Today's HERALD has a propaganda piece by Brig (Retd) Ian Da Costa titled "Dont move the Navy from Dabolim" which cannot be taken seriously. It tantamounts to boosting 'military tourism' on the specious doctrine that any military presence (even of the R&R variety) will not only deter enemy adventurism but help to boost the local economy!
It is also a fine example of "one who cannot see beyond his nose even on a bright and sunny day" [in Miguel Braganza's evocative imagery]. How else do we explain the studied neglect in the article of about 5 hours worth of daily flight restrictions during peak traffic in the following quote: " We do need to look after our civilian flights and charters. There is an urgent need to improve our arrival and departure drills and save valuable time to accommodate more flights IF NEEDED"! This neatly deflects the blame to the airlines and AAI (for baggage handling) leaving the Navy completely in the clear! Regarding Seabird, there is no explanation as to why the Navy is dithering about even building an airfield at Yenkebe (let alone shifting operations from Dabolim). He seems to be suggesting preposterously that Goa's objections to the safety hazards of fuel storage tanks may be the reason! What sort of a naval base is it which does not have its own minimal air defence and would therefore have to depend entirely on Goa and Kochi. The author touches on Mopa saying reassuringly "it is not necessary AS OF NOW". He seems to be trying to douse virulent local objections to Mopa when he writes "Most of the funds needed for Mopa will be from the Centre". His concluding sentence is however significant: "Better coordination and better civil-military relations will lead to better results on the ground". Is the Navy honestly and sincerely prepared to take the lead in this effort proactively at Dabolim or will it simply batten down the hatches there and dither till the bitter end?
