From Crusade to Participation_Retrospective Goa

From Crusade to Participation: Retrospective the Goa Experience Dedicated to Shri Shyam Chainani, to whom we all owe so much! By Poonam Verma Mascarenhas October 2010, the10th anniversary of Goa Heritage Action Group (GHAG) coincided with my own two decades of professional life. As a co-founding member, I was struck to retrospect on the journey and milestones of the group visa-vi my own as a professional. It was the listing exercise of heritage buildings in six districts of Kerala that had ushered me into the world of traditionally built buildings. The prior decade was spent engaging with ‘sustainable environment’ and ‘energy efficient’ concepts while building with alternative technologies. The discovery of many an ‘efficient’ and ‘climate responsive’ constructions from yesteryears in the peninsular Kerala and Goa fuelled my spirit of enquiry and led me into the world of ‘conservation’ of historic buildings as a natural progression of my interest. While many a milestone of experiential learning, synthesis and emulation would sum up my professional journey sofar. However, the same was not felt by the GHAG group of its own journey. The mood on the eve of commemoration was somber filled with anxiety and for good reasons too. Fundamentally, GHAG came into being to pursue the Government of Goa to bring into the fold of protection- the unprotected built and natural heritage of Goa. GHAG took upon itself the task of listing the unprotected heritage of Goa and also presented to the Govt of Goa; evaluation and notification of the same and framing of the regulations remain a dream. Shyam Chainani of BEAG was our guiding force. Appreciation for the raising of awareness on the value of heritage- through three consecutive ‘Festival of Arts’ in Fountainhas is still an alive and appreciated memory. In the interim, the demolitions of heritage structures within the same area and others in Panjim city and throughout the coastal belt of Goa have instilled a feeling of exasperation awaiting reprieve. To add insult to the injury, the state archaeology came out with an amendment to the The Goa Daman and Diu Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1978. The three amendments raised concern and a press note was released by the group in end September 2010(excerptswww.goaheritage.in): A) ….. The act allows for "reconstruction "and "re-erection" of such monuments…..:GHAG concern: The seven degrees of interventions as accepted worldwide are : 1) Prevention of deterioration (indirect conservation); 2) Preservation of existing state; 3) Consolidation (or direct conservation); 4) Restoration; 5) Rehabilitation; 6) Reproduction; 7) Reconstruction. „Degree of Intervention‟ is a matter of conservation policy and specific to a site and should vary as per the value and significance of the site. Attempting to Legislate a part of a policy is beyond any acceptable norms. Thus, the specific amendment to the Goa Ancient Monuments act with focus on “reconstruction‟ and „re-erection‟ devoid of any mention of the detailed process that must be undertaken while developing the conservation plan raises major concern. One fails to understand the need for the specific amendment. B) It says that no Government officials, benefactors, consultants, etc can be tried in a court of law for any wrongdoing in such projects and the public has no right to interfere in such projects. GHAG concern: This means that there is no accountability and the people who are responsible for such projects are above the law. Moreover since the monuments are “public property”, citizens of the state definitely should have the right to ask questions and take legal action if improprieties are found. C) It comes into effect retrospectively from 2007. GHAG concern: What is the need for this? Is the government trying to protect wrongdoings in an existing project? Isn‟t this unconstitutional and undemocratic? One cannot have a law made today and say that it is applied in retrospect. While one awaits the Government’s response, a more important question is raised in my mind: with such a degree of fragmentation, is it a surprise that in general -the people have become suspicious of the government? Can the

people afford to sit back and relax in an attitude of faith that the public body constituted for caretaking of the ‘environment’ will discharge its duty faithfully? I use environment here in its all encompassing avatar: built, natural, cultural and inclusive of its all resources: natural and human. The interrelationship of various sectors that together impact our living environment fueled my interest in Regional Plan for Goa. The regional plan (RP) 2011 was delayed and got notified only in August 2006. It was in an architect’s office that the deciphering the land-use as stipulated in the document begun. The first step was to assign the land-use colour code to the survey number as mentioned in the RP. It was an exercise in mapping the land-use: Settlement, Orchard, Commercial 1, Commercial 2 etc. The resultant mapping made all involved see red! The marshes, forests (notified and private), mangroves and even the coastal lands which would be governed by CRZ- had been given settlement status in large chunks. With no substantial demographic shift in the state, one had to wonder at the logic of such a major alteration. It was indeed obvious that Goa Town and Country planning department had succumbed to a grand land scam scheme by the 40 peoples’ representative sitting in the secretariat! It took several meetings to decipher mapping of few select areas. Ring of professionals (architects, designers, graphic designers, lawyers, writers etc) increased with each meeting. And we all shared a nag: this can’t really be happening in this day and age of awareness of the planet threatened by the climate- change. Surely there must be professionals in the Govt working on the policies and they just can’t be so casual and not know the implications! Bracing the ‘revelation’, the self talk paved way to public meeting wherein leading members of all the NGO’s functioning in Goa numbering 500 plus were presented with the findings. Religious organizations, schools, and other institutional bodies were next contacted and appraised with the situation and all this awareness generating effort culminated into the rally of December 18th 2006, where thousands joined the demand for revoking the RP2011. Goa Bachao Abhiyan was thus born. What followed has been aptly summarized on GBA website and is reproduced here in part (http://savegoa.com/ ): “Due to the opposition of the people of Goa led by the GBA, the Government of Goa, then headed by Mr. Pratapsing Rane as CM, revoked the notified Regional Plan for Goa 2011 in February, 2007. The current Government of Goa set up a Task Force on RP 2021 first in October, 2007 and changed its terms of reference in February, 2008. A draft RP2021 was notified in October, 2008 and then State Level Committee was set up to finalize RP 2021 with inputs from village level committees. All the committees for RP 2021 have been headed ex-officio by the Chief Minister since October, 2007. When the draft RP2021 was sent to the villages, the people of Goa made the effort to study it and gave their suggestions and comments trough the Village Level Committee on RP 2021 and the Gram Sabha meetings across Goa hoping that the RP2021 will stop the destruction of Goa and the necessary legislative changes would be made to make a peoples‟ participatory plan legally binding on all. However, the RP2021 is yet to be completed and no changes have been made in the laws in force to provide for participatory planning. In the meantime the destruction continues. On the contrary, retrograde changes have been made in the Goa TCP Act, 1974 to provide for PPP vide amended Section 16 & 16 A and the administration has notified the Goa Land Development & Building Construction Regulations, 2010 in September to provide for 80 FAR across Goa when many villages have asked for a cap at 50 FAR.” Six years on- the people of Goa are feeling shortchanged. The milestones of this fallout are not often talked about. Within 6 months of constitution of the task force, two of the 3 representatives of GBA on the task-force found themselves marginalized and led to their stepping down. Apparently they were too ‘emotional’ about the issue of planning and environment and were vocal about ‘inclusive planning’ in the spirit of 73rd and 74th amendment to the constitution. (Both happen to be also the only women on the team!) The next pause point occurred when the celebrated and most respected planner of India (and also the only appointed planner amidst architects and engineers), resigned from the task force on moral grounds publicly announcing the reason being the non professionalism of the town planning department which had inserted clauses to the finalised and sealed draft of regional plan 2021! The remaining members on the task force admitted to the occurrence but continued to officiate arguing that to ‘change’ a system one needs to be in the system. Perhaps, it is time to retrospect while marching ahead. Regional plan is meant to be a policy document. The policy document is meant to be a vision document with management and growth of the ‘environment’ of the state as its

central objective. This document has two other components: the mapping and the projected land use plan. The projected land-use plan has to be provided by the local bodies: village-panchayats or municipal bodies as the case may be. The latest norms decree framing of land-use plan at the ward- level which in turn should emulate the policy as framed in RP. The draft RP- 2021 does have many a new headings: Eco sensitive Zones 1 and 2, being of great interest (for it not only mentions the nature as heritage but also views the built heritage as an important resource), while other policy thrusts are the agriculture policy, mining and tourism. One thus wants to understand that for framing of the policy document why were the experts like sociologists, economists, ecologists, agriculture scientists, scientists from the National institute of Oceanography etc ignored. Good intentioned as they may be, a majority of the task force ended up being architects. Thus the emerging scenario- wherein architects are entrusted with framing of policy document in itself became a limitation. The process remains ‘top- down’. Education and training background of the construction professionals in itself renders them ‘form’ oriented while a policy is matter of vision. An interdisciplinary team of experts complementing a process of planning by the effected people themselves is the basis for participatory planning! A process can not yield a desired result if flawed-however much well- meaning the experts may be. The mapping exercise as was done by the villagers of Parra provided me a valuable insight. The motivated villagers needed only some technical advice on the process of mapping and soon they had marked all the missing info on to their village plan. Then the projected land-use change was marked and aspirations discussed and consensus was reached on various aspects: FAR, widths of roads, commercial areas, institutional areas, protected areas, no development areas and so on and so forth. The exercise brought forward, that the impact of envisioned changes translated on the mapped reality- makes the ownership of the development- a very tangible experience. The key word is the ownership and in this scenario it translates into a collective responsibility. The peer pressure ensures the shift from ‘my plot’ to the well being of ‘my village’- a profound experience. Once again the vigilantes of Goa are gathering as they are strengthened in their knowledge of the amendments to the constitution which grants them the right to participate in planning policy for their future through the 73rd and 74th amendment. The tools for allowing the same within the power corridors will need to expedite as the existing system has reached its expiry date. Indeed the constitution of India mandates it a duty of every citizen to take care of its ‘heritage’. The question I ask now is how am I to discharge my duty when the very constitutional heads are not willing to join the ranks for ‘caretaking’ and nurturing of the resources rather than ‘exploiting’ them as commodity. To my mind it is the most awaited paradigm shift.

By Poonam Verma Mascarenahs(b. 1967) B.Arch M.A. Conservation (U.K.) About the author: Poonam Verma Mascarenhas is an architect, a conservationist and an environ-activist, with a keen interest in traditional architecture. She is engaged in unraveling and reviving the inherent wisdom of traditional building technology as she believes traditional buildings offer a generically green option. Her Goa-based, award winning firm Archinova_Environs (‘Best Green Building Project of the Year 2014’ at Worldwide Achievers Real-estate Awards,‘Best Luxury Property 2015’ at the Global Quality Awards forum and ‘Best Concept and Architecture Award for 2014-15’ at National Real Estate Awards, Delhi.) has climate and context-sensitive architecture as its corner stone. An architect and a post-graduate from University of York, U.K. in Conservation of Buildings , she has over 24 years of work experience in building with alternative technologies at Auroville, conservation and development of 22 government-owned heritage buildings at JaipurAmber and couple of privately owned palaces along with revival of several old houses at Goa. Poonam is the Hon Secretary and cofounding member of Goa Heritage Action Group. Her listing in six districts of Kerala was published as the ‘Kerala Heritage Guide’ in 2000 and she has researched and authored ‘Silent Sentinels, Traditional Architecture of Coorg’ in 2005.