“The issue at Bhoma is not merely about whether a temple will be spared demolition. It is about what happens to an entire village when a major highway expansion cuts through it. Villagers have pointed out that four laning could fragment the settlement and affect the character of the village, its religious activities and the way people move and live. They have also questioned the decision to beautify the temple lake when their larger concerns about the highway alignment remain unanswered.
This is precisely where Gadkari needs to pause and listen.
The Union minister should not allow officials to reduce a complex local dispute to a simple engineering problem. If a flyover is technically feasible, that does not automatically make it the best solution. A project can be technically sound and still be socially disruptive. Good infrastructure planning must consider both.”
Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has built a reputation for pushing infrastructure projects with speed and determination. Goa needs that approach. Better roads, safer highways and improved connectivity are essential for the state’s future. But development cannot become a numbers game where project completion matters more than the people and communities living along its path.
The latest controversy over Bhoma is a clear example.
Gadkari has proposed a short flyover at Bhoma as a solution to concerns raised by villagers over the proposed expansion of the highway. The intention may be to protect houses and the temple while allowing the highway project to proceed. But the villagers are clearly saying that the flyover does not address the larger issue. They have been demanding a bypass and want the authorities to explain why that option is not being seriously considered.
That grievance cannot simply be brushed aside.
The issue at Bhoma is not merely about whether a temple will be spared demolition. It is about what happens to an entire village when a major highway expansion cuts through it. Villagers have pointed out that four laning could fragment the settlement and affect the character of the village, its religious activities and the way people move and live. They have also questioned the decision to beautify the temple lake when their larger concerns about the highway alignment remain unanswered.
This is precisely where Gadkari needs to pause and listen.
The Union minister should not allow officials to reduce a complex local dispute to a simple engineering problem. If a flyover is technically feasible, that does not automatically make it the best solution. A project can be technically sound and still be socially disruptive. Good infrastructure planning must consider both.
The villagers are asking a straightforward question. If a bypass option was considered earlier, why has it been rejected? That question deserves a detailed technical answer in public. The people should be shown the alternatives, the land requirements, the environmental implications, the cost difference and the expected impact on the village.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing the highway project. In fact, completing the long pending connectivity improvements between Ponda, Bhoma and Old Goa is important. The highway is a vital link for passenger and freight movement between Goa and Karnataka. The Centre has already sanctioned substantial funds for the four laning of the relevant stretches.
But the urgency of completing a highway cannot become an excuse for ignoring legitimate local objections.
Gadkari himself has repeatedly spoken about quality, accountability and the need to get infrastructure projects right. The same principle should apply at Bhoma. If there is a better alignment, it should be examined. If the bypass is impractical, the government should explain why. If the flyover is genuinely the least damaging alternative, then the people should be given the evidence to understand that decision.
The worst approach would be to announce a solution and then expect the villagers to accept it simply because it has been approved at the highest level.
Goa has already seen enough instances where infrastructure projects were conceived primarily from the perspective of vehicles and engineering drawings, while the impact on communities was considered later. Roads are built for people, not merely for vehicles. A highway that saves motorists a few minutes but leaves a village divided, its traditional spaces disturbed and residents permanently unhappy cannot automatically be called successful development.
Bhoma should therefore become an example of a different approach.
Gadkari should personally direct the concerned authorities to sit with the villagers, present the complete project plans and alternatives, and hear every objection. An independent technical assessment of the bypass and flyover options would help remove suspicion. The final decision should be based on engineering, economics, environment and, importantly, the human cost.
Development should move forward, but it should carry people along.
The Bhoma villagers should not have to fight the government merely to be heard. Nor should their concerns be treated as an obstacle to progress. The Centre has the resources and expertise to find a solution that improves connectivity without unnecessarily destroying the character of the village.
Gadkari must therefore listen before he builds.
Goa needs highways. Bhoma needs justice.
And development should never mean bulldozing people’s concerns in the name of progress.
By Suraj Nandrekar
