USUAL SUSPECTS: GOAN CATHOLICS AND THEIR MARGINALIZATION

As in my previous column, this column too is a reference to the Uday Bhembre-Radharao Gracias debate that was carried in the pages of O Herald, about a month ago. While the previous column focused largely on the comments that Bhembre had made, this column would like to explore Gracias’ suggestion – that of the marginalization of Catholics in the public sphere of Goa. Gracias had suggested that this marginalization was acutely visible if one focused on the manner in which the nagri scripted Konkani held hegemony in Goa.

Focusing on the issue of the Roman-nagri script, one can also look at the role that an activist like Bhembre played in denying due recognition to the Roman script. Although, this column would focus on the views of Bhembre on Roman script, it must be noted that he is not the only person to hold such views. Indeed, such views are representative of a group of people holding power and hegemony in Goa. On a broad level, what is one of the most fundamental objections to the Roman script by the nagri lobby? It is this that the Roman script came in the wake of Portuguese colonialism; ergo it is a foreign script. As such it is not good enough to represent the ‘authentic’ culture of Goa. There were several other arguments that were made against the Roman script – that the literary productions in the Roman script lacked standard; that nagri script is better suited for Konkani as it is an Indian script; and also that the demand for the recognition of the Roman script is downright anti-national.

In all of this tamasha, over a number of years what was not said out loud was how in the denigration of the Roman script, the Catholics in Goa were denigrated as well. The people against whom this vitriol was directed were largely confined to the working-class, bahujan Catholic masses. This affects the bahujan Catholics more than anyone else for the reason that upper-caste Catholics can assert their brahmin privilege against the vitriolic attacks. The denial of the recognition of the Roman script therefore means the denial of recognition of the culture of the Catholic masses in Goa.

In recent years, an activist like Bhembre can be said to be the main protagonist arguing for the denial of the recognition of the Roman script. Reference can be made to a letter that Bhembre addressed to all Cabinet Ministers back in 2006. Through the text of this letter (archived on Goanet), we learn that the Cabinet was considering a change in the Official Language Act, 1987. In his capacity as the chairman of Vichar Vibhag, a think tank of the Congress in Goa, Bhembre was clear that the Official Language Act need not be changed to include the Roman script.

A year earlier, in October 2005, Bhembre was invited to speak at the Xavier Centre for Historical Research. He spoke on the topic ‘Road Map for the Standardisation and Development of the Konknni Language’. The main argument he made was that all Konkani speakers should unite under the nagri script. In other words, one had to give up producing in the Roman, Kannada, Malayalam, and Perso-Arabic scripts solely in favor of the nagri script. One can see the connection between Bhembre’s call for a standardization of Konkani under the nagri script, and his initiative as chairman of the Vichar Vibhag to exclude the Roman script from the Official Language Act, 1987. What should be stated clearly is that such efforts and attempts by activists like Bhembre are designed to exclude communities from political power and influence. In this case this exclusion is not simply faced by the bahujan Catholics alone, but also by the Hindu bahujan samaj. Many activists of the Hindu bahujan samaj view the imposition of the nagri script – and the unity that is sought under the umbrella of Konkani – as an attempt by the dominant castes in Goa to assert control over the rest. Thus, they see Marathi as the language around which they should mobilize against brahmanical hegemony, while also recognizing the validity of Konkani in the Roman script.

Uday Bhembre seen with Pundalik Naik and Shashikala Kakodkar

As stated earlier, Bhembre’s views are representative of many people that occupy positions of power and privilege, and those who try their best to influence cultural, linguistic and educational policies in Goa. We can also use the example of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) controversy in recent years. The demand for English as a MoI was erroneously seen as a demand solely of the Catholics of Goa. The familiar accusations of being disloyal and anti-national were hurled at the Goan Catholics. Not surprisingly, the group that was vociferously opposing this demand were the same people who refused to grant parity to the Roman script with the nagri one. But during the time of the MoI controversy, the activists who came under the banner of the Bharati Bhaso Suraksha Manch, had a decent support from a section of the Hindu bahujan samaj and those who were espousing the cause of the Marathi language in Goa.

Irrespective of whether the Hindu bahujan groups align or not with upper-caste interests in Goa, Catholic assertion – particularly the bahujan Catholic assertion – in the public sphere is always met with vitriolic opposition. Be it the demand for the recognition of the Roman script when Catholics were represented as agents of the Portuguese; or when the demand for English as MoI was seen as a conspiracy hatched by disloyal Catholics against Indian culture; or the more recent suggestion that Catholics are responsible for the misrepresentation and distortion of historical facts regarding the Opinion Poll. Through this vitriolic opposition and violent labeling of the Catholic assertion, any legitimacy that Catholics can claim in the Goan public sphere gets taken away from them. Also important to note here is how the Catholics who were supporting anti-merger in the run up to the Opinion Poll in 1967 were considered to be breeding anti-national and fifth-columnist tendencies, chiefly by the then Defense Minister, Y. B. Chavan (see Rajan Narayan and Sharon D’Cruz, Triumph of Secularism: Battle of the Opinion Poll in Goa).

Thus, one can see that if we take seriously the claim that Catholics have been marginalized in the Goan public sphere, one can see that in the most recent history Catholics have experienced a series of denials of their legitimate place in the public sphere. Rather than worrying much about the Goan identity, one needs to first come to terms with the history of denials and think of ways to undo them.

(First published in  O Heraldo, dt: 10 June, 2015)

HAVING A ‘BEEF’ WITH PORK?

During the Motion of Thanks to the Governor’s speech at the recently concluded budget session, Caitu Silva, the MLA from Benaulim, made a shocking statement in the Goa Legislative Assembly on 25 March, 2015. As reported in the national press, Silva was commenting on the state of the health-services in Goa when he said, “And some government officials in the hospital speak in such a despicable manner. I feel ashamed to say that some officers have said that the hospital in South (south Goa district) is to only save pig-eaters”. Asserting rightly that Christians in Goa need not be referred to pejoratively as “pig-eaters”, Silva also said, “[t]hese are the words used by a government officer. These words have been used because Christians eat pork? Officers should not do this. I know who the officer is”. Silva’s comments, yet again, reveal how food habits that are seen as non-Hindu are coming under repeated attacks and discrimination.

The ‘shocking’ nature of the comments naturally made it to the ‘national’ press. Many national newspaper and web portals carried the news from the stories filed by such syndicated news agencies like Agencies, PTI, and IANS. While there was some space given in the ‘national’ media for Silva’s statement, there was an almost deafening silence in Goa. Only a paragraph-long notice was published in the Goa edition of the Times of India. The first question that needs to be asked is why was there a deafening silence in the Goan press? Isn’t the shocking nature of the statement enough of a qualification for being newsworthy?

It needs to be borne in mind that this statement from Silva came at a time when the ban on beef in Maharashtra is generating a heated debate. Despite the fact that features and op-eds regularly appeared about the impact of the ban on beef on the Goan population, Silva’s revelations were not seen as part of the same casteist and communal politics that is behind the beef ban. There is a conceptual problem in the manner in which the discourse about food practices and habits are framed in the media. These issues relating to food habits and practices are solely seen through the lens of consumption. This, I would argue, is the root of the conceptual flaw. The ban on beef is not simply a matter of prohibition on consumption, but also about snatching livelihoods, denying fundamental rights in relation to food and livelihoods, and de-legitimizing food cultures of minoritized groups.

The issue of the discriminatory, casteist, and communal attitude of the government official, as revealed through Silva’s statement, also needs to be understood. Silva is right in asking whether Christians are referred to in a derogatory manner because they consume pork. But what is also chilling to note is implicit biases in the comment of the government official about people who consume pork. It is clear that the government official in question thinks that governmental resources are going to waste, since it is of no use to treat or provide health services to people who consume pork.

I am not making the claim that the said government official has actively denied Christians health services, because they consume pork. Indeed, there is insufficient evidence in this regard. But one can see how such contempt can create conditions to discriminate Christians and deny them governmental services and benefits. We are confronted with a process of creating minoritized groups, wherein conditions are created for denying communities access to such resources like health services. Such comments cannot be considered to create better living conditions and democratic participation in politics for Christians, or for that matter other minorititized groups in Goa.

The casteist and communal nature of the comments by the government official also needs to be linked with the uneasy history of relations between the so-called ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ cultures in Goa. Such an attitude is not simply confined to this particular government official. Indeed, the derogatory term ‘dukor khaire’ or ‘pig-eaters’ is quite common in Goa. One wonders how many such government servants, who are hired to promote the welfare of the citizens of Goa, hold such casteist and communal views. If one looks at the very delicately-poised relations that Goan Hindus (the ‘majority’) and the Christians (the ‘minority’) seem to have shared over the last few decades and the current communal polarization in India, one begins to understand that this discrimination has a longer history. One also needs to see how the hierarchy of the caste system operates through a hierarchization of food: with fish being the most acceptable (remember fish-eating brahmins are progressive, according to Rajdeep Sardesai), followed by chicken, mutton, pork, and finally beef. Consumption of pork perhaps can be used to single out Catholics from other minoritized groups in Goa. What the recent comments by the government official make us confront is that this discrimination is happening through governmental institutions – it is structural. Indeed, institutional discrimination against Christians in Goa was always present, now none can deny that it happens.

Matters of dietary preferences and taste are not simple and mundane choices that individuals make. In fact, there is always a deeper politics behind them, as is amply proven by the ban on beef, which not only dictates what persons should eat, but has also snatched away the livelihood from many engaged in the meat industry. Entire communities are implicated in this politics of minoritizing, leading to their eventual disenfranchisement. That the abovementioned comment was hardly debated in the Goan press only indicates to us that we need to urgently re-think about how we relate to our food and food cultures. We need to start thinking of food practices as not just embodying the cultural life of a community, but also impacting its economic and political spheres as well.

(First published in  O Heraldo, dt: 15 April, 2015)