There has been a controversy raging over heritage Conservation and specifically the legitimacy or even the motives of the Goa Heritage Action Group headed by Heta Pandit. At the centre of the controversy is the old Goa Medical College complex whose status as a heritage structure has been threatened following the decision to make the complex a major venue of the proposed International Film Festival of India. The controversy acquired a new twist with the vandalisation of street names and even the plaques of private houses in Fontainhas. We bring you a debate raging on the internet on various dimensions of heritage conservation

IN THE INTEREST of taking issues to a larger audience (there’s a heated debate currently on the Internet and amongst readers ever since the article on GMC’s conservation de-notification made news), we have decided to take the debate, making waves on the Internet, to readers by presenting their various viewpoints (for want of space we can’t include more cybervoices). Irrespective of whether we agree to disagree, we’ve always maintained bouquets and brickbats encourage healthy journalism and viewpoints indicate the direction of a society.

I am neither a friend nor an acquaintance of Heta Pandit. We acknowledge each other’s existence in our respective fields, so, this is not about ‘a’ person. This is not a Goan/Non-Goan issue. It is not about who likes Ms Pandit or not. It is not about her friends or enemies. It is not about whether she is arrogant or not. Though I know instances where senior members of the Press have been threatened by Ms Pandit, following a critical report, by issuing complaints against the correspondent (s) to the Press Council or complaining to their out-station editors. Not very nice. I also believe the executive committee of GHAG has decided to “withhold” the Fontainhas Festival of the Arts 2005 due to “inadequacy of logistical support from both within the organisation as well as outside,” so let’s stop blaming the so-called freedom fighters. However, these are not our issues (if members of GHAG think otherwise, too bad for them).

It is about transparency into an NGO operating as a ‘watch-dog’ of heritage. They called themselves so, we didn’t. It is about an NGO which enlists public support, funding and support of other groups which hence makes them accountable to the public. It is about an NGO that enlists the financial support of the government for heritage preservation, so they deserve to be transparent. Likewise, someone suggested a request be made for the GHAG’s audit report, since they are a registered body. Questions have been flying, but let’s stay focused here. Because this is also about making sure that other NGOs understand they have to be open to questions from the public.
Following the article (GOAN OBSERVER/June 13), the debate so far (with permission of the participants):
Writer Cecil Pinto wanted to know how much was spent on ‘publicity’ by the GHAG, as compared to actual activities.
Joint Secretary Rajiv D’Silva replies on behalf of the GHAG
Writer, activist and novelist Margaret Mascarenhas gives her take.

Designer Wendell Rodricks has a say: “Before I say anything and especially denounce a group of persons, I would like to see all the pros and cons. While I do agree that many so-called social workers use their work as a calling card for society and to gain other commercial work, I do believe that there are quite a few honest, hardworking people at GHAG. For this reason alone, it would be unfair to bash the entire organisation. After the accusations, GHAG deserves a fair chance to explain themselves. Also, I see no problem in an organisation spending money on image building. It is their funds and entirely their prerogative as to how their funds are spent. WE the public cannot play the role of judgement. There are courts of law to do that. Meanwhile, let GHAG explain themselves.”

Lethal Ethyl:
“…not a single so-called heritage activist has protested against the de-notification of Goa’s most precious and Asia’s first ever Medical College at Campal for being knocked off the conservation list /zone and turning it into a cheap commercial house.”

Rajiv replies:
* March 2001 - The GHAG first writes to the government regarding the GMC complex when the proposal to build the new market complex came to light, and there was an apprehension that part of the GMC complex may be torn down to provide parking facilities.
* August 2002 – The government issues a notification changing the status of the GMC complex from Conservation Institutional to Commercial. This is ostensibly so that the complex can host components of the IFFI.
* The GHAG immediately writes to the government making its objections clear and suggesting that if a change is desired, it be made to Conservation Commercial, which would allow for its use for the IFFI while still keeping its conservation status. As a matter of policy, we support the idea of adaptive re-use; it has been found the world over to be an excellent method to conserve heritage buildings.
* Sometime later, the government invites the GHAG to a meeting where it assures us that the buildings of value would not be touched, but that the newer ancillary buildings would be demolished, so would we kindly mark out which was heritage and which was not? Which we then proceeded to do, and the buildings that still stand today are the ones that the GHAG marked out as ‘heritage’. Of course, if anybody thinks that the ugly government office buildings that were demolished were also of heritage value, then that’s another matter.
The subtext to this issue is that not many people realize that merely being in the conservation zone is no guarantee against the demolition of a heritage structure. Our present conservation regulations have no teeth and do permit demolition. One only has to look at the Holy Spirit Church Square in Margao to realize this. What really ensures the continued survival of a heritage building is its revalidation as a living structure in the present.

We now know that a conservation architect of international renown, Vikas Dilawari of Bombay has been appointed to plan the restoration and adaptivere-use of the GMC buildings. For me, this is good enough. Take this with a pinch of salt if you will, but the GMC building is safer today than it has ever been in the recent past. Be that as it may, we are still working behind the scenes to get the GMC buildings notified as Conservation Commercial, a fact that has not come out in the media probably because we have never been good media managers, which we now realize we may have to become.

Update:
* Following criticism on their silence, some members within the GHAG have recently vociferously voiced that a determined stand be taken to get the GMC notified as Conservation Commercial to the Govt’s previous Commercial Institutional to Commercial.
Lethal Ethyl:
“The GHAG `working with the government’

Rajiv replies:
There is a broader logic at work behind our policy of working in partnership with the government whenever possible. We know that saving one or two buildings here and there only amounts to winning small battles, nay, skirmishes. The big picture is that our state has some wonderful heritage sites, both natural and man-made, and we need broad, effective laws and a comprehensive list to back it up for there to be any hope of saving whatever is left of our heritage. This, as mentioned earlier, requires enormous political will on the part of the government, and would be impossible to achieve if we were seen as inimical to the government. Our brand of activism has never been one of confrontation and street tamashas, and we are prepared to concede a few small battles to win the war.
Nevertheless, ‘working with the government’ is a case-by-case policy, and we have opposed the government on many occasions in the past, notably in the case of the de-notification of the Massano De Armorim buildings, which was eventually reverted to its original status due to pressure from us.

Margaret comments:
I agree mostly with all the previous points, but, sorry, this one is simply a bold faced lie. And although I have kept my mouth shut previously, thinking it was best in the interest of the larger conservation picture, I have now changed my mind. I have changed my mind, because increasingly, I see GHAG as not representing the public interest as much as its own, or rather as representing Heta Pandit; as an organisation that routinely manipulates other activists and member of the art community indiscriminately towards its own ends which are never clearly spelt out at the beginning; as not being transparent to the public, nor to those whose help it solicits; as not providing any support to other conservationists due to its fear of taking any strong stand on conservation vis-a-vis the government; and yet, as seeing Heritage as its own unique preserve. And here I am in full agreement with Ethel.
With regard to Massano de Amorim: I was personally asked by Heta to coordinate an activist movement to oppose both the weird and ridiculous proposal by the then Municipality to redesign the Municipal Garden, as well as the demolition of the Massano de Amorim buildings. I had, she indicated full authority to proceed as she would be out of town for some time, and as the Garden and Massano de Amorim issues were of great urgency. Accordingly, I put together a think tank consisting of concerned citizens and NGO reps from Goa Foundation, Goadesc, GHAG, the Saligao consumer forum and others.
We came with a two fold plan: 1) to stage a music festival at the garden to show how it can be publicly utilised as a community event centre on World Heritage Day; 2) to publicly promote, in between sets, the issue of the Massano de Amorim buildings. I solicited musicians, who agreed to play free to the cause I had laid out as above; I contacted light and sound people to donate what was required, which they did; I contacted citizens and journalists to participate in the event. Heta was in fact out of town during the preliminary discussions, represented in the meetings by her first Lieutenant, Raya Shankhwalker, GHAG’s only real job was to obtain permission from the Municipality for the event, which they did. Heta Pandit only appeared for the last meeting, at which point she fully endorsed all that we had done. But here is what transpired subsequently:
The morning of the event itself, Heta met with me and summarily informed me in what has become her trademark autocratic Queen of Sheba mode that she had invited Mr Parrikar to attend the event and therefore GHAG would not speak on conservation issues, nor, indeed, on anything at all, and (here’s the real zinger) neither would she “permit” anyone else to speak. As though Goan heritage belongs to GHAG exclusively, we would, she had “decided,” simply use the event as a “celebration of World Heritage”. I argued, you can bet your booties, but, as Heta Pandit well knew, it was too late for me to call off all the musicians, NGO reps, journalists, etc—basically hundreds of people who were donating their time, talent, efforts, attendance on my word that this was going to be what I had said it was.
In view of the gag order, and in view of the fact that we (I) had stupidly suggested GHAG obtain the Municipal permissions, on the eve of the event, I and other NGO reps, concerned citizens did not speak on the microphone about any Goan conservation issues, but we did move through the crowds informing people on the issues. When the Chief Minister, Mr Parrikar, who had earlier indicated that he wished to appear incognito, and unofficially, arrived, I have to say I was physically sickened by the sycophantic manner in which Heta Pandit stuck by his side during the entire period of his attendance. If the Garden and the Massano de Amorim issues were taken into account by the Parrikar Governmenmt, it was not due to the non-efforts of GHAG but because Parrikar is a man of extraordinary intelligence with eyes and ears everywhere, and was fully aware that the large public turn-out for this event, comprised of people from all over the state, was a verdict on both issues.
Ethel at that time raised the issue in print that the event was certainly not what she had been given to understand it should be, and I admit, I played it down, at Heta Pandit’s explicit request, and, as I mentioned above, because I thought it would interfere with the cause of conservation in general. However, were I to publish the entire history of my correspondence with Heta regarding this event and its fallout, in which her unbelievable arrogance is readily apparent, I believe even the earnest Rajiv D’ Silva would have to rethink his POV. From my own POV, there WAS no pressure from GHAG, and that was precisely the problem.
Lethal Ethyl:
“…the GHAG has made huge monies, for sure.”

Rajiv replies:
This is the allegation that pains me the most. I assume that Ethel’s allegation is that the members are personally making money, for there is surely nothing wrong with an NGO trying to build up its corpus? We are an NGO, governed by strict rules and regulations, and our accounts are open to anybody who is interested. I believe it reflects the state of our society when nobody can believe that a bunch of people can get together and work together just for its stated aim to promote the cause of heritage in Goa.
All I can say is that we put in our time, effort and money, into something that we believe in, and we sometimes find it amusing when we hear these ‘money-making’ allegations. Ironically, the facts are just the opposite.
Despite all the so-called publicity it is still as difficult as ever to generate funds for our activities we are still effectively running on large, generous loans from a couple of our members which we are yet to repay. Forget about making money, we haven’t even broken even yet.

Margaret comments:
Perhaps it would help for GHAG to be more transparent on how it uses the money it receives. As for working “together”, here’s the test: let any member of GHAG express an opinion in strong opposition to Heta Pandit’s and see how long the togetherness lasts. For anyone who doesn’t get this yet, GHAG is Heta Pandit, and its members, in my opinion, are yes-men/women, not thinkers or decision makers.
Cecil Pinto questions the figures involved in the Tonca Pillar Restoration:
Rajiv replies:
For the restoration:
Dismantling, shifting and rebuilding of the Pillar - Rs. 75,000. (As far as we know; the contractor was paid directly by the CCP) Site studies, measured drawings, working drawings etc. Rs. 10,000. This was paid partly to two young architecture students, who carried out the work, and partly for material costs involved in generating drawings and documentation. Architects from within the GHAG on a voluntary basis carried out co-ordination, planning and supervision.

For the inauguration:
Publicity material like invites, posters etc. Rs. 9,000.
Envelopes for the invites were donated by a well wisher of the group. One of the members of the GHAG paid for the courier charges for the invites, amounting to Rs. 5,500.
Press ad Rs. 6,700..
Ghode-Modni Dance troupe Rs. 2000.
Lighting arrangements Rs. 1500.
Sound and projection system for the audio-visual presentation Rs. 5000.
Snacks and refreshments were donated by a city restaurant.
Chairs and other arrangements were made by the CCP.
Margaret comments:
Thanks for the info Rajiv, it truly does make a difference. And, I agree, publicity is not really the issue. After all, Ethel herself received considerable personal publicity for all her activist events. So what, if the larger purpose is achieved? But I strongly suggest that if GHAG wants to receive public endorsement for its work, it should reconsider its frequently autocratic stance.

Back