Administrative Negativism Hampering Development

by NANDKUMAR KAMAT
Posted on 2008-10-06
CONSIDERING its' violent geological history, evident ecological fragility, small geographical size, high population density and a record urban population, Goa should have understood its’ limited carrying capacity before blindly following the models of macroeconomic development which have failed elsewhere. Governments that ruled Goa since 1963 could not really spell out their ideas of development with transparency, clarity, objectivity, precision and commitment. The 1964 techno-economic survey by NCAER for Goa, Daman and Diu was an excellent, complete and professional effort but it failed short of any rationale behind the recommended development.
Detailed sectoral reports from the central town-planning organisation, administrative staff college, Hyderabad followed. The turning point was the 1982 report of the task force on the eco-development of Goa by Dr M S Swaminathan commissioned by the Planning Commission, Government of India probably because the experts had already sensed that Goa would soon reach a limit in spatial and surface development. It was a sincere and honest effort to steer Goa in a positive direction by weaving a neat fabric of economic compulsions and ecological concerns.The first regional plan of Goa notified in 1989 had incorporated some of the ideas from the Swaminathan task force. After 1991, the period of chronic political instability began and the recommendations of the regional plan were suspended. Massive land use changes from 1991-2 to 2005-06 pumped in immense capital in Goa’s economy and created a politically powerful class, which was not really interested in any ideas of economically, ecologically or socially sustainable development. Goa has to follow the broad parameters of national land use policy, which takes care of all stakeholders.
A caring ex-chief secretary, himself a geophysicist turned civil servant, Dr G C Shrivastva was sincerely attempting ‘damage control’ during 1994-6. During his tenure he saw to it that complete mapping of soil resources of Goa was done. The soil atlas of Goa, 1995 is a crucial technical document, which has been now dumped in the dustbins of agriculture and revenue departments because of administrative negativism. The soil map is connected to cropping pattern and the cropping pattern decides the fate of agriculture. The town and country-planning department built a façade of seriousness in 1986-89. It wished for more powers, facilities and personnel. But it compounded the administrative negativism of revenue and agriculture departments by completely diluting and compromising its’ mandate after getting the funds.
A concrete and verifiable example of shocking inter-departmental administrative negativism is the abrupt winding up of the Goa State Land Use Board and the State Land Resource Management Committee headed by the development commissioner. Both these organs created during the 8th five-year plan period (1992-97) were systematically paralysed and exploited only to build some assets and employ some people. There was no benefit to the public, the economy, the industries or the society at large.
We need to contrast the administrative intentions of chapter IX of Regional plan (1986-2001) detail proposal with the five year plan proposals (1997-2002, pp 274-284) made by the town and country-planning department. Even the task force under the CM has not dared to ask these questions – why the State Land Use Board could not perform its’ duties? What are the implications of its’ failure across the economic sectors? There would not have been a single concrete monstrosity or infrastructurally unsustainable mega project if the SLUB and SLRMC were to be active and produce results. But the department indulged in purely academic activities.
The Goa state pollution control board with a powerful statutory mandate followed the same drifting trajectory because of administrative negativism as dictated by the political remote controllers. The life and security of the people of Cuncolim is threatened today because of a mountain of hazardous metallic waste and irreversible contamination of the groundwater by arsenic – a highly toxic element. Was this GSPCB’s idea of ‘environmentally sustainable development’? Now contrast the report of arsenic in groundwater with the original idea of locating only eco-friendly and rural artisan industries at Cuncolim industrial estate as originally proposed in the regional plan 2001.
Under which developmental model did heavy metallurgical industries enter the CIE? Was this a positive or negative approach? There is still no independent public audit of the total failure of mandate of the GSPCB. If and when it is done numerous instances of administrative negativism would be discovered. Would not such failure of highly powered state organs infuriate the common people? Incompatible ideas of development have harmed Goa. As the Justice Rege Commission appointed to investigate the collapse of the Mandovi Bridge, had pointed out, the design of an untested pre-stressed cantilever bridge was thrust on Goa’s PWD in the 70s. The tragedy of the premature collapse of the old Mandovi Bridge is well known. The Portuguese had fully understood the drainage profile of the state and never encouraged closed RCC drains. But suddenly every pubic project after liberation witnessed closed drains, large RCC pipes instead of open culverts. People used to plead with authorities to build open drains and culverts. Their voices were not heard. Today, the drainage profile of Goa from North to South and East to West is in a total mess. The best example of havoc caused by forcing tidal water through RCC pipes could be seen in the Mapusa River, which is slowly dying.
The government would not connect faulty drainage profile to stagnation of water and spurt in mosquito-borne diseases. The Mandovi Bridge fiasco was followed by imposition of an architectural design complex of the buildings of Goa University absolutely inappropriate for the terrain and climate – both structurally and functionally. Was this an appropriate model of infrastructure development? The government had then (1996-93) bulldozed all the public criticism against the faulty designs.
A similar fate awaits the pedestrian underground passage under construction near Goa Medical College. The vast cavernous tunnel needs to be kept dry during the monsoon. But the design shows that no thought has been given to the possibility of flooding and water stagnation making this facility useless for pedestrians. It is partly the self-righteous attitude of those in the administration, which builds negativism. The government needs to see people as partners, catalysts, collaborators and display a positive attitude. Goans have inherited a rich administrative culture. Sustainability was an inbuilt sacred principle. People understood the maximum carrying capacity of the ecosystems. That’s why despite having the capital, labour and technology the communidades did not undertake mega projects. Goa’s development indicators show that tripling of state domestic product and sustained wealth generation would not have been possible without a positive attitude of the people. A radical change is now actually needed to neutralise the culture of administrative negativism.