Not Going, Merely Coming

Sometime in the morning of 25 October, I received an SMS from a friend. The SMS contained the word ‘traitor’, followed by a link to an article in that day’s Times of India titled ‘Goan with the wind’. The article, authored by Lisa Monteiro and Andrew Pereira, offered figures and comments on the phenomenon of scores of persons from the former Portuguese State in India (Goans, for the sake of brevity) ‘migrating’ after claiming Portuguese passports. The article itself made no suggestion of traitorous behaviour on the part of these persons, leading to the conclusion that it was not the facts that were problematic but their interpretation. Such an interpretation requires that we supplement our analysis with additional information.

There is a suggestion that the migration of Goans holding a Portuguese passport is a unidirectional movement outside of Goa. This is not necessarily true. Goans have been migrating for centuries, whether to East Africa, to other parts of Asia or, more recently, to the Persian Gulf and Europe. Most of these migrations have been marked by a return of these Goans’ earnings to erect the beautiful homes that are today mistakenly marketed as ‘Portuguese’. This is to say that Goan migrations have not traditionally been unidirectional. Rather, they have been marked by a back and forth between the two territories. If contemporary migrations with the Portuguese passport seem to have changed something—and, in fact, it is still too early to judge whether this is the case—then, we need to inquire as to the circumstances that might have led to this change.

What is often overlooked is that the legal landscape that impinges on Goan migration has changed substantially. Yes, Goans have awoken to the fact that they can obtain a Portuguese passport and benefit from the status of the European Union, but the other fact that is rarely commented on is that Indian law has deprived them of their traditional rights. The rush to acquire a Portuguese passport may be a new, decade old, phenomenon; however, at least since the first quarter of the nineteenth century, all Goans were formally recognised as Portuguese citizens. Predating this date, too, varying sections of the Goan population were recognised as Portuguese citizens. For example, from the mid-1800s, those paying property taxes were able to vote in the elections to determine who would represent Goa in the Portuguese Parliament. When the Indian army marched into Portuguese India in 1961, the ability to assert this right was lost, and India unilaterally imposed not only its own citizenship on these Portuguese citizens but also the restriction that they could have only one nationality. This is an odd action for a state that claims to be a liberator. Logically, a liberator only adds to existing rights; it does not take them away.

Further, the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) regime is not really an option for persons who wish to have a continuing relationship with their country. We are often misinformed when told that the OCI card allows for ‘multiple entry, multipurpose life-long visa to India, granting… exemption from reporting to the police for any length of stay in India’, and that the only restrictions are voting in elections and the purchase of agricultural land. Recent events have highlighted that this is, in fact, not the case. Regardless of OCI status, persons engaged in research in India need a research visa. Further, one needs a business visa to work in India as an OCI. And finally, there is the social life of the law—the manner in which rules are actually implemented. Take the case of Christine Mehta, who, despite possessing a valid research visa, was recently deported from the country, or the case closer home of Saturnino Rodrigues, who in February 2014 claimed that he was prevented by the state administration from carrying out mutation of a property sold to him by an OCI.

Thus, if Goan migration seems to be turning into a one-way exit, it is because of the oppressive legal regime that the Indian state insists on. Goans are not obtaining Portuguese passports; they are merely reclaiming the Portuguese citizenship that they have always enjoyed. This is not a situation that most Indians would appreciate, because the British Raj never allowed for natives to enjoy British citizenship. Natives were always subjects, never citizens. A legal regime honest about history would undoubtedly allow for a more dynamic movement of Goans between Goa and other places. Indeed, the ongoing movement for Special Status for Goa should take cognizance of this fact and demand dual citizenship for Goans as an integral part of the Special Status demand.

Subsequent to pointing to the way the legal landscape has changed and impacted Goan migration, it is also necessary to point out the changed social landscape. The TOI article suggested that Goan migration was pushed by ‘rising unemployment and an uncertain economy’. This is only part of the equation. Left unsaid is the increasing intolerance in the country, initiated well before the current rise of the BJP, which has made Goans, and especially Catholics, scramble for alternatives, where they will not be made to feel like minorities. Indeed, the fact that the TOI article found it necessary to provide data regarding the religious make-up of those reclaiming their Portuguese citizenship and forced to give up their Indian citizenship speaks to the vitiated manner in which the matter is being debated.

Nevertheless, what most encounters with those migrating indicate is that the choice to migrate with a Portuguese passport is, in fact, economic. The problem, however, lies not in a lack of employment but in a lack of decent employment. The fact is that in India, and this includes Goa, the salaries for blue collar jobs do not allow for middle class lifestyles and options. While Goans migrating to Europe may be forced to work in sweatshops and live in slums today, the existence of a welfare state in the West, no matter how much under threat, will ensure that their children will have options that they could never imagine in Goa and India.

To conclude, the Goan migration via a Portuguese passport should not be seen as evidence of a traitorous relationship with India. On the contrary, Goans are merely asserting a pre-existing birthright first obtained by their ancestors. Further, if Goans are renouncing Indian citizenship, it is under the duress of the Indian state that refuses to recognise Goa’s peculiar legal history. A number of South Asian languages proscribe ‘going’—a word that indicates no return—preferring instead, as in Konkani, yetam (coming). Given a more accepting socio-legal regime, when migrating abroad Goans would very well be saying ‘I’m coming [back]’, rather than ‘going’.

  

(A version of this post was first published in the Times of India on 3 Nov 2015.
The Director for NRI Affairs, Govt. of Goa, responded to this article in the Times of India on 13 Nov 2015.)

Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism: Reflections after the Global Goans Convention

There are a good many detractors of the Global Goans Convention. These persons, both within Goa and without, mount the charge that the Conventions are a waste of the taxpayer’s money and amount to nothing more than offering the Commissioner of NRI Affairs, and his office, a fun visit to various parts of the world. This is an unfortunate and perhaps shortsighted criticism.

While there may be many shortcomings to the process as it now exists, the Convention should be seen less as an event, than as an institution. It is a ritual that allows for the articulation of the community of Goans outside of the borders of Goa. If used wisely and carefully, it can be emerge as an event that will allow for the articulation of the concerns of Goans, ranging from the economic to the political and cultural, both within and outside of Goa. Indeed, it was obvious at the recently concluded Convention in London, that there are a small number of Goans who do follow the Convention from one location to the other, and do make themselves heard to the larger Goan community. The present Convention also saw Carmen Miranda, articulating the argument against the mining industry testifying to the manner in which the Convention can allow for issues of concern to be articulated and then carried forward by engaging the interest of Goans overseas.

However this larger objection of facilitating the emergence of a larger global Goan ‘civil society’ does not seem to be the intention of the Convention at present. What most of the critics of the Convention don’t seem to realize, is that the Convention is not the result of merely the Goan State wanting to create another avenue to spend money. On the contrary, the impetus for this move comes from the larger project of the Indian State that is reaching out to ‘Persons of Indian Origin’ and ‘Overseas Indians’. The objectives of this goal are multiple, one of them being to enhance the overseas visibility of the Indian State as it behaves like other super-power States that look after persons even overseas. Just as the organization of the Convention would result in the creation of a sense of a Goan community overseas, the project of the Indian State is to enhance and build on the idea of the Indian-ness of people connected in some way to the State of India (that is Bharat).

There should be no reason why this project is necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, a challenge to the unipolar world of international politics may be a wonderful thing. However, what we do need to ensure is that this strong and hopefully super-power Indian State is a responsible and democratic one. The question now is, whether this project of the Indian State, that the Goan state is forwarding, will work to the benefit or the detriment of those we normally understand as Goans. Alternatively put, will this project of reaching out to ‘Indians’ overseas, continue along the largely Hindu majoritarian lines that has marked the internal construction of the Indian State, or will it be welcoming of the larger difference that exist among persons of ‘Indian’ origin overseas.

One of the problems with the word Goan, is that it invariably conjures the image of a Catholic in one’s mind. This is somewhat unfortunate, given that Goa comprises of more than just the Goan Catholic. While this is a diversity we need to acknowledge, and perhaps work towards actively acknowledging, there is also a tendency to place the blame for this situation on the Goan Catholics. To do so, would merely continue the tendencies of Indian nationalism, where the blame for the apparent lack of unity is almost invariably placed on the minority groups, be they of religious, caste, ethnic or other persuasion. This blame game was already apparent at the Convention in London. An artiste attending the convention from Goa, suggested to the organisers that given that the Convention was called the Goans Convention, it should include all Goans, not just those ‘from a particular community’. Point well made, but it seemed to implicitly blame the local organizers (a largely Catholic group) for not including those from other communities.

The sentiment of this artiste was probably right. There should have been members of other Goan communities in attendance. And yet, who is to ensure that this happens? The local committee alone, or the Office of the High Commissioner for NRI Affairs? While there were no members from other Goan communities, there definitely was the presence of representative of the local Hindu community, an odd presence, given that perhaps if we were looking for Hindus, it should have been the representative of the Goan Hindu community? What was in fact the reason for the non-attendance of the ‘other communities’ at the Convention? Was this absence due to a deliberate exclusion, an oversight and the failure to actively invite, or the result of a longer history where there is hardly any relationship between the Goan Catholics and other groups of Goan origin?

Regardless of the reasons for their absence, we need to recognize that groups outside the nation-state, do not necessarily create national communities. Unlinked to the project of national ‘unity’ these migrant groups outside the territory, create their own groups, reflective of their unique historical trajectories, and these can sometimes transcend national boundaries and taboos. Take for example the fact that the Goan communities abroad, as in the case of London, can also include Goans who came from the communities in Karachi. The Indian State, for the obvious reasons of history, would find it hard, if not impossible, to accord privileged status to these Goans. And yet, these Goans are as integral to the idea of a Goan community as any other Goan. The challenge before the Indian State would be, while respecting these patterns of community building, to also encourage greater interaction among the groups that it wishes to bond together.

Once more, the question is whether the Indian State is capable of this broad cosmopolitan agenda? The State of Goa seemed to demonstrate a total incapacity to understand such an agenda, when the cultural troupe that it sent to the Convention, was a group that entirely unfamiliar with cultural productions of the Goan Catholics. It seemed that once more the Indian (and Goan) State were suggesting that authentic Indian-ness and Goan-ness lay not in the traditions of these Catholic migrants, but in those who had ‘remained’ Hindu and from the hinterland of Goa.

None of this is to suggest that the Convention or the project that motivates these Conventions should be done away with. These are but small challenges on a path that can forge a global Goan ‘civil society’. There is however a need to ensure that these challenges are identified, and addressed, or else we will land up with the problems of Indian nationalism being repeated all over again, resulting in the exclusion that has characterized this nationalism so far, even as the energies of these minority groups are harnessed to the greater glory of this project.

(This post is dedicated to Jules Fausto De Sa and other Goans both from Pakistan and elsewhere who are lost, erased and ignored as a result of the limiting frames we place when understanding Goa.)

(A version of this blogpost was first published in the Gomantak Times 3 Aug 2011)