The contentious Unity Mall project in Chimbel took center stage in the ongoing Assembly session. The fact that concerns were raised by Santa Cruz MLA Rudolf Fernandes and St Andre MLA Viresh Borkar amplifies the political weight this issue carries. The discussion exposed the underlying tensions between development, environmental preservation, and the rights of local communities. Legislators in the Opposition stood up in the House to express concerns about the project threatening the sensitive ecological area, especially the heritage Toyyar Lake, even as people continued their chain hunger strike at Chimbel.
Tourism Minister Rohan Khaunte, in his response, outlined the safeguards taken towards the project, stressing that the Mall falls outside the notified wetland conservation zone and that all statutory clearances have been obtained. The Minister questioned how residential projects have been allowed closer to the lake. He mentioned that the project is part of the national ‘Make in India’ and ‘one district–one product’ initiatives and called it a patriotic and economic development effort, promising employment for local youth and regional benefits.
However, this seemingly reassuring narrative glosses over several uncomfortable truths. Firstly, the project may be outside the buffer zone, but there are still concerns of such a project impacting resources of the area, let aside ecological threats. Allowing past projects cannot be a reason to accept more. The protests are rooted in fears of ecological degradation and loss of livelihoods, and suggest that the community perceives the project as a threat to their environment and identity.
Khaunte’s emphasis that private projects already occupy the area might be an attempt to counter the concerns, but it also sidesteps the fundamental issue of taking the consent of villagers, even if the land does not belong to them. Locals are guardians of villages, and they take the onus of protecting the environment of the area they belong to. We have seen this across Goa, and which is why big government projects like the IIT had to keep shifting venues after local protests, even when the land was not theirs.
Moreover, when it comes to the environment and ecology, no rosy picture or job promises will help. Khaunte’s pitch of employment generation and creating a market for local produce, besides bringing a feel of India to the Unity Mall, may be sincere, but does not sound convincing at this stage, given the distrust that has built up. Also, the impressive speech of the minister was peppered with jibes that was uncalled for. For example, the minister referred to the protesting locals as a group of “around a hundred people”. Another reference was made that it was not a hunger strike, but a “chain hunger strike”.
Minister Khaunte’s assurances, while technically well grounded, do not fully address the community’s fears or the potential of long-term environmental costs. The government must move beyond regulatory compliance and foster inclusive dialogue that prioritises local voices. After all, the government has been constantly talking about inclusive development.
Chief Minister Pramod Sawant’s calling for a meeting with protesting locals is a welcome step and indicates a willingness to listen; however, the effectiveness of such engagement remains uncertain, given the confidence with which the government is pushing the project. The larger question remains: should economic development take precedence over environmental conservation and local concerns?
