Of Recognition, Facts and Strategies: A Letter to the Editor after UTAA’s demonstration

Dear Editor,

I write this letter to you to thank you for your front page editorial on the issue of this newspaper dated seventeenth December 2009. In placing the editorial on the front page you have in many eyes; not just mine alone, reprieved the local media from a morass that many of us fear that it is headed into. News is not about the ‘neutral’ reporting of random (and increasingly irrelevant) facts alone, but as you have so strikingly indicated, about creating issues for the larger public and fostering positive politics. But your editorial did more than just set standards for media, it also helped refocus the priorities of the people of Goa, who, it appears, seem to by and large operate in blissful ignorance of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe members of our society.

In the opening of your editorial, you quoted Bayard Rustin, an American civil rights activist who argued that “When an individual is protesting society’s refusal to acknowledge his dignity as a human being, his very act of protest confers dignity on him.” In so quoting, you brought the debate to the heart of the matter, allowing us to counter all of the irrelevant criticisms that have subsequently been leveled against the protest that occurred on the sixteenth of December.

Acknowledging the dignity of a human being requires also that we acknowledge the existence of an individual. As already argued, we in Goa do not even acknowledge the existence of the scheduled groups and their needs. You pointed out that the protestors brought the ‘upper-caste Digambar Kamat-led government to its needs’, but the fault is not just this particular government, but the manner in which the entire society conspires in constructing Goa as an upper-caste almost paradise. All of the issues that we have been arguing for the past few months, those of the destruction being done to Goa etc, while critical and relevant, have failed to take into consideration this segment of the population, and argue the issues with their perspective in mind. Had they done so, our strategies and indeed, our achievements would today perhaps have been radically different.

It is for this reason then, because the protestors addressed the basic issue of recognition, in not one, but two different and associated forms, that they have cut for us, in their action on the sixteenth, a path that should have been trudged ages ago.

Associated with one of the groups fighting the big-capital take over of Goa via the Regional Plan, I was witness to the farce of representations to the Chief Minister and his government. No matter how logically argued or passionately represented, these written statements received no response from a silent and non-committal state. We were constantly asked to rely on the word of the Chief Minister, who would assure us that he would ‘try his best’. Our representations were like the flailings of an attention-deprived child, before an emotionally unmoved, and punishingly silent parent. We were faced with the toughest and most insurmountable barrier of all; Silence.

In the face of this silence, I had on numerous occasions, argued with a number of groups that it is this silence that we need to break. In the face of this silence, we need to up the level of civil disobedience, lay siege to the State secretariat, until our rightful demands are met. The silence of the Government rests on the sure knowledge that we will not challenge the daily rhythm of life, and until we hamper this carefree rhythm, until we get the silent to recognize us, we will, unfortunately not be listened to. The United Tribal Association Alliance (UTAA), on the sixteenth broke that compact, and they managed to draw the Chief Minister into dialogue. Viva!

They did more than draw him into dialogue however. This Chief Minister, like others, has often engaged in the farce of dialogue. Words, are cheap, it is actions that count. And on this latter front, despite its verbal assurances, this government has failed to act. UTAA to its credit broke through this sham and demanded a ‘written assurance’. We must remember that the modern State and its bureaucracy operate through the action of writing. When we represent in writing therefore, we deserve a response in writing. Else once more we flail pointlessly before a false Baal. Two successes therefore, and two lessons for the Goan activist to learn from. First, this government will not listen until you lay siege to it, prevent ‘business as usual’, and to paraphrase you, ‘drag it to its knees’. Second, no success until and unless you get a response (i.e. recognition) from the State, in writing.

I have not seen the written assurance of the Chief Minister and so do not know the form and content of its assurance. However I do know that a mere line indicating “I will get so-and-so done, by such-and-such date” is pointless. Our demands are valid because of a sound reasoning that lies behind it. A written response from the government must necessarily respond to these demands, point by point, acknowledging in writing the validity of our claims, and acknowledging in print its failure to do so. Only then do we move governance, from the scam it currently is, towards a democratic respect for justice and due process.

What was critical in the protest by UTAA was the fact that it operated in the best traditions of civil disobedience. No property was harmed, but what was placed in harms way was the body of the protestor. It also demanded that imperial forms of governance, that place a veil between the governor and the governed are cast aside, to allow for direct contact. We would carry this tradition further if we linked it to this recognition of responsible writing.

Very often we resort to the cliché that when the interests of the most marginalized are addressed the whole system sets itself in order. UTAA’s actions on the sixteenth, that have addressed two lacunae in the operation of our democracy, seem to have pointed to the validity of the cliché. I will end this letter, reinforced once more with thanks, with the knowledge that perhaps while all is not well with the state of Goa, there is as yet, still hope!

(Published in the Gomantak Times 23 Dec 2009)

Bhaji on the Beach: A Malcontents’ opinion regarding a Protest Party on the beach.

There is to be a public protest party on the 19th of April 2009 from 5 pm onwards. The party will be held on Vainguinim Beach, a beach that the invite to this party indicates is a “public beach that the Cidade has been treating as it's own private property.” The email invitation, that must have reached a good number of inboxes by the time you read this column, goes on further to state “You're invited! Come help us reclaim the beach. Bring your friends, family, relatives, dogs, what have you...”

At first glance this invitation struck me as a wonderful example of civil disobedience, the vanguard movement for the as yet elusive Goan revolution. The event seems to have all the elements for classic civil disobedience. You have identified an enemy of the public, who allegedly stands in the way of the Commonwealth, and you mobilize the public to mount a challenge to this enemy. The action is a provocation to this public enemy, and it mobilizes the as yet silent majority to come out and take a stand in favour of the Commonwealth.

I have to confess that a few weeks ago, I myself would have suggested such an action, and I would have attended this party at Vainguinim beach. Today however, I find myself poised differently for reasons that I will now elaborate.

To begin with, I am extremely uncomfortable with the manner in which Fomento (the company that owns both Hotel Cidade de Goa and a number of mines) has been singled out as Public Enemy Number 1. I do not wish to suggest that Fomento is a lamb bathed in milk; pure and without blemish. I have no doubt that they are guilty of at the very least making it difficult for people to access this public beach, that in the course of mining they have engaged in illegalities and cut corners to make their profits. However, my question to myself and to those willing to listen is; are they the only violators of the law in Goa? Clearly not. On the contrary, they are in august company. They rub shoulders alongside the rest of the industrial houses, and political dynasties, in Goa which rule the State as if it were their fiefdom. The casual takeover of public lands through backroom deals, the illegalities in mining, the exemptions and exceptions, the list of their crimes against the commonwealth could go on. If this is so, why then, has Fomento suddenly become public whipping boy? It is this singling out of a single family and company that bothers me deeply. A few weeks ago, I had questioned the motives of demonizing Babush Monserrate and suggested that demonizing Monserrate allows us to ignore the actions of the rest. I fear that in demonizing Fomento, some similar process is at hand. I must hasten to add that I do not accuse the organizers of this party of being partisan. I am merely suggesting that we are unwitting accomplices to larger processes we have not as yet figured out.

Speaking at a Public meeting against the Ordinance amending the Land Acquisition Act, I had suggested that we ought to focus on the larger processes through which the Law in Goa is being subverted. To do so would move our focus away from the individual violators we are focusing on, the manifestations of the problem, and train our sights on the root of the problem. The party at Vainguinim I fear focuses on the manifestation, and not on the root of the problem. Thus we will go to the party, we will satisfy ourselves that we have challenged the rot in the system, when in fact we will have only targeted a single player. The system itself will continue to flourish.

If not Cidade de Goa and Fomento, who should we target? In my opinion, target the real entity behind the mess in Goa, the seat of Government. When the GBA led the first public cries against the Regional Plan, the voices were loud and clear, give us transparent and accountable governance through an effective and empowered Panchayat system. This clear and simple demand was not however responded to. On the contrary we were presented the sham of a Regional Plan process, which incidentally culminates today. It is through the demand for transparent and accountable Local self Governance that every protest movement in Goa today, right from mining to anti-mega housing, is united. Despite this clarity however, we are yet to see a concerted and focused protest against the Government. Reclaiming a public beach is good, challenging illegalities is good and I totally endorse the scheme of such a public takeover. If only the location were different though. If only we saw this enthusiasm of takeover outside the Legislative Assembly and Secretariat. Not a single weekend party, outside the property of a single player, but a committed siege of the State’s primary offices until we actually put in place the legal and administrative system that we want. If the party on Vainguinim beach were the first step towards the radicalization of the populace, especially the middle class populace that seems to be the target of this action, I would despite my reservations applaud this initiative. However, having seen opportunities to challenge the State’s blatant illegalities and irregularities being squandered, I believe that this party is a cop-out. It will not continue onward to make the necessary challenge to the State.

The protest against Cidade de Goa is supposed to be a protest against the manner in which the public right of way to the beach has been blocked by the hotel. Who is this public though? Is it the residents of Machado’s Cove, location of what is playfully (but somewhat aptly) called the Snob Hill Mansions? Or is it the people of Taleigao, for who the beach was not a space for leisure but also a space for livelihood generation? Is this party an attempt to reclaim the beach for livelihood or for leisure? While I see nothing wrong with reclaiming a public space for leisure, I would like to see a few more examples of civil disobedience where it is the livelihoods of people that will be the clear winner of the protest.

Having elaborated my problems with the proposed picnic on the 19th of April, I would like to conclude by indicating that I do not wish it ill. Any action that mobilizes the public (and especially the middle class constituent of the public) to radical action is welcome. I do hope however, that this party will not be the first and last of such radical actions. I hope it continues, across locations in Goa, more often than not making a stand for the livelihoods of people. I have in mind a few locations where we could stand for the livelihoods of people, and would be more than happy to work with the organizers of this protest. I’ll be waiting for your call. Until then, Bom Trabalho e Bom Sucesso.

(Published in the Gomantak Times, 15 April 2009)

Taking Caste Seriously: Why the Goan Fitna needs a rigorous caste-based analysis

Subsequent to the conclusion of the public meeting held on the 13th of March at the Clube National against the Ordinance amending the Land Acquisition Act, a little group gathered to catch up with each other and throw around a few ideas. In the midst of this camaraderie, one of the colleagues, no doubt charged with emotion after the meeting, proposed a route to mobilizing against the Ordinance. “Why don’t we mobilize on the basis of caste” she said. “The situation on hand is clearly about caste” she continued. “The Ordinance benefits hotels (Marriot and Cidade) owned by the Saraswats, while on the other hand the fisherfolk loosing their homes to the CRZ, the village groups to mining are all clearly from ‘lower’ caste backgrounds.” If there was any levity in the group it all melted away with that statement. They looked at her in shocked silence for a while, and then threw up their hands! “Oh no! We don’t believe in caste! We can’t do that!”

Now I don’t as yet want to explore the possibilities as to whether there is in fact a Saraswat versus the rest divide in our society that is at the root of the troubles that Goa is facing. What I would like to take up however is the response of the group to this suggestion. “We don’t believe in caste” and therefore we cannot mobilize on the basis of caste. One very often runs into this sort of response, especially when it is so clearly evident that the battles that are being fought are in fact being fought by ‘lower caste’ groups struggling for recognition, livelihood or access to justice. The very simple question that I would like to ask these touch-me-nots therefore is the following. Does the acknowledgement of racial discrimination make us racist?

It shouldn’t be difficult for Indians to answer this question. Most Indians who have gone abroad, and more recently almost any Indian, after such fiascos as Harbhajan’s “Teri maa ki/ you monkey’ escapade, will vociferously claim that they are racially discriminated against by white people. If they then recognize that they are being racially discriminated against, does this now mean that all of us Indians are racist? Clearly not! If therefore we can admit the fact that the mere recognition of discrimination on the basis of race does not make us racist; then similarly the recognition of discrimination on the basis of caste does not make us casteist. To what then can we attribute our hesitation to discuss caste based discrimination?


In 1932 in the course of the Second Round Table, Dr. Ambedkar raised the issue of separate electorates for the Untouchables. The concept of separate electorates had already been extended to other minority groups, including the Sikhs and the Muslims. Gandhi however would have none of this. Arguing that this would result in the disintegration of the Hindu community, he took to his favourite method of protest, the fast. As his health worsened, Ambedkar was forced to give up his demand for separate electorates and settled for reservations, while the Untouchables were included, against their will, into a combined Hindu electorate.

I raise this fact of history to argue that the suppression of caste questions has been a fundamental feature of Indian political mobilization, especially that of the national struggle. The issue of caste-based discrimination was just not seen to be as important as that of the larger objectives of independence. Since the questions of upper-caste dominance were not effectively addressed prior to Independence, the departure of the British resulted in the upper-caste dominance of the country that we are witness to today.

It is my belief, that no issue of justice in this country can be effectively addressed, unless we also seriously address the issue of caste-based discrimination. Our failure to do so is ultimately based on our own membership within dominant caste groups that benefit from the status-quo that result from not addressing caste-based inequalities. Our discomfort with discussing the inequalities born of caste is not because we don’t believe in caste. On the contrary, it is because we know that once we open that Pandora’s box, the benefits that have accrued to us, and not to others will become so blatantly obvious.

We may not believe in caste, and yet we practice it on a daily basis, through the minor inflections of our speech, by how seriously we take people, by what we consider beautiful and what ugly. We practice caste-based discrimination when we recognize that some people have fallen on bad times, and other people are just poor, when we recognize some people as coming from ‘old families’ and others as having ‘no culture’.

Taking caste seriously would allow us to rupture the communal divides of Catholic, Muslim and Hindu along which we tend to break society down into. Inquire into caste, and you will see how groups mobilize not necessarily across religious lines, but definitely along caste lines. When they do mobilize along religious lines, it would be interesting to see whose interests are being served by this mobilization. Is it merely that of the upper-caste groups within the religious fold, or is it the interests of all of the caste-groups? Surprisingly, it is an emphasis on caste in such states as Bihar that has curbed the growth of both Hindutva, as well as Muslim fundamentalism. It is in light of these arguments that I am personally convinced that an emphasis on caste would in fact help the ongoing Goan upheaval (fitna) take up the essential justice questions that must be addressed if the so-called ‘Goan negativity’ has to end.

Having said so, there is a need for us to subsequently articulate the learning from caste-based analysis sensitively. Our caste locations provide us with a predilection for certain positions. These positions may not be shared by all persons, based on their own caste locations. It is true that not everyone within a dominant caste will give up their unequal privileges without a fight. However there will be those from such a caste, who will see the point, and lend support to the fight for equality. To argue that one’s mere location in a caste makes one anti-egalitarian is to fall right back into the casteist trap. Thus what one will eventually fight are the monsters of Brahmanism, rather than Brahmins themselves. Having said this however, alliances need to necessarily be forged among the Dalit groups in the Goa. There is really no alternative before us. Such an alliance will help us curb the evils that Brahmanism has bred in our State and country; that of Hindutva, the accompanying ills of minority (Muslim, Sikh, Christian) fundamentalisms in the country, as well as the orgy of consumerism that is pushing many in this country and also in Goa, into the arms of a slow, shameful and miserable death.

(Published in the Gomantak Times, 17 March 2009)

Legalising Arbitrariness: The tale of Goa’s sordid descent into legal collapse

What is law? When is it to be respected, when should it be challenged and when should its purported authority be flouted? These are questions that have plagued the Goan citizen ever since the movement against the large scale degradation of the Goan environment in the name of development began. This is a question that needs to be answered if we are to bring some relief to the State. Happily, the circumstances over the past few days provide us with a route to an answer to this question.

The Law is the covenant by which we agree to be governed. The covenant assures us that through the operation of law we will be assured security, peace and predictability through which we can continue with our lives, unhindered and able to develop our capacities and potentials. This covenant binds all the parties to it, State, government and citizens; no one can be outside this covenant. If they are, then they need to be brought into the embrace of this covenant. As long as the Law assures us security, peace and predictability, this Law is to be respected and followed. When the Law does not do so, when we see it being unpredictable, and resulting in a disturbance of the order around us; when the law perpetrates inequality, inequity, injustice, then it is clear that the Law, this covenant must be renegotiated and a new Law brought into place.

Goa is clearly in the throes of a crisis. The State is like a beast, a bull run amock. It cannot be controlled, it does what it wishes and the Law cannot bind it. On the contrary, it seeks to undo the Law so that it is unfettered to do as it pleases. For the State, now, it is the voice of man that replaces the abstract voice of Law. This voice is used to bind the citizen, so that what we increasingly have is a strange kind of tyranny under Law.

Take for instance the case of the Regional Plan process. What is the law under which this entire process has been initiated? What provisions of the law govern the process through which village committees are constituted and then go on to fulfill their tasks under the Regional Plan process? The answer is none. There exists no law, what governs the Regional Plan process is the word of the Chief Minister (who may be here today and gone – God willing – tomorrow) and the word of bureaucrats with their own vested interests. Because there is no law, the process in each village has been different. Some have 5 member committee, other 16, some have met with the Gram Sabha, some have not. Some have prepared ward maps others have not. It is an entirely arbitrary process. Arbitrariness as any student of law will tell you, is something that the Law abhors and strikes down. And yet the same merrily continues in Goa. Law is dead.

The Law to avoid arbitrariness indicates that there must be a process, clearly laid out and applicable to all, without exception. The proposed amendment to the Goa Panchayati Raj Act is a wonderful example of how the State of Goa seeks to ignore this golden principle and institute options through which the voices of the men that control it, rather than the Law, may prevail. The Panchayati Raj system is about including the voices of the people to a greater degree and making their voice binding on the village executive, i.e. the Village Panchayat Secretary. What do the proposed amendments do? They allow the State via its many executive bodies to compel the Secretary to do its bidding. Even more horrifying are the powers granted to the State executive under Section 244 C which allows the Executive to transfer proceedings from one authority to another without clearly indicating on what grounds it does so. It’s a case of if-at-first-you-don’t-succeed, try, try again! If it looks like one authority will not give you the perverted decision you want, simple, just transfer the matter!

The straw that breaks the camel’s back however, has to be the ordinance approved to save the Cidade de Goa. Ordinances are to be resorted to only in the case of emergency. Normal procedure is to pass changes to the Law via a legislature. A fundamental norm of parliamentary democracy was flouted in the instant case. This particular ordinance is shocking in its audacity. That it has been instituted to save just one hotel – Cidade de Goa- is bad enough. What is worse is that once written into the law books, this exception will be extended to all illegalities and irregularities in Goa. Ofcourse, this largesse of the State will be extended only to those who can purchase the State, not for the much touted, but much sinned against, common man. What the ordinance essentially does is to say that if you somehow managed to evade laws and agreements, and got approvals, permissions and licenses from the State, then if you are rich and influential enough (which is how you got those permissions in the first place) we will forgive you. On the contrary, given the number of State dinners that take place at the hotel Cidade de Goa, we will award you handsomely!

What is going on in the State of Goa is the systematic institution of arbitrariness. What the examples above represent is the insertion of arbitrariness into the law and legitimization of this arbitrariness. Unfortunately however, it is only going to delegitimise the Law. Further what the political establishment doesn’t seem to realise is, that arbitrariness, is opposed to the spirit of capitalism. Predictability of the system has been identified by many scholars, not least of whom being the venerable Max Weber, as a fundamental requirement for capitalism to take root. In destroying the basis of a predictable system, in the name of Capitalism and ‘Development’, what the State is doing is laying the basis for is a total destruction of economy and enterprise in the State. What it is creating scope for is private profiteering, and this is very different from capitalistic entrepreneurship.

The length, strength, and duration of the protests against the State and its combination with the profit interests of a few indicate that the people are tired of this nonsense. It is in this context that we have to realise that the actions of the State are the desperate attempts of a crumbling regime. The State of Goa will have to be rearticulated soon. I say State, since it is not just the Government in power, but the whole political complex that prevails – Government and Opposition- that is guilty of these actions. Every time a genuine objection is presented before the State that should be protecting us, the rules of the game are ‘legally’ changed. This change would not be so problematic if it weren’t for the fact that these changes are being wrought to methodically destroy all systems of law and order to institute chaos within the State. This state of chaos will be such that those with brute power will win. What these forces don’t seem to realise though, is that two can play a game.

(Published in the Gomantak Times 4 March 2009)