Escalation of protests

On February 25, the protests reached a boiling point when authorities, under heavy police security and the imposition of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), initiated a land survey for the construction of a road connecting to the proposed port. Anticipating resistance, the district administration enforced prohibitory orders from 6 AM to 9 PM, preventing public gatherings. However, this move only fuelled the outrage, with schoolchildren and entire families joining the protests.

Determined to halt the survey work, hundreds of fishermen, including women and elderly members of the community, gathered at the shore in Kasarkod and staged a sit-in protest. The situation took a dramatic turn when over 50 protestors, including several women, waded into the sea, threatening mass suicide. Three women lost consciousness due to heat exhaustion and were rushed to hospitals, with one requiring critical care at Manipal Hospital.

Amidst the chaos, police detained more than a hundred protestors, including key leaders of the fishing community, accusing them of violating prohibitory orders. The arrests further enraged the demonstrators, who warned of escalating their protests unless their fellow protestors were released. In a show of solidarity, a young girl left a note threatening to jump into the sea, holding the state’s Fisheries Minister, Mankal Vaidya, accountable for the distress inflicted upon the fishing community.

1 of 5

State repression and suppression of dissent

Rather than addressing the genuine grievances of the community, the Karnataka government and district administration have reportedly resorted to heavy-handed measures to quell the protests. The imposition of prohibitory orders was a clear attempt to suppress dissent and create a hostile environment where the voices of the fishermen could be stifled. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue, the state deployed a large police force to intimidate the protestors, using arbitrary arrests and excessive force to disperse the gatherings.

The police crackdown was marked by signs of brutality and disregard for basic human rights. Protestors were forcibly dragged away, shoved into police buses, and detained without proper justification. Reports indicate that some were denied access to legal aid and held in custody for extended hours without clear charges. The authorities’ decision to conduct overnight raids in search of protestors who had spoken to the media further demonstrates their intent to silence any opposition to the port project.

The betrayal by Fisheries Minister Mankal Vaidya has only deepened the outrage. Once a vocal opponent of the port under the previous BJP administration, he has now aligned himself with corporate interests, disregarding the very people he once promised to protect. His refusal to intervene meaningfully, despite multiple pleas from the fishing community, has fueled accusations of political opportunism and abandonment of his responsibilities.

Devastating impact on livelihoods

For the 6,000 families that depend on fishing as their primary source of income, the construction of the port represents an existential threat. Fishermen argue that the project will destroy crucial fishing zones, disrupt marine biodiversity, and render many of them jobless. Additionally, the planned four-lane road leading to the port has already displaced local vendors and affected small-scale businesses tied to the dried-fish industry. The community fears that further infrastructure development, including a railway line, could lead to mass displacement of around 600 families, stripping them of their ancestral lands and livelihoods.

The destruction of olive ridley turtle nesting sites is another critical concern. The coast of Kasarkod is an ecologically sensitive area, home to annual nesting of these critically endangered sea turtles. Despite documented evidence of nesting activity, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a fishermen-led petition in 2021, citing a flawed report from the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), which failed to account for the nesting season. Activists argue that the government and the courts have colluded to ignore environmental regulations in favour of corporate interests.

Legal and political setbacks

Efforts to halt the port project through legal channels have met repeated setbacks. In addition to the Karnataka High Court ruling, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) rejected a petition challenging the construction of the four-kilometer-long road on the grounds that it violated Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. Despite mounting evidence of environmental violations, authorities continue to push ahead with the project, disregarding the legitimate concerns of the local community.

The district administration’s use of excessive force to suppress the protest has further deepened the mistrust between the government and the fishing community. Reports suggest that police conducted overnight raids in search of protestors who had spoken to the media, raising concerns about the state’s attempts to silence dissent. The deployment of heavy security forces, including riot police, to facilitate the survey indicates that the state sees its own citizens as obstacles rather than stakeholders in development.

A community’s unwavering resistance

Despite facing repeated crackdowns, legal hurdles, and betrayals by their own representatives, the fishermen of Honnavar refuse to back down. Their struggle has become emblematic of the broader fight against unchecked industrial expansion at the cost of local communities and ecological sustainability. Fishermen leaders have vowed to continue their resistance until the port project is scrapped entirely.

The protests at Kasarkod are not just about a single infrastructure project; they represent a larger battle against corporate encroachment, environmental destruction, and the marginalisation of traditional coastal communities. The state’s heavy-handed approach, marked by repression and disregard for public sentiment, has only strengthened the resolve of the protestors. As the confrontation between the fisherfolk and the government intensifies, it remains to be seen whether the authorities will acknowledge the voices of the people or continue to prioritise industrial interests at their expense.

Related:

Displaced and denied the right to fish, Muslim fishermen in Gujarat now prevented from voting

Duty of GOI to ensure that innocent fishermen are not punished: SC

TN: Samsung Workers Continue Protest, Accuse Management of Vindictive Action

The post K’taka: fisher-folk take to the sea in defiance of Honnavar port project appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Home Minister Amit Shah, who is campaigning for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in West Bengal, has promised an annual payout of Rs 6,000 to the state’s fishermen if his party is voted to power. “After forming the government in Bengal, we will launch a Machhuare Samman Nidhi Yojana from which four lakh fishermen of Bengal will get Rs 6,000 annually just like (farmers do from) the Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana,” Shah told a rally at Kakdwip in South 24-Parganas, reported The Telegraph.

Amit Shah is the biggest star campaigner for his party, next to the Prime Minister, and has now reached out to the large fisherfolk community of the state that is now the main focus for BJP. Shah also had lunch at the home of Subrata Biswas, a fish trader at Narayanpur village in Kakdwip.

National Fishworkers Forum’s former secretary, executive member Dabasis Shyamal, who hails from and works with the community in West Bengal told SabrangIndia, that while he was glad the senior politician had noticed the fisher folk community, it would be good if the existing schemes are implemented as well. “Even if recognised as a vote bank, I congratulate them [Amit Shah and BJP] for noticing the fishworkers and making this announcement,” he said, adding that there still needs to be a classification of the beneficiaries of this proposed scheme as the community is massive. “We at NFF are made up of small scale and traditional fisherfolk. Have they included even large fisherfolk here? Those trawlers are destructive to the environment, it is the small scale traditional fisherman who needs the money. This community has been suffering neglect since the last three decades. And as the catch has reduced, around 60 percent fisherfolk are leaving traditional livelihood and working elsewhere… This is an indication of the dire situation,” he said.

Did the BJP finally, and suddenly notice the fishing community of West Bengal only now? According to Shyamal, the political leadership “knows the situation is getting worse… this promise is an indication…” He said that there were some central savings-cum-relief schemes that are still pending, in West Bengal, and fisherfolk have all been put under the below poverty line (BPL) category, which is actually not helpful. “We request that the saving cum relief scheme be increased from the paltry Rs 1500 currently paid per annum,” he said adding, “We do not want handouts. We want the rights to the waters we fish in, we want  preferential access for small scale fisheries, these water rights can be for inland water bodies, reservoirs, rivers, and marine…”  Implementing the existing policies were crucial as poll promises were just that, promises.

According to The Telegraph Amit Shah’s “promise” of an annual payout of Rs 6,000 for fishermen if the BJP wins in Bengal, has “hurt” the “pride” of a section of fisherfolk who said it is the rising diesel prices that were a bigger challenge. They told The Telegraph that they do not want to depend on government handouts, but instead want the Centre to “contain the rise in diesel prices so that they could venture into the sea on their trawlers”. Diesel, which cost Rs 66.79 a litre in February 2020, now sells for Rs 83.84 a litre in Calcutta now, added the report. Those who own and fish with the trawlers are in distress, Kamal Das from Kultali in South 24-Parganas told the Telegraph that even though he owned two trawlers he had to halt his trade because of the continuous hike in fuel prices, “I faced repeated losses and stopped sending out trawlers since last November because of the high price of diesel. To earn Rs 55,000 by selling fish, I need to burn fuel worth Rs 1.2 lakh. I cannot afford that. I had taken a loan of Rs 36 lakh from the market and around 40 people worked for me. They have either left for Kerala or are sitting idle with no income.” Kamal said adding, “What good will the government do by promising adequate prices for our produce if we can’t catch fish because of the high price of diesel?”

Amit Shah has  promised a ‘Machhuara Samman Nidhi Yojana’ for fishermen, 33 per cent reservation for women in state government jobs, and implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations. According to the Telegraph the Machhuara Samman Nidhi Yojana will be on the lines of the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana. “Under the scheme, nearly 4 lakh fishermen will get Rs 6,000 annual subsidy. This will be done keeping fishermen produce organisations in the loop,” said Shah adding that a BJP government in the state will set up a dedicated department within the state fisheries department to ensure adequate prices for the catch. He said the ministry will look after fishermen produce and ensure good monetary returns. It will also save them from the TMC middlemen who take away a major portion of fishermen’s profit.”

However, Subrata Biswas, who is also a BJP worker, at Narayanpur village in the district, who hosted Shah for lunch on Thursday, later told the media that his business was not doing well but he could not tell the “big man” about it. According to the report, Joykrishna Haldar, general secretary of the West Bengal United Fishermen Association that represents 64 unions across Bengal, said, “We don’t need a dole. Fishermen work hard and are happy to earn a living. The rising price of diesel has become an impediment and the Centre should subsidise the fuel. Almost 90 per cent of trawlers have stopped venturing into the sea because of the high diesel price. Thousands of fishermen sit at home; they have no income.” According to the news report, fishermen are planning a demonstration in Calcutta on February 22 against the rising fuel prices.

Related:

Not just a farmers struggle, but a fight for democracy: P. Sainath
‘Samundar Bandh’ if gov’t does not listen to farmers: Fishworkers show solidarity
Fishing for trouble, or troubling the fishworkers?

The post Will a Rs 6,000 annual dole lure Bengal’s fisherfolk? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Maharashtra’s Dahanu locals call Vadhavan’s coastline “the golden belt of fish,” says State Machhimar Kriti Samiti President Leo Colaco when asked about the land chalked out for building the thirteenth major national port.

“The Vadhavan coast provides a variety of fish in huge quantities. Fish-rearing requires the best environment that is naturally available here. Yet, the government is set on a port project which will endanger the livelihood of local fisherfolk,” he says.

Colaco voices the concern of an entire coast of villagers who have been holding huge protests for the last two weeks to oppose the development project undertaken by the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) and the Maharashtra Maritime Board.

Most recently the fishing community voiced their apprehensions through demonstrations and shutdown of fish markets in Thane, Palghar and Mumbai districts on December 15, 2020.

During the Tuesday strike, the community expressed their aversion to the new seaport that would rob off their land and livelihood and hand it over to the private companies.

“The JNPT and the government is creating a new industry. At the same time, they are scrapping the old fishing industry which has thrived here for so long,” says Colaco.

The lead partner in the project, the JNPT, received an ‘in-principle’ approval for the seaport from the central government on February 5, 2020 at an estimated cost of Rs. 65,544.54 crore. At the time, the government had said, “There is a need for a deep draft port that will accommodate the largest Container Ships in the world and also cater to the spill over traffic from JNPT port once its planned capacity of 10 million TEUs is fully utilized. The Vadhavan port has a natural draft of about 20 meters close to the shore, making it possible for it to handle bigger vessels at the port. Development of Vadhavan port will enable call of container vessels of 16,000-25,000 TEUs capacity, giving advantages of economies of scale and reducing logistical cost.”

However, nearby villages remain sceptical of the environmental precautions and rehabilitation plans included by the port trust.

According to National Association of Fishermen Convener Rajhans Tapke, “Fisher people are dependent on the sea and the rain. If the Vadhavan  is sanctioned, land reclamation will increase pulling the sea to one side. This will increase pollution and decrease the fish population. The reclamation will drown our villages.” Tapke further said that Maharashtra’s fishing community has long suffered from slow pollution. He said that the construction of a port will worsen this situation.

Above all, villagers fear to suffer the same fate as the fishing community in Uran.

Years ago, the JNPT had taken up similar projects in Maharashtra’s Uran. If you see the area now, only the villages are left standing. The surrounding ecology has been completely destroyed,” says Colaco.

On July 17, 2017 Maharashtra Times wrote about Sheva and Koliwada villages – nowadays known as Navin Sheva and Hanuman Koliwada – in Uran that were displaced for the construction of a world-class port also undertaken by the JNPT.

The revenue department rehabilitated the villages at different places. However, villagers objected to the new place that was less than what they were guaranteed under the Rehabilitation Act. They appealed to the United Nations Human Rights department for proper rehabilitation of Hanuman Koliwada village. For a hopeful moment they received the support of the state Lokayukta.

“However, even today villagers are struggling. The poverty is such that people are desperate to fill their stomachs, drinking jaggery tea instead of sugar tea,” says Tapke.

Fearing such a fate, villagers have vehemently denounced the project. On December 2 and December 3, they prevented the Trust’s biodiversity survey team from entering the area citing pending permission from the local Gram Panchayat. However, police officials imposed Section 144 claiming protesters violated social distancing guidelines.

Moreover, President of the Adivasi Ekta Parishad Kaluram Dhodade says that police closed the route connecting forest villages to the port so that Adivasi fishermen could not join the protests.

“Palghar is an Adivasi community. Of course, all fisherfolk and farmers here are adivasis as well. This land and sea belongs to us but they are forcefully carrying out surveys and taking away our source of living,” says Dhodade.

As per the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification Ministry Of Environment And Forests, “Dwelling units of traditional coastal communities including fisherfolk, tribals… are not used for any commercial activity… are not sold or transferred to non-traditional coastal communities.”

Yet, following the Union Cabinet approval in February, the Shipping Ministry said there is no restriction for constructing a port that has no manufacturing or processing activity.

“All of this is being done for the Union government as per Modi’s wishes. You are monopolising the sea and forcing us out. Where are we supposed to go once they take away the land?” says Dhodade.

He further points out how the government uses Adivasi welfare to sanction dam projects but directs the conserved water towards Vihar and Bhayander. Meanwhile, pollution in local regions has worsened to a state where people barely live beyond 40 years.

“We fisherfolk are sea-farmers. But while farmers get some recompense for their damages, we have not received anything for years. We are side-lined from the mainstream vision of farmers,” says Tapke.

Nonetheless, the fishing community continues to struggle against corporate encroachment. During recent farmers’ protests, fisherwomen had gone out on the streets to demand the withdrawal of the three anti-farmer laws as well as the Vadhavan port.

Related:

Dahanu locals reject JNPT survey that pushes for a new port at Vadhavan
Mumbai’s Coastal Road could get longer
Three decades on, many Sardar Sarovar Dam affected persons still await rehabilitation
Goa government considers auctioning 88 halted iron ore mining leases

The post Maharashtra’s fishing community fights to protect its ‘golden belt’ coast appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai’s much debated Coastal Road Project that aims to connect Marine Drive to Worli could get longer from the currently proposed 9.98 kilometers to 10.58 kilometers. The project that has been under the scanner for its impact on marine ecology and livelihood of local fisherfolk, will now also require reclamation of an additional 21 hectares.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) held a meeting with the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and informed them that the proposed changes were due to considerations of curvature and minor differences in ramp positions reported Indian Express. “The modifications in the alignment and design of the MCRP-South (Mumbai Coastal Road Project) will not lead to any additional impacts on the environment,” claimed the BMC’s application.

The BMC reportedly listed 28 points for amendment in the CRZ clearance the project received in 2017. Of the 28, 24 proposed amendments are new and not part of the clearance application in 2017. However, IE reports that BMC clarified that only 6.51 hectare will be additionally reclaimed, as the remaining 14.49 hectare required is for the sea wall, which was already a part of the project but “not detailed” or mentioned in the 2017 application seeking CRZ clearance.

The project cost estimates have been steadily escalating since the idea was originally floated. At present they are said to be more than Rs 12,000 crores!

Coastal Road and the Courts

It is noteworthy that on April 23, 2019 the Bombay High Court ordered that all reclamation work for Mumbai’s coastal road be paused and that the status quo be maintained until June 3. The bench was hearing public interest litigations filed by Society for Improvement, Greenery and Nature, an NGO, and activist Shweta Wagh. The Independent People’s Tribunal (IPT) on Mumbai’s Coast Road had previously released an exhaustive report regarding the project and its many, many pitfalls and potential adverse effects. The report paints a grim picture of a project that has no clear purpose, will serve only a small fraction of an increasingly crowded city, and could have disastrous effects on Mumbai’s ecology and coastline. 

Subsequently, the Bombay High court set aside the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for the much-hyped Coastal Road project. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice NM Jamdar was hearing a batch of petitions filed in response to the CRZ clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in May 2017. Petitioners objected to the construction of a proposed 10 kilometer long stretch from Marine Drive to Bandra, stating that it would cause damage to the coastline as well as marine life in the region. It is noteworthy that BMC’s Wednesday meeting was in regard to the same stretch.  

It is also noteworthy that last year on July 22, the Bombay High court set aside the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for the wider project that aims to connect Marine Drive in South Mumbai to the northern suburb of Kandivali. Then in a huge shot in the arm for Mumbai’s fisher-folk, residents of coastal neighbourhoods and environmental conservation organisations, the Supreme Court refused to strike down the July 22, 2019, order passed by the Bombay High Court that makes environmental clearance mandatory for the ambitious Mumbai Coastal Road Project.

What happens now?

Given how changes have been proposed in many aspects of the project, activists feel that the BMC should submit a fresh proposal and seek consultation as is mandated by law whenever developmental projects need to be undertaken in regions where the lives and livelihood of people are likely to be impacted adversely. Activist Shweta Wagh, one of the petitioners against the project, told IE, “The sea wall was not part of the original plan for which CRZ clearance was granted. This additional work amounts to a change in the project profile. So, the BMC should make a fresh application for clearance.”

Activists also took to Twitter to express their disappointment and educate their fellow Mumbaikars about the adverse impacts of the project:

Save #Mumbai
90 hectares of sea being reclaimed for #coastalroad that will serve just 2% of elite car owners,will increase the risk of flooding.
Corals &340 other marine species threatened due to the Coastal road project.#SaveOurCoast @moefcc @GretaThunberg @parents4future pic.twitter.com/dmvfN6GLRz

— #SaveMumbaiforest (@SaveMumbaifore1) October 28, 2020

Entire marine Coral Reefs/spices destroyed on Intertidal rocky shores of Neapen sea road, Mahalaxmi, Haji Ali & Worli for Coastal Road is on the cost of Destroying our livelihood entirely dependent on Biodiversity @AUThackerayhttps://t.co/cyt8k80dJS

— VanchitMacchimaar HajiAliSahakariSanghatanMaryadit (@VanchitMacchim1) October 28, 2020

Related:

Bombay High Court stays work on Mumbai’s coastal road
Bombay HC hits the brakes on Coastal Road project, quashes CRZ clearance
SC refuses to stay Bombay HC judgment on Coastal Road

The post Mumbai’s Coastal Road could get longer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The original inhabitants of the Konkan coast are planning an action on December 24, saying the proposed memorial in the sea will ruin their livelihoods.

As the Maharashtra government’s dream to build a Shivaji Memorial in the Arabian Sea off the coast of South Mumbai edges closer to reality, the opposition from fishing communities affected by the project is getting louder.

In 2008, the Congress-led state government first proposed the idea of erecting a 192-metre tall statue of the 17th century warrior king Shivaji in the sea. In October, after eight years of deliberations and obtaining clearances, the government, now led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, announced that the memorial would be built at a cost of Rs 3,600 crore, with help from the Union government.

The project will officially be inaugurated on December 24, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi will conduct a bhoomi-pujan (rituals performed before the start of construction by Hindus) on a rocky outcrop in the sea where the memorial will be located.

Modi’s impending visit, however, has triggered sharp protests from Mumbai’s Kolis, the fishing community whose livelihoods will be directly affected by the proposed memorial and the reclamation of the sea that the project will involve. Last week, a group of fishermen’s associations announced that they would hold a series of protests on December 24, on land and in the sea, to urge the government to shift the memorial to another spot.

As part of the protests, at least 5,000 fishing boats plan to sail out with black flags towards the bhoomi-pujan site, while fisherwomen from Mumbai, Raigad, Uran and Panvel will form a human chain with more black flags in South Mumbai. In addition to this, three of Mumbai’s major wholesale fish markets, as well as several retail markets, plan to remain closed on December 24.

This is not the first time that Mumbai’s Kolis have agitated against the proposed Shivaji memorial. In May, 500 fishermen took out a boat rally with black flags in an attempt to draw attention to their concerns about the project.

But this time, the protests are not only about the controversial location of the memorial. For the Koli community, these protests are also about resisting misrepresentation and staking contested claims to the historical legacy of Shivaji.

Sons of the soil
Since Shivaji belonged to the Maratha caste, the glorification and reverence for the warrior king has been largely associated with Maharashtra’s Maratha community. Perhaps the most vociferous champion of Shivaji is the Shiv Sena, a right-wing political party that grew in strength and influence on the basis of its sons-of-the-soil ideology that believes Maharashtra belongs only to native Maharashtrians.

In Mumbai, where the Shiv Sena has its headquarters, this sons-of-the-soil argument has periodically been used to target Gujaratis, Tamilians and other non-Marathi speakers for allegedly taking away jobs meant for Marathi natives. Among various Marathi-speaking communities, however, the Marathas are not originally from Mumbai or from anywhere along the Konkan coast.

The original natives of this coastal region are fishing communities like the Kolis and the East Indians – the name by which Catholics in this area are known. In Mumbai, as their villages, livelihoods and lifestyles have been steadily encroached upon by a burgeoning metropolis, these communities have struggled – with little success – for rights and recognition as the city’s earliest inhabitants.

The politics of this struggle is now being played out in their protest against the Shivaji memorial as well. This was evident at a public meeting in South Mumbai’s Cuffe Parade fishing colony on December 19, where various fishermen’s associations discussed plans for the upcoming with community members.

‘We are Shiv sainiks too’
“There is a campaign in the local state-level media to discredit our protest and accuse us of being against Shivaji Maharaj,” said Moreshwar Patil, secretary of the Akhil Maharashtra Machhimar Kruti Samiti, a state-level fishermen’s association that is leading the protest against the memorial. “But Shivaji was an important personality for us too. We have no problems with having a Shivaji memorial – all we are opposing is the particular location the government has chosen.”

The December 19 public meeting was attended by at least 200 Kolis from the Cuffe Parade fishing colony, which will be most severely impacted by the mid-sea memorial. Yet the most conspicuous presence was that of Shivaji himself – his garlanded bust was placed prominently on a special table in front of the crowd. As speakers from different fishermen’s associations rose to address the community, they all pointedly began their speeches with a few words of respect for the Maratha king.

Photo Courtesy: Aarefa Johari

“People are trying to claim that we are opposing this memorial because we are anti-Shivaji, but history proves otherwise,” said Ravikant Perekar, a Koli social worker from Raigad, who spoke at the public meeting. “The Marathas were not the only community that supported Shivaji Maharaj. Who do they think built the Chhatrapati’s [ruler] forts on the Konkan coast? It was the Kolis who helped him stay in power in the Konkan.”

​​​​​​​Shivaji does not belong to just one community, Perekar told the crowd, emphatically. “We too are the heirs of Shivaji,” he said. “Our only problem is that we have always been politically backward and under-represented.”

​​​​​​​Kiran Koli, the Mumbai district president of the Kruti Samiti, made a similar speech. “We have been in Shivaji’s army, we fought for him in the Konkan, so in that sense we are Shiv sainiks too,” he said. “But this is a matter of our daily bread and butter. The government needs to answer if it plans to sacrifice the fisher-folk in order to build this memorial.”

‘We are a part of Mumbai’s history’

For the local fisherfolk at Cuffe Parade, the sea immediately surrounding the rocky outcrop where the memorial has been planned is a lifeline. It is a breeding spot for at least 32 species of fish that are most commonly eaten in Mumbai, including pomfret, surmai, rawas and prawns.

“The boats of at least 300 fishing families fish in that area, and the memorial will rob them of their livelihood,” said Jyoti Maher, a member of the Kruti Samiti’s women’s wing. “This will also affect all those who eat those fish in Mumbai.”
Maher and other community members cannot fathom why the government plans to reclaim a chunk of the sea to build the memorial, which will also house a library, art gallery and museum.

“Why do they need 60 acres for a memorial?” asked Kiran Koli. “Did they even once think about our livelihoods while planning? And how did the Centre even give environmental clearance for this project without considering the impact it will have on fishing communities?”

All through the meeting, Koli leaders proposed a variety of other alternative locations in Maharashtra where the government could set up the memorial. One suggestion was Elephanta Island near Mumbai, which already has a jetty and facilities for tourists visiting the historical Elephanta Caves. Another suggestion was building a memorial within Raigad Fort, where Shivaji had died, which is about 185 km away from Mumbai.

According to Koli, the community had been petitioning various state government departments ever since the location of the memorial was finalised in 2010, but they were never granted any proper meetings with ministers or officials all this while.

On December 16, a few Koli representatives were able to meet with members of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Smarak Samiti, the state government’s committee overseeing the project.
“We explained to them that our opposition is not towards any one political party or any community,” said Mahesh Tandel, Mumbai president of Machhimar Sangathan, another Koli association. “This memorial is about a historical figure, but aren’t Kolis a part of Mumbai’s history too? Shivaji was a people’s leader. He would never want a memorial built at the cost of the Kolis.”

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post Shivaji would never want a memorial built at the cost of Kolis, says Mumbai’s fishing community appeared first on SabrangIndia.