strange guidelines for heritage preservation; some forts are heritage sites, some belong to government, and some are privatized. Conservation of ancient churches appears a different story altogether. Therefore, as commanded by the CRZ guidelines, the CZMP ought to consider the heritage value of such inheritance and propose measures for their restoration and conservation for posterity.
(The writer is a former Scientist, NIO, Goa)
