The naked truth: Kejriwal’s non-secular politics

“Tarun Sagarji Maharaj is a very revered saint, not just for Jains but everyone. Those showing disrespect is unfortunate and should stop.” Aam Aadmi Party’s chief Arvind Kejriwal recently tweeted allegedly in response to music composer Vishal Dadlani’s suggestion that the Jain monk’s address to the Haryana Legislative Assembly was “monkery”.

There is one matter that needs to be addressed before moving on to the problem with Kejriwal’s tweet; the manner in which Tarun Sagar’s nudity has been the object of much ridicule, horror and debate. For those who remember, Goans had their own opportunity to deride the Digambara Jain monastic practice where monks do not wear clothing. This was in April 2015 when Digambar Kamat participated in a procession led by another Digambara Jain monk, Pranam Sagar Maharaj, through the city of Margao. Not only was Pranam Sagar the object of much hilarity, but this derision was extended to Digambar Kamat, even as there were attempts to initiate legal proceedings against the monk for obscenity.

As was rightly pointed out by the spokespersons for the Jain community at the time, it was the unfamiliarity with Jain practices that led to the complete disbelief among large segments of the Goan population. However, despite learning that some Jain monks do give up clothing in their practice of austerity, there were still a number of Goans who were not mollified. Their reaction was similar to that of some in Goa who felt that Tarun Sagar too was engaging in an obscenity and ought to be prosecuted for such act.

Both Tarun Sagar and Pranam Sagar are engaged in a practice that, in the final analysis, is not in fact hurting anyone. Just as in the case of the outrage people feel when women or men are dressed in a manner that they feel is inappropriate, if one is offended by their nudity, one need simply turn away. Of course, that both the monks were in public spaces raises the issue of how we, in a country with such a diversity of social practices, are to share public space. However, this is a matter that needs to be addressed through nuanced debate, rather than resolved through police action. At the end, this use of state violence is a fascist resolution to complex social challenges.

I was, therefore, mystified when people raised Tarun Sagar’s nudity when they responded to his sermon in the Haryana legislative assembly. If reports are true, his being dressed would not have made his address any less problematic. Sagar suggested the need for state legislations to be subservient to dharma (i.e. brahmanical morality), just as he suggested that wives ought to be disciplined by their husbands. While actively promoting hatred for Pakistan, Sagar also continued the tradition of making brahmanical sensibilities with regard to the river Ganges a guide for state policy.  Kejriwal’s tweet could have addressed Dadlani’s tweet by making the case for a respect for social practices – such a monastic austerity – while also problematizing the content of Tarun Sagar’s address. It should be mentioned that not everything Sagar expounded on was problematic. For example, he did condemn the practice of female foeticide, and the presence of criminals in politics. There was every opportunity for Kejriwal to show that he was serious about creating a political environment where we can have nuanced debate. He opted to sidestep the problematic content, however, and only express his devotion to the monk.

It is this aspect of Kejriwal’s politics that is deeply disturbing and suggests that he may not be the resolution of our political problems that he presents himself as. Indeed, through many of his actions, including his response to Dadlani, he demonstrates that he is part of the Hindutva continuum. 

Kejriwal’s affinity with Hindutva was first on display when the anti-corruption rallies he organized along with Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev, both proponents of Hindutva, featured Hindu nationalist images of Bharat Mata. Subsequently, there was Kejriwal’s decision to attend the World Culture Festival organized by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Art of Living movement earlier this year despite the fact that the festival was being organized in contravention of existing guidelines. Not only did Kejriwal attend this event but, while appearing in his capacity as Chief Minister of Delhi, also played the role of a devotee of the god man just as he did in the case of his tweets in defence of Tarun Sagar. In the case of the latter not only did he indicate that Sagar was revered by many, but demonstrated his personal devotion to the man by adding in a subsequent tweet that “I met Shri Tarun Sagarji Maharaj last year. Our family regularly listens to his discourses on TV. We deeply respect him and his thoughts.”

As I argued in an earlier column, Kejriwal violates principles of secularism by actively bringing in Hindu imagery into politics (I recognize that Tarun Sagar is a Jain, but there is not the space here to elaborate how some aspects of contemporary Jainism work with Hindutva). In this latest action, Kejriwal demonstrates that he is no different from other politicians to the extent that he is willing to be populist to remain in power. He consistently participates in Hindutva politics by portraying himself as a devotee of godmen in the Hindu spectrum, and clearly sees no problem with the same. There was not a whisper about Tarun Sagar’s problematic comments, including the suggestion that dharma must guide secular legislation.

In such a case, it turns out the Kejriwal may be no different from other politicians that we are subject to. In the previous assembly elections, many Goans voted for the BJP because they thought they were voting against corruption. In the upcoming elections, AAP is asking Goans to vote for them for a similar reason. Goans should avoid falling for a limited agenda that focused on corruption and a narrowly constructed idea of good governance and realize that what is at stake in Goa is not some narrowly constructed economic corruption, but in fact a commitment to secular values. One should beware the Greeks (in this case, the Delhi-based leadership of AAP) who come bearing gifts. If we don’t, our Troy will surely fall.

(First published in the O Heraldo dated 6 Sept 2016)

The Speaking State: Strategies in a time of utopian politics

On the third of April Mr. Vijay Samant from the village of Bastora wrote an open letter to the Chief Minister Mr. Manohar Parrikar. This letter, he also sent to a number of the prominent newspapers in the State with hope for publication, and no doubt, the initiation of a public debate. Unfortunately for both Mr. Samant as well as our larger society, that letter remained largely unpublished, at least until the nineteenth of this month. 

Mr. Samant’s letter to the Chief Minister hinges on his concern regarding the 'abolition of house tax for personal dwelling houses in panchayat area(s)'. The letter indicates that given that there are a number of apartment blocks, and ‘holiday homes and Portuguese-style houses in coastal belt
panchayat areas which are equipped with swimming pools, saunas, DG sets etc. located in many villages especially in the coastal belt, such a move not only closes the door to an age-old revenue generation option for village panchayats’, but also smacks of ‘a typical populist and cheap policy initiative’. Mr. Samant makes an argument that is typical of a number of critics of Mr. Parrikar’s pre-election manifesto, and budget, that it is filled with populist sops; and fears that Mr. Parrikar’s actions have been populist measures aimed at securing power, rather than engaging in a long-term establishment of mature governance mechanisms for the territory.

This column will not debate the pros and cons of the Chief Minister’s action. What it will do however is to focus on the possible significance of Mr. Samant’s letter. To be sure there have been a number of open letters that have been written to politicians in power, both in Goa and without. However in the context where Mr. Parrikar’s position in power is being heralded as the possible start for utopian politics, this letter assumes a larger significance than what one would normally grant it, and is an interesting location from where to contemplate the changes we would hope Mr. Parrikar would bring to realize better (rather than merely good) governance in Goa.

As stressed in the last installment of this column, the inauguration of Mr. Parrikar’s stewardship is looked forward to as the mark of a new era. We expect things to be done differently now. If a letter of the nature of Mr. Samant’s, had been written in the course of Mr. Kamat’s time as CM, there would have been no hope of a response. Furthermore, for very real reasons, Mr. Kamat’s tenure was seen as a time when the State was ruled with an eye to the accrual of personal profit rather than common interest and benefit. From Mr. Parrikar therefore, there is the hope that his promise of good governance will mark the commencement of open governance. For this reason alone, i.e. of the hope that is placed on Mr. Parrikar’s shoulders, a letter such as Mr. Samant’s should not be seen as just another open letter, but one heralding a new kind of politics. A politics that is utopian, more participatory, and hopeful of responsive governance.

For someone who is acclaimed to be a good administrator, with a technocratic predelictions, when queries, such as those initiated by Mr. Samant, are raised, one should reasonably look forward to what we could call, the Speaking State. To every query put to it, rather than the stony silence, or the helpless hand-waving, of the Kamat-government, the authorities of the State respond in detail, explaining its logics through which the particular decision has been reached.

There are a number of reasons why the Parrikar-government should set a precedent in initiating this development of the Speaking State. To begin with, Mr. Parrikar unfortunately comes along with the reputation of being a glib speaker, wriggling out of earlier verbal statements, by claiming misinterpretation, or misquotation. This does unfortunate damage to his reputation. Statements in writing, in the public sphere would go a long way to challenging this perception. Furthermore, setting up a system where the State can be relied on, and expected to deliver a reasoned response for its actions, could perhaps be Mr. Parrikar’s lasting contribution to ensuring a system of accountability of the State in Goa. Past experience, especially of the recently concluded Kamat administration, demonstrates that this has been woefully lacking in the past years. More importantly, effecting this response would set up the necessary requirements for the development of an educated public sphere, encouraging substantial debate, hinging on reasoning and larger policy goals, rather than flimsy common-sense and mud-slinging that largely marks Goan public debate. A reasoned response by Mr. Parrikar, to Mr. Samant, in the neat, precise manner that he has demonstrated on earlier occasions, even if those earlier responses have largely been verbal ones, would set a welcome precedent on this front as well.

Mr. Parrikar, or any Chief Minister, cannot however be expected to respond to every such letter individually. Once more this letter opens to us a possibility; of the office of the Chief Minister, and eventually those of the legislators, being composed of educated, policy-wise persons, who can identify letters, and issues of concern in the public sphere to the Chief Minister, aiding his response.  This letter opens to us therefore, the possibility of opening a new form of politics, encouraging a more dialogical representative system.

To move on to other players in this episode, in not publishing Mr. Samant’s letter, the Goan newspapers have failed in their duty toward the construction of this public sphere. In failing to publish this letter, and with the normally vitriolic Goan Observer alone publishing the letter, the newspapers seem to have sent a couple of messages. First, that critical discussion is not encouraged within the Goan public sphere. This only goes to underline another perception of Mr. Parrikar, one that dates from his earlier period in office; that he is hostile to criticism. This silencing of critical voices then, does no favour to Mr. Parrikar; on the contrary, it builds the platform for the persistence of such criticism. What these newspapers fail to realize though, is that the era of the complete dominance that the corporate-house run newspaper has over making (or breaking) Goan news is at an end. With the lively adoption of the virtual space by the Goan middle-class, issues can be introduced even when boycotted by the newspaper. The newspaper can still however, through its editorial role, play a valuable role in shaping coherent, informed debate, which is critical to creating a public sphere that is necessary if the utopia that we all expect with the coming of Mr. Parrikar to power is to come into being. Another impact of the disregard of Mr. Samant’s letter, puts him in the unfortunate position of looking like an enemy of the public, and Mr. Parrikar, rather than the public-spirited individual, that he clearly is. This is a role we must all look forward to play. In silencing his voice, the newspapers have done a great disservice to this man, who is, as has been argued above, in fact a herald of the hope that is placed in Mr. Parrikar for responsive governance.

(A version of this post was first published in the Gomantak Times dtd 25 April 2012)

Grave violations: Looking beyond the obvious

In its reported response to the violations in Curchorem, the Archdiocese has rather appropriately advised restraint in expressing their “justified anger”.  We could quibble however, over the emotion that is being referenced. Should we be angry? Or should we be upset and hurt? Anger seems to suggest a certain right to retaliation, one that in this case we have been asked to necessarily restrain. Hurt on the other hand seems to be more appropriate since it suggests the vulnerability of the person who has been the victim of the attack, while opening up, in a rather Christian manner, the possibility for reconciliation, necessary to sustain the environment for happy coexistence in the State.

However, this column would not like to dwell on semantics, nor on an exploration of the appropriate emotional response open to a Catholic in this situation. What this column would rather do is explore the explanations that are being provided for the unhappy incident in Curchorem. The logical response has been that such actions could not possibly be the work of the BJP, therefore, it must be the handiwork of the Congress, smarting under the humiliation of their rejection at the polls. The deplorable actions in Curchorem, this strand of logic informs us, were an attempt to embarrass Mr. Manohar Parrikar, our Chief Minister, and send a warning to the electorate ‘be prepared for the mess that you have invited upon yourselves’.

This could be one explanation. However this should not limit the field of possibilities that we entertain. Any investigation, criminal or social, should ideally open itself up to all possibilities, even the improbable if it would like to ensure a clearer conceptualization of the subject. This is what this column will attempt. If commonsense tells us that the BJP would not engage in such an obviously ill-timed exploit, and therefore it must be the work of the Congress party, then this column will go on to contradict commonsense and suggest some counter-intuitive possibilities.

This exploration must begin however may suggesting that it would indeed be ridiculous to suggest Mr. Parrikar’s hand in the affair. The suggestion must come not because we know Mr. Parrikar is clever enough to not encourage such an action so soon after his election, but because we know, from personal and private estimations of Mr. Parrikar, that he would not stoop to such a possibility. Mr. Parrikar may have an ideological agenda rooted in the vision of the saffron organizations in the country, but it appears that this vision extends to the centrality of the Hindu as a citizen of this country, and a disciplining of the population to making them have a sense of civic consciousness. We can dispense then, with the thought of Mr. Parrikar being culpable.

We could also perhaps dispense with the possibility that the BJP, at an organizational level has had any hand in the actions in Curchorem. To be sure, one can suggest that the BJP orchestrated this entire event so as to show up the CM as a caring man, outraged by the incident and thus gain brownie points.  This possibility is too patently bizarre to contemplate, and if true, would be simply grotesque. If such be the case, we would as a society (not merely as Catholics and Muslims) have to really gird our loins for the storm that should come. For now, this seems unlikely.

There is a need however, for the popular imagination to make a distinction between the BJP as an organization, an electoral party that seeks to come to power on a certain agenda, with a vision that has definite supporters, and other right-wing Hindutva organizations. We often make the mistake of assuming that the BJP is representative of the big bad guy. This would perhaps, be a conceptual error. We have to recognize that with the successful rooting of the Hindutva ideology in the Indian polity there are many more players in the field than just the BJP.

Let us take the example of Pramod Muthalik’s Sri Ram Sene. We cannot forget the incident in 2009 where the Sene rose to national attention for beating-up women and men, for engaging in the un-Indian activity of women drinking in pubs. The question we need to ask is how far was the Ram Sene under the control (at an organizational level) of the BJP, or indeed even of the RSS? Similarly, let us take the examples of the bomb blasts that have been occurring all across the country, whether in Hyderabad, or Pune, or Malegaon, where the perpetrators have been (surprise, surprise) not Muslim fundamentalist groups, but Hindu fundamentalist (Hindutva) groups like the Abhinav Bharat. We could even look to occurrences in Goa where the works of Dr. Subodh Kerkar, celebrating the diversity of the Ganesh icon, was met with a violent response by the Hindu Janajagruthi Samiti. In a highly volatile, and politically competitive, environment, how obedient are these groups to the BJP or the RSS, even if they are linked, at some organizational, or ideological level?

In such a situation, could we postulate that these diverse saffron groups (and they are very active in Goa) have equated the BJP victory with the raising of the saffron flag over Goa, and are now flexing their muscles, assuming their protection by the BJP controlled governmental apparatus? Goa’s case is different (as we as a society are so fond of repeating) but in light of the State’s quiet acquiescence, both in Gujarat and in Karnataka, these groups would have good reason to believe that it is open season for minority hunting, and that the State machinery will not necessarily act on them. Curchorem is not a bad place to symbolically and effectively begin such hunting given the manner in which sectarian tensions have been systematically stoked in that little town.

In conclusion, it may very well be that the whole episode is, as word on the street goes, a Congress orchestrated incident to upset the new balance of power in the State. However, any good investigation would explore all possible options, and as was pointed out in an earlier column, we need to be aware that there is more to politics that elections, and that the diversity of political players is not exhausted by political parties, and that the contests in our country and our state are not exhausted by a simple binary exhausted in the Congress-BJP rivalry.

If indeed it turns out that the incident in Curchorem was the result of Hindutva groups, then the Parrikar government would have one more agenda clearly outlined on its plate; a stern controlling of these groups, an action that was not taken seriously in any form by the Kamat-led government. Given that the BJP has promised its actions to be contrary to those played out by the previous government, we know that we will see action on this front as well.

( A version of this post was first published in the Gomantak Times  14 March 2012)

Heads or Tails? : This farce of good governance vs. corruption

And so it has come to pass, that the contest for the constitution of the Goa State legislative assembly, has been cast as the choice between corruption and its alleged polar opposite of good governance. We should bear in mind, that this ridiculously simplistic and erroneous equation has been made possible as a result of that tainted agitation of some months ago, the Hazare drama. This equation is ridiculous not because the Congress-wallas are lambs bleating at the altar of the common good; after all, who can deny that they are, almost to the last of them, wolves. This equation is ridiculous because ‘corruption’ emanates not from a party, but from the political and executive process in which we are all immured. Should the BJP be elected, there is no doubt that one will be witness to similar levels of hand-over-fist looting of the public treasury. It is hilarious infact, that the BJP can make it sanctimonious positions when some of its candidates are not just miners, but builders as well, when some of the individuals contesting on the BJP-alliance tickets, were in fact indicted in the PAC reported tom-tomed by Mr. Parrikar.

To certain segments of the population, the BJP’s claim to Good Governance rests on the unsullied reputation (in matters of graft that is) of its ‘Chief Ministerial candidate’ Mr. Manohar Parrikar. They present a list of impressive developmental works that he undertook for the city of Panjim, both during his stint at CM and subsequently as MLA. In the course of his term (or was it reign?) as CM too, they point to the simplicity of his life-style and his blemish-less personal track record. Commonspeak has it that indeed Mr. Parrikar is above reproach, not a single paisa entered his personal estate. The same commonspeak however suggests that his position as CM influenced the coffers of the Party. On this front, there is a lot of suggestion that indeed, figures were hiked, and contracts offered to party favourites, so that the party coffers and favourites might prosper.

The issue that emerges therefore, and one that we should take seriously, if corruption is being made the issue, is not only of fiscal corruption, but moral corruption as well. While the above scenario, of using his public office to benefit the party would come under such scrutiny, one must also examine the political ideology of the BJP, which in itself is fairly corrupt. The reference ofcourse is to the saffron agenda of making India a Hindu state.

Now Mr. Parrikar has been reported to have publicly acknowledged that the sectarian actions of his previous tenure as CM, was the result of ‘bad advice’. He vows not to repeat this ‘mistake’again. This is a rather large herring to swallow however. Given the manner in which we sneer at the ‘uneducated’ persons getting tickets on the Congress train, one does not expect a focused and educated individual such as Mr. Parrikar to be so easily swayed by ‘advice’. Perhaps Mr. Parrikar is using a euphemism, and what he means by advice, is in fact pressure; from his associates, both from within the BJP as well as his parent organization, the RSS.

Let us change track for just a moment and have a look at the track record of the BJP in one of the two states that have been racked by communal tensions; Gujarat and Karnataka. A recentreport on the saffronisation in Karnataka in the Tehelka points out that in 2008, “Once the BJP government was installed, it had a choice between broad-based development of the state and consolidation of the Sangh structure. Four years on, it’s obvious which path was chosen. In its first year itself, the government had given evidence of its agenda. Bajrang Dal activists attacked churches, with the administration scarcely taking stern action. The question of whether the government would rein in extremist elements was answered in the negative.”  There is every fear of such a systematic consolidation of the Sangh structure taking place in Goa if it comes within the shade of the saffron umbrella. Hark back to episode, where on the course of his tenure as CM, government-run schools were handed over to the ‘NGO’ Vidya Bharathi. Vidya Bharati it turned out was an RSS outfit. An outfit prone to tailoring the teaching of history towards Hindutva designs, and cultivating all manner of sectarian myths about non-Hindus. Such actions are hardly the result of bad advice that one can ignore. It is the result of a deliberate, calculated policy of the entire Sangh structure that the BJP is a part of. Such a careful scheme of deliberately poisoning the social environment of the state and country, cannot be excluded from the ambit of corruption. On this count, the BJP cannot, under any circumstance excuse itself from the charge of being corrupt.

There is another count on which when examining the reputation of Mr. Parrikar, the BJP fails to match up to its rhetoric of good governance. Mr. Parrikar’s term in office was likened to a reign. Like absolute monarch, Mr. Parrikar is reported to have done exactly what he felt needed to be done. Of course, given our ‘democratic’ times, he would be more likely compared to a fast and efficient, CEO. Good governance however, is emphatically not only about efficiency, it is also about consultation and partnership, values that are widely felt to have been markedly absent in the course of Mr. Parrikar’s term in office. Indeed, it is not surprising that it is precisely the Catholic business (and feudal) classes that feel attracted to Mr. Parrikar, and would be willing to overlook his rightist tendencies. The larger neo-liberal environment within which we live privileges such autonomous action that favours technical and authoritarian resolutions of problems, forgetting the more important fact that institutions alone cannot resolve problems.  Take the naïve claims of the India Against Corruption, an in effect right-leaning association, that seems to think that corruption is some switch that people turn on to get jobs done, and all we need is a Lok Ayukta to turn that switch off and resolve the corruption problem. Social problems emerge from a plethora of social issues, and these must be addressed, one problem at a time.

A continued interaction between individuals and associations is fundamental to the elaboration of good governance. No matter how loathsome the politics of Mr. Digambar Kamat, the man has always remained approachable. One may not get a response, but one gets a hearing; a scenario which has markedly absent from the workings of Mr. Parrikar. This lack of a hearing bears out, given the kind of cultic image that has been built around the man. All-knowing, all-capable (and all-powerful) why was there a need for civil society when he knew what you needed and how it needed to be done? The absence of a space for civil society and the dominance of the cult figure is not a mark of good governance; it is a mark of the fascist polity.

There is another argument that needs to be made in light of this building up of a personality cult around Mr.Parrikar. The man is no longer addressed as just a man, but per force becomes, as in this column, the target for the large claims that are being made on his behalf. Such a depersonalisation is deeply unfortunate, tragic even, given that Parrikar the man, as I would personally be able to attest, when relating with an individual in need, is a profoundly generous person.

In conclusion, the point has to be stressed that this column is not an argument in favour of the Congress (I), it is a plea against reducing the upcoming election to just good –governance or corruption. To quote a friend, ‘elections are fought and won on multiple considerations which go beyond communalism or corruption’. This is to say that an election is not an either-or game decided between good governance and corruption. There are plenty of other considerations that we need to consider. To ignore these considerations, is to engage in a very dangerous game of simplification. A game that later generations will eventually hold us accountable for.

(A version of this post was first published in the Gomantak Times 29 Feb 2012)

Films and civil society: Standing up against the easy response

Selma Carvalho, author of Into the Diaspora Wilderness is one of Goa’s brave new voices. Hers is a brave voice because she dares to speak truths that her audience does not particularly like to hear. The case I have in mind is her spirited response to the whole Dum Maro Dum controversy. In her essay on The Goan Voice, she pointed out that regardless of how offensive we may find the film or references in it to Goa, ‘Hurt sensibilities do not give us the right to clamp down on free speech in the guise of protecting society. The principles of democracy are far greater, far more important than our hurt.’

She argued further that ‘We must realize, that in a free society, civil liberties such as the artist’s right to create, to interpret, to challenge existing norms are sacrosanct. They must be protected, they must be fought for as fiercely as our nationalist heroes fought for Liberation and they must be honoured every step of the way even when it repulses us to do so. Unless the mind is allowed to roam unfettered, it cannot create, it cannot hold a mirror unto society. When the creative mind itself is weighed down by censorship, society stagnates; it becomes hollow, echoing only those sentiments which it finds acceptable from within its empty chambers.’

Carvalho’s voice must be cherished not merely because she is brave, but because, as her argument above demonstrates, she has the gift of foresight. She understands that the arguments we use today, can just as well be used by elements of the far-right. Indeed, she makes this argument against those protesting for a ban of Dum Maro Dum because of the similarity in tone shared by the shrill remonstrations against the film and those often raised by the Hindu right; a perfect example being the recent demonstrations against the works of Prof. José Pereira.

There are many who believe that opposition to the Hindu Right is sufficient, and that in face of this larger enemy, we should hold our peace against the bigots in our midst. As Carvalho argues, this position is pointless. The Hindu Right are not necessarily products of some peculiarly ‘Hindu’ perversion but the result of attitudes that are running strong through our society today. What the Hindu Right has been protesting as an insult to Hindus and Hinduism, the Catholic bigots have been protesting as an insult to the ‘Goan identity’. On the other hand you have the local ‘feminists’ who may wind up producing a scenario not very different from what a Taliban-mentality may produce. In his review of the situation, Cecil Pinto pointed to the rather bizarre signs held up by those protesting against the disrespect shown to local women.

The demand for intervention of the State is particularly scary because of the manner in which the Goan State has been relating to the law especially in the course of the Kamat administration. Public demands are often used to support, or used as a precedent to support, the willful use of law to support a situation where anarchy can reign. Thus on numerous occasions, Mr. Kamat has pleaded inability to act when he should because of ‘public protest’. And yet, perhaps displaying a sympathy for the Hindu Right, has stood by while statal authorities effect de facto bans on works and events objected to by the Hindu Right.

Carvalho also points out the deep hypocrisy shown by the members of the legislative assembly, who protested against the film, even as Goa continues to be officially marketed by the State as a tourist destination for ‘fun’, where Goa is in fact marked by a sinister nexus between Ministers and drug lords, and the Goa represented in the film may not in fact be too far from the Goa that has been actively created by our political class.

One cannot help but extract once more from Carvalho’s impassioned prose:

‘Women's groups are up in arms that a movie will distort the image of women. Let's look at how well women have fared in Goa in recent history. When a young woman alleged that she was raped by a wanna-be politician, he had enough clout to delay his own interrogation, the powers-that-be asked what she was doing out so late. When Scarlett Keeling washed up on our shores, so obviously physically brutalized, the case was dismissed as one of drowning. Only Fiona Mackeown, her mother's relentless intervention forced the government to re-open the case. The Government insisted Fiona Mackeown was out to tarnish the image of Goa. In fact, all she wanted was a mother's justice for her daughter - a woman's justice.’

There are some who have correctly pointed out that the film does display a certain kind of colonial gaze that the ‘Indian’ has toward Goa. Goa, and the (largely Catholic) Goan, can be used in a manner that is best described as colonial. The space and the identity exploited for the benefit of another. However, they seek to use this valid observation to perpetuate an internal colonialism, by arguing for the ‘Special Status’. Clever monkeys.

What we must recognize is that it is not just Goa, and the Goan, that is marked out for the colonial relationship vis-à-vis India. There are numerous other groups in India marked out in this manner. Kashmir and the Kashmiri is one such group. There can be no denying that the relationship of the ‘Indian’ with Kashmir is colonial, and the Kashmiri is often actively depicted as the ‘terrorist’. If Goa has been depicted in this particular film as lawless, then Bihar is almost always represented as a gangster paradise, populated by boors who if not gangsters are docile workers. The list could go on and on.

We would perhaps be better served if we used this controversy to reflect on the manner in which certain segments of the Hindi film industry in Bombay actively create stereotypes that justify the treatments meted out to segments of the Indian population. There is a definitely a colonial relationship that is being articulated for the colonial Indian Republic that justifies unequal treatment for categories of Indians and we need to wisen up to this act.

The response however lies not in banning the film, nor does it lie in the dubious demand for ‘Special or Separate Status’ which is in fact merely the precursor to the demand for what will be the devastating demand independence. The response lies in addressing the less glamorous, but definitely more fruitful path of seeking to build a respectful and just society, not just within Goa, but through the Indian Union. The response to those who feel offended by the film’s depiction in Goa would be, those of you who have sneered at the Bihari, bad-mouthed a spirited woman, or hated a Kashmiri, let them cast the first stone.

(A version of this post was first published in the Gomantak Times, 4 May 2011)