The findings by the Supreme Court-appointed inspection team, as reported in the Sunday edition of this newspaper, indicates that the controversial bungalow at the Old Goa heritage site was, in fact, constructed, not repaired, as maintained earlier by heritage activists and locals. While the inspection team’s findings align with the fears raised by people, they have exposed a glaring failure of State authorities in safeguarding Goa’s UNESCO World Heritage sites.
The observation that the structure was raised through demolition despite restrictions highlights systemic lapses that stand in stark contrast to the discourse of heritage preservation. At the core of this issue lies a glaring contradiction: the explicit directives issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Supreme Court’s own orders have been blatantly disregarded. It may be noted that the ASI had maintained that no new construction, either horizontal or vertical, can be permitted within the protected zone encompassing the Church of St Cajetan and the Arch of the Viceroy. There was a rider that restricted the repair work of any existing structure without any expansion.
The inspection report has now found that the existing structure -- a dilapidated hut measuring approximately less than 75 square metres, has been demolished to make way for a palatial bungalow. What we see now is a ground-plus-one concrete structure with the base floor having six rooms. This points to either a connivance of authorities or a complete systemic failure.
How does one explain the chain of events that led to such a development? Since the structure comes within the purview of the heritage zone, there is an additional layer of oversight with ASI’s role coming into focus. There is also the involvement of the local panchayat and the Town and Country Planning Department. The report notes discrepancies such as the absence of photographs of the original house when seeking permissions and the approval of plans that did not match documented heritage records. Does this mean that authorities purely went by the submissions? Were licences granted without authenticating or conducting site inspections?
Another surprising aspect is the inaction of enforcement authorities despite establishing the fact that there was a violation. While the government machinery has shown extraordinary zeal in “specific” demolitions elsewhere, executing them in “surgical” precision, it has failed to show similar intent in the Old Goa case, giving the owners a long rope. It reflects poorly on the pledge to protect heritage sites. Such developments diminish public trust in departments that are tasked with protecting and preserving Goa’s heritage.
Heritage laws are designed to protect sites from encroachment, unauthorised demolitions, and inappropriate development. Sites like Old Goa are not just minority-linked landmarks and tourist attractions; they are tangible links to history and form a crucial part of Goa’s identity. This heritage does not belong to the minorities of Goa, but to the people of Goa as a whole. A failure of the system only means that the authorities have lost sight of heritage and compromised over short-term gains.
The State cabinet had approved the State Heritage Policy 2025 in June last year with the aim of identifying, protecting, and restoring the state's diverse cultural, natural, and archaeological heritage over the next five years. The policy covered monument protection and intangible culture, among other points. Has the spirit of this policy prevailed? Or is lip-service being paid to heritage conservation? The breach of heritage laws and the systemic failure that has been on display do not bode well for the State.
