TEMPLES AND MAHAJANS

Post-colonial Goan politics has always been about playing the Hindu bahujan against their Catholic counterparts. Fear of the Hindu bahujan is repeatedly instilled in Catholics using the bogeyman of Marathi and merger; the Hindu bahujan are constantly made hostile by falsely stating that the government panders to every Catholic demand, and by stoking communal sentiments about forced conversions, the Inquisition, western culture, food habits and so on and so forth. Of course, both these sections are quite often pitted together against Muslims. In all of this the hegemony of the Hindu upper-caste is left untouched. This pattern is amply clear if we look at the Konkani language agitation in the past, and the present mobilization of the Bharitiya Bhasha Suraksha Manch (BBSM) and RSS, along with some Marathivadis. Note also the manner in which Nagri Konkani in the Antruzi dialect (which is the dialect of the Saraswats) is still the official language of Goa.

The movement by the Forum for Rights of Children in Education (FORCE) launched in 2011, took a clear stance against this hegemony. More recently, the issue of replacing the old idol at the Marcaim temple in Ponda is on the boil, and is rightly termed as a “Mahajan v/s Bahujan” issue. Of course the antecedents of these two movements are not recent. The demand made by FORCE – that of government funding for English medium primary schools through an act of legislation – can be traced to the resentment over the imposition of Nagri Konkani as medium of instruction (MoI) from 1994. The conflict between the “Mahajans v/s Bahujans” also has a history, with bahujan communities repeatedly trying to gain greater access and control of the temple properties and management, currently in the control of the mostly Saraswat Mahajans. The Nagri Konkani writer N. Shivdas, for instance, has been part of movements to gain access to such brahmanical shrines.

With a judicious and cautious use of the imagination, if we try to put these two movements together, it can be argued that it is not just the temples across Goa that are jealously controlled by Mahajans, but also the ‘temples of learning’ (pardon the metaphor), thus sustaining their hegemony in Goan public sphere.

Allow me to explain a bit more. By demanding that the Mahajan Act, or the Regulamento of 1886, be scrapped, the bahujan communities are in effect asking for a greater control of temple resources, the upkeep of which uses their labour and devotion. They are asking for the freedom and liberty to exercise their choice of deciding how the temples are to be run. Similarly, the movement launched by FORCE is also a movement that demands the freedom and liberty to make a choice to educate children in the language that the parents deem fit. This choice, as we all know, is currently held hostage to the irrational and casteist worldviews and politics of the BBSM-RSS combine – in other words, ‘Mahajans’ of the temples of learning. Isn’t it after all the futures of bahujan children that are being held hostage by these ‘mahajans’?

It is a similar form of power and hegemony that FORCE and the temple movement at Marcaim are fighting. However, we need to point out and understand some shortcomings within such movements.

In relation to the movement spearheaded by FORCE, there are some crucial gaps in their political mobilization that have come to light. Despite many views asserting that FORCE’s demands are not just the demands of the Catholic community, FORCE was cornered into being an organization which represents the demands of Catholics alone. As O Heraldo’s group editor Sujay Gupta recently observed, “…when the government was clearly trying to split the movement for rights of all [emphasis added] children by catering to – or ostensibly catering to – just minority institutions, FORCE allowed this to happen by not pointing out that the government was trying to shift the goalposts”. In other words, there was complacency in FORCE’s mobilization of making more and more allies.

Thus, one can observe that FORCE failed to sustain a consistent articulation that its demands are beneficial for the whole of Goa. Although the bahujan movement at Marcaim does aim for larger political gains beyond the control of temples, yet these aims are not articulated as such; or at least not discussed in the Goan press. The ongoing debates only highlight the potential impact that the Marcaim temple movement could have on the next elections. Limiting (or allowing to limit) the Marcaim issue or the movement by FORCE to shifts in electoral politics would mean that we set our eyes on short-term goals. Both FORCE and the people leading the Marcaim temple movement should think of themselves as fighting similar ‘Mahajan’ control and hegemony.

In the past, we have seen some notable – though short-lived – attempts to unite Catholics and bahujan Hindus through an alliance of the Marathi Rajbhasha Andolan and Romi Konknni Andolan. Perhaps, the only way lasting change can be brought about is by a sustained attempt over a number of years to build solidarity between bahujan interests across religions, that is, assert universal caste and class interests over other sectarian ones. It is in such solidarity that the hope for a common, nurturing, and secure society lies. 

(First published in O Heraldo, dt: 30 March, 2016)

THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND GOA’S TRAGEDY

With the Forum for Rights of Children to Education (FORCE) commencing an indefinite hunger strike to make governmental aid to English medium schools as part of a law, the often ugly linguistic politics in Goa looks poised for another round of jousting. Things seem to have settled down a bit with FORCE receiving written assurance from some MLAs that the matter will be resolved in the next assembly session. But as assurances and promises go from those in power, there is no reason to celebrate right now. Nothing is clearly stated whether the Bill on the Medium of Instruction (MoI) would be passed and made into a law. The opposition to the demands of FORCE came from activists clustered together under the Bharati Bhasha Suraksha Manch (BBSM).

The different constituents in Goan polity should see to it that the rightful demands of FORCE are taken to their logical conclusion. While we agree to the legitimacy of the demands by FORCE, and the right of parents to decide the future of their children, it is also important to consider the politics of language in Goa in a holistic manner. To be clear right from the beginning, language politics in Goa is not just centered around the opposition of Konkani and Marathi. It is much more complex as contestations of scripts, such as the Romi-Nagri issue, are as important as contestations regarding languages in deciding the political fates of the people of Goa. Thus, much of the rhetoric of BBSM-type of activists misguide the people owing to the ignorance of such complexities.

Primarily, there are three agitating groups that form part of the dominant linguistic politics of Goa: the Marathi language supporters, the Romi Konkani supporters, and the Nagri Konkani supporters. The boundaries of these groups are not necessarily fixed, as is seen in Marathi language and Nagri Konkani script supporters teaming up to form the umbrella organization of BBSM. Almost all of the Nagri Konkani activists have been vociferously against the implementation of English as MoI in government-aided primary schools. This is not surprising given the hegemonic hold of Nagri Konkani activists in politics as well as the many governmental institutions and bodies that make and direct the language and pedagogic policies in Goa. Furthermore, these governmental bodies jealously guard literary and cultural awards, as was seen when Nagri script supporters opposed the move by Kala Academy to restart literary awards for Romi Konkani writings. While the Nagri Konkani supporters would never give-in to the demands of equal recognition to the Romi script, they would occasionally ally with some Marathi language activists in order to check the mobilization of Romi script activists.

The MoI controversy and the demand for English in primary schools did put the activists of the Romi script in a somewhat uncomfortable situation. This was so because while on the one hand Romi script supporters were standing firm behind the demand for equality, on the other hand they had to be careful to avoid being accused of abandoning the cause of Konkani, and the Goan identity constructed around the Konkani language. The Roman script activists had also to make sure that the constituency of Romi script supporters does not see them as aligning in any way with Marathi language activists as well. Within the language politics, Romi script supporters are shown the bogeyman of Marathi taking over Goa, in the sense that it is made out to be a problem that will affect Catholics thus playing the Catholic against the Hindu bahujan. And hence the Romi supporters are sold to the idea that Nagri Konkani is necessary to check the ‘threat’ of Marathi. The Romi script activists did, however, skirt the contentious issue of MoI by giving a choice between Nagri and Roman scripted Konkani to the parents.

The Romi script activists failed to recognize that for the Romi Konkani supporters English is as important as Romi Konkani in their lives. This bi-lingual requirement was not adequately represented by the Romi Konkani activists, thus missing a golden chance to democratize and expand the scope of language politics for the betterment of all Goans.

I however argue that the Marathi activists also face a similar situation like the Romi Konkani activists, as far as betrayal of their respective language causes is concerned. The Marathi activists could also be seen as compromising with English, and thus ‘betraying’ Marathi. This is quite unfortunate, as Marathi language politics in Goa was not started to further the literary cause of Marathi, but to counter upper-caste, in particular Saraswat, hegemony in Goa. Supporting the cause of English would have also allowed Marathi language activists, especially the bahujan, to challenge oppressive social structures. The Marathi language activists also do not recognize that the Hindu bahujan have aspirations tied to the English language. Another problem that can be seen is the compromise and alliance that a section of Marathi language activists have forged with Hindutva ideologues and/or upper caste ideals.

The alliance between Marathi Rajbhasha Andolan (MRA) and Romi Konkani Andolan (RKA) some years back was arguably a bold move. But it was short-lived. Although these two groups aimed (quite commendably) at creating a unity of Hindu bahujan and Catholics, very little was done to actually forge these bonds on the ground level and assuage the mistrust present in the communities about each other. On a legal and systemic level, MRA had no proper vision of protecting Catholic interests as far as jobs are concerned since the Hindus who know Marathi (and Nagri Konkani) would automatically be more qualified against Catholics who only know Romi Konkani.

Which brings me to what activists in FORCE are trying to do: to my mind it is a rejection of the decades-old and quite often ugly politics in the name of ‘mother tongue’, ‘Konkani’, ‘Goan identity’ etc. What FORCE is doing, by standing up for the right to English as MoI, is democratizing language politics by rejecting the hold of a few class and caste patriarchs. FORCE is rejecting an oppressive model of mono-lingual practices imposed by largely upper-caste activists. In this there is a recognition that as Goans we need at least two languages in our lives. To not publicly accept this will be hypocrisy. To not change quickly will be Goa’s tragedy.

See also other articles on the issue of MoI: on the Supreme Court terming the imposition of 'mother tongue' as MoI as unconstitutional, see here; for an open letter to the Goan government's advisory committee on MoI, see here.

(First published in  O Heraldo, dt: 5 August, 2015)