“This perception is not without reason. Karnataka has been relentless. For years it has lobbied in Delhi, built political support across party lines, and created a steady narrative that it only seeks water for drinking purposes. Goa’s narrative, in contrast, often feels fragmented and defensive. The lack of a long-term strategy has meant that our responses come in fits and starts, giving the impression of a state firefighting rather than planning. Is this enough when the very survival of our river is at stake?
The role of civil society also deserves scrutiny. The Mhadei Bachao Abhiyan has kept the issue alive through protests, petitions, and pressure campaigns.”
The Mhadei river is more than a natural resource. For Goa, it is a lifeline that sustains drinking water, forests, agriculture, and biodiversity. Yet the battle over its waters has dragged on for decades, and today the big question stares us in the face: has Goa really done enough to save Mhadei, or are we slowly ceding ground to Karnataka?
The recent meeting of the Mhadei Bachao Abhiyan (MBA) with Chief Minister Pramod Sawant brings this unease back into focus. The delegation asked for police protection to visit the Kankumbi and Bhandura sites, where diversion works are reportedly underway. They pressed for an aerial survey, a joint inspection, faster hearings in the Supreme Court, and even a meeting with the Union Environment Minister to discuss ecological concerns. These demands sound reasonable. If Karnataka is indeed moving ahead with construction, why should citizens have to beg for something as basic as an official inspection or state-level intervention?
But there is also another side to the debate. The government insists that it is fighting the case in the Supreme Court, that legal processes take time, and that matters concerning inter-state rivers are never straightforward. To be fair, Goa has not been silent in this battle. It has challenged Karnataka in multiple legal forums and secured earlier rulings in its favour. It has raised objections to central clearances and highlighted the ecological damage that diversion will cause. Yet the perception persists that Karnataka is several steps ahead, pushing its agenda consistently, while Goa reacts only when activists raise alarms.
This perception is not without reason. Karnataka has been relentless. For years it has lobbied in Delhi, built political support across party lines, and created a steady narrative that it only seeks water for drinking purposes. Goa’s narrative, in contrast, often feels fragmented and defensive. The lack of a long-term strategy has meant that our responses come in fits and starts, giving the impression of a state firefighting rather than planning. Is this enough when the very survival of our river is at stake?
The role of civil society also deserves scrutiny. The Mhadei Bachao Abhiyan has kept the issue alive through protests, petitions, and pressure campaigns. Without their persistence, it is possible that public discourse around Mhadei would have faded even further. But can NGOs, no matter how dedicated, shoulder the responsibility of protecting a river of such critical importance? Should it not be the government’s job to lead from the front, rather than wait to be nudged into action?
There is also the larger question of public participation. Why does Mhadei not stir the same emotions as other movements in Goa? Is it because the impact of diversion is not immediately visible to most citizens? For now, taps in Panaji and Margao still flow, and paddy fields in Ponda are still green. But what happens when the river’s flow reduces, when forests dry out, and when saline intrusion spoils our freshwater? By the time the impact is felt in everyday life, will it be too late to act?
The Chief Minister now stands at a crossroads. He can choose to treat the latest warning bells from MBA as yet another routine complaint, or he can take bold steps to prove that Goa will not give up its lifeline without a fight. That means pushing for urgent hearings in the Supreme Court, ensuring on-ground inspections, and demanding accountability from the Centre for the clearances given. It also means convincing Goans that this is not just an environmental issue but a survival issue.
So, are the MBA’s demands justified? Given the stakes, yes, they appear both urgent and necessary. But the bigger question is whether the government will act on them decisively—or whether Goa will continue to play catch-up while Karnataka steadily strengthens its position.
The battle for Mhadei is far from over. But if Goa does not show the same persistence as Karnataka, the outcome may already be tilting away from us.
