Is the Right to Livelihood a Right to Nuisance? - Soter D'Souza

The arrogance in the mining belt has now turned into tears for some. Arrogance was so glaring that no truck driver was bothered about who goes under their wheels or how much dust was raised as they sped to corner as many trips as possible. No one cared for human life. It was only about how one could cash in on the mining boom and get rich quicker. As usual, the mining lords were perceived to be so powerful that those who chose to depend on them believed that nothing could ever happen to any clandestine activities. And just a day after the Chief Minister of Goa claimed that none of his MLAs were into mining, a bunch of four emerge pleading for restarting the mining activity. In criminal law, it is not only those who commit the crime that are guilty but also those who provide any sort of abatement to the crime. So those who offered their services for illegal mining, irrespective of the fact that they were only earning their livelihoods, are equally culpable of the offences of violating the mining laws. For those few ordinary people that struggled to secure their 'Right to Life', this is a moment to smile, if not permanently at least temporarily. The frustration of the mining mafia that sees its prospects of making a quick buck diminishing by the day is now resorting to hooliganism. A group of journalists were held hostage for around two hours when they went on a field trip as part of a training workshop on environment. Desperation is now hampering reason. Those who are seeking public sympathy for their loss in livelihoods arising from the stopping of mining operations in Goa could well be expected to act in a manner that would ultimately do no good to their cause. There is little doubt that some mining barons could be behind instigating such public display of anger in the hope that the humanitarian aspect could become a cause for the Government's lenient view on mining activities in the hinterland. What is very interesting is that no sooner the laws get enforced against any illegal activity the sob story about job losses or living on the roads takes centre stage. One such instance was when there was a Government response to the public outcry to ban the casino activity in Goa. Some two thousand employees claimed to be working in the casinos were paraded on the streets of the capital and possibly a sizeable section of the crowd may have also been hired for the occasion. The same tactic was repeated by the truck owners and barge owners in the mining business about a year ago, when they marched through the streets warning the government of dire consequences if mining was stopped. A similar flexing of muscles is witnessed in the tourism sector no sooner some steps are taken to streamline the industry. This is the modus operandi of Goa's mafia that always first encourages the locals to abandon their traditional livelihood options and lure them into a lucrative trade and fuel greed. No sooner the industry comes under cross-fire for violations, it is these dependents on the activity who are used as shields. In all these illegalities, there emerges a reasoning that is quite disgusting. Though not expressed in so many words, it is as if the right to someone's livelihood is more supreme than another’s right to life. For a few to make a quick buck it becomes acceptable to the Government that nuisance is created to the others around who do not have any stakes in that commercial activity. It would not be surprising if someone was told by those in mining that if your house is affected by dust then close your windows. Or, if some retired senior citizen living in a coastal village complains to the authorities about loud music beyond the permissible limits at night, she will be politely approached to vacate her house during the tourism season by offering to accommodate her in a resort. So someone's right to livelihood becomes a license to violate laws and create nuisance and disruption for society all because it contributes revenue for the State. Should the public be sympathetic to those who collude with such unlawful commercial activities even though it may be about livelihoods? So, if sympathy is expected by those who survive on illegal mining then the same logic must hold good for prostitution, matka, begging and even dacoits. They also have a right to live. And so when the homes of around 3000 sex workers in Baina get demolished taking the excuse of anti-social activity, they also deserve as much public sympathy as those who would lose their livelihoods due to the closure of mines and casinos. But one cannot expect a humane response from a hypocritical society whose justice is colored by social and economic status. How long will the Goan public allow this mafia rule in violation of their Constitutional Right to Life, which involves the right to clean air, clean water, restful sleep and the rest? (Published in Gomantak Times, Oct.4, 2012)