‘MINORITY-APPEASEMENT’ OR ‘MAJORITY CASTEISM’?

November 2015 would be an unfortunate month for Goa. Not simply because Fr. Bismarque Dias, a fire-brand activist, was found dead under mysterious circumstances, but also because the Goan government  behaved in an atrocious manner in handling the investigation as well as the law and order situation following the peaceful protest on 21 November, 2015. At a time of outpouring of grief and emotion from the people of Goa, and at a time when politics in Goa is in dire need of ‘Kindness’ (to borrow Fr. Bismarque’s word upon which rests his 2012 election manifesto) one would be quite surprised – or rather, shocked – to see vicious anti-minority statements made in public by members of the Bharatiya Bhasha Suraksha Manch (BBSM). With the government increasingly growing unpopular in the eyes of the Goan people, it seems quite certain that members of the RSS-backed BBSM are making hay while the sun shines.

Simply put, the BBSM’s agenda is to block the grants-in-aid to English as a Medium of Instruction (MoI) in primary schools in Goa. In trying to safeguard ‘Indian culture’ (whatever that means), members of the BBSM think that it is the Christians in Goa who are responsible for the demand for English made by parents across the caste and religious divide. It has been quite clear for some time now that the BBSM is an openly rightwing group. Its hostility to minoritized groups is very evident. In the recently-held BBSM press conference, Arvind Bhatikar said to the ruling BJP party in Goa, “Your voter is Hindu. You are in power because of Hindus. Remember this and stop appeasing the minorities”.

This issue I think cannot be framed as one of increasing communalization, as one can see that the BBSM is always clever enough to keep token figures from the Hindu bahujan samaj and the Catholic community in their press conferences and photo-ops. Neither can the vicious hostility to Goa’s minoritized groups can be understood as an issue of increasing “intolerance”. If this was the case, persons like Naguesh Karmali and Pundalik Naik (staunch members of the BBSM and Nagri Konkani litterateurs) would not have aligned with the RSS-backed BBSM, while at the same time protesting the Sahitya Akademi’s silence on the recent murders of writers and rationalists.

So the question is, how do we then, understand the comments that are made by Arvind Bhatikar and the members of the BBSM? The most important way is to see how Brahmanism operates in maintaining its own power. It is no secret that both the RSS and the Nagri Konkani camp (from which most of the Konkani “stalwarts” are drawn) are tightly controlled by brahmins. The Nagri Konkani project itself is the project of the Saraswat caste hegemony. In this context, it would profit us quite a lot if we invoke the comments of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who observed, “Is it reasonable to expect the secular Brahmins to take part in a movement directed against the priestly Brahmins? In my judgment, it is useless to make a distinction between the secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith and kin. They are two arms of the same body, and one is bound to fight for the existence of the other”. Clearly, the rightwing brahmins in the RSS and the secular brahmins (who, like Uday Bhembre and Arvind Bhatikar, have so far been projected as ostensibly ‘secular’ and ‘progressive’) have come together under the umbrella of BBSM – and one can only presume that the reason to do so is to maintain each others’ existence.

I am not the first one to see similarities between the methods employed by right-wing Hindu groups and those that are employed by cultural purists like the BBSM – a major chunk of whose leadership consists of the “stalwarts” of the Nagri Konkani camp. Kaustubh Naik argues that in Goa the Nagri Konkani camp functions as a “local culture police” much like Hindu right-wing groups. This local culture police want to “impose a singular identity by carefully erasing all cultural differences to ensure the hegemony of a dominant social group”, i.e. the “Hindu Saraswats” according to Naik (The Goan Everyday, dt: 29 September, 2015).

Where is the minority-appeasement in such a scenario? If repeated struggles by the Goan people, for greater equality in political life and for a greater recognition of their individual and community rights, are diligently scuttled by dominant caste groups (with of course tokens from the Christian community and the Hindu bahujan samaj), then, once again, where is the appeasement? In the context of ‘minority-appeasement’ one cannot help but draw parallels in the manner in which Christians in Goa are made into a scapegoat like Muslims in many parts of India. By making Christians of Goa a scapegoat for a demand that clearly is not confined to them alone, a bid for maintaining caste hegemony is cleverly disguised as a concern for Indian culture – and, most importantly, Indian languages.

As serious as the nature of the comments made by BBSM’s Arvind Bhatikar is, they are also very routine and banal. One must not be fooled into believing that such comments are an exception to the rule, or an aberration. For all parents who are concerned about the future of their children, the need of the hour is not simply to ensure full recognition for the grants to be given to English as MoI, but also to challenge a vicious ideology that would deny people the right to choose.

And all said and done, even if we call this ‘minority-appeasement’, it is only going to do Goa a lot of good.

(First published in O Heraldo, dt: 9 December, 2015) 

‘GUNAAJI’: GUNN ANI OGUNN

Gunaaji hem Konkani cholchitr kaim satolle zale Gõychea sinema halls-amni dakhoitat. Hanvem hem cholchitr polleun ghetlem ani mhojea koplak mirio poddleo. Kiteak tem hanv hea lekhant uzvadd ghalunk sodtam.

Sahitya Akademicho puroskar favo zalolo borovpi, Pundalik Naikachea eka novolikecher hem cholchitr adarun asa. Pustok rupant prokaxit zaunche poilim, hi novolika 1998 vorsa Konkani Bhasha Mondollachea vorsuki Konknni hea masikacher ani Raxttrmot hea disalleacher bhagamni (serialized) uzvaddak ailoli. Tor ami oxem mhonnonk zata ki cholchitr zaunche polim he novolikentli kanni  boreach vachpeam meren pavloli asa. Khub pavtti filmachi kanni pustokant asa toxi nasta dekhun hanvem hem pustokui vachun kaddlem.

Gunaaji hi eka raknneachi kanni, zo Gõychea eka ganvgirea vattharant ravta ani zaka sogleant boro rakhnno mhonn raxttriya inam favo zata. Gõyant savn Novi Dil’li to koso provas korta ani uprant puroskar gheta tem hea filmant dakhoilam. Gõykarank manovta tosle dixttave hea filmant asat. Pustokant ani filmant zaite hansovpi ani mon dhados korpi khinn asat, ani choddant chodd kodden pustokant asa tich kanni filmantui dakhoilea.

Punn jea suvantancher pustokantli kanni filmant veglli dakhoilea tachi mat ami nond gheunkuch zai. Chodd korun je don prosong asat tacher ami nodor marunk zai. Pustokache/filmache survatek Gunnaji aplea jivitantlo ek khinn sangta, koxe bhaxen tannem ek pavtt eke gayek marunk vhortoleank addailolem tem, kiteak gayek marop mhollear vaitt dekhun, ani kanniechea xevottak aplo puroskar svikarlea uprant Gunnaji bhaxonn ditanam hoch ‘point’ porot sobhemazar manddta. Cholchitrantlea hea donui prosongant jem Kristanvanchem patr (character) dakhoilam tachem vornonn pustokant khoinch kelolem mellona.

Punn, hea filmant  oxem dakhoilam zache vorvim amcheamni somzunk zata ki hea donuim prosongantlim patram Kristanv mhonn. Poilea prosongant Konknnichi ji boli vapurlea  ani  dusrea prosongant Gunnaji-n aplea bhaxonnant voir ul’lekh kelolo ‘point’ kelea uprant, rokdoch kemera machier boslolea eka “Shri. Melvin Pereira”-acher focus zata. Tedna tache  hav-bhav matxe nervoz zalolea ani lojek poddlolea bhaxen distat.

Hea pustokacho borovpi, Naik,  filmachi ‘screenplay’ toyar korpant aslolean  ami   ho prosn vicharunk zai: Goroz nastanam kiteak ani koslea karonnank lagun  Kristanv patram filmant dakhoileant?  Pustokant ekuch zagear borovpi Kristanv monxeacho ul’lekh korta ani to mhollear jednam Gunnaji ‘airport security’-cher pavta. Punn ho prosong kannientlea mukhel kolpone kodden matui sombondhit nam.

Tor Gunaaji-n mhojea koplak mirio kiteak ghatleo? Hachem karonn mhollear  gayek marop (mhonnche gayechem mas khavop) ani Kristanvam modem aslolo sombondh, zo hea filmant dakhoila. Gõyant Kristanv ani Musolman lok gayechem mas khatat, ani halinchea kallar  gayechem mas  khavpacher zo bhovxik virodh zata tachi amkam zanniv asa. Tor oslea vatavoronant  koxe toren ami hi novolika somzun gheunchi, ji 1998 vorsa uzvaddailoli ani 2014 vorsa filmachea rupant porot loka mukhar ailoli? Amcheamni oxem mhonnonk yeta ki gayechem mas khavop ani Hindu bhavna dukhovop hachem rajkaronn Gõyant vo Bharotant novem nhoi. Gõyant ‘right wing’ xoktimni gayechem mas khavpacher, Evropi sonvskruticher, Purtugez vosnnukponn ani Kristanvanchea jevnna-nhesnnacher, ani her dusrea sonvskutik chali-ritincher virodh korche adim  pasun ho ‘process’ chalu aslolo.

‘Anti-minority’ rajkaronnant Naik fuddakar gheta oxem ami mhunnonk sodinant. Punn Naikan je toren Bharoti raxttr-jinnentle kaim vichar – zoxe porim olp-sonkhechea lokanchem mot kana-monar sarkem ghevop na – kolltta vo na-kollttam mandun ghetlolea karonnank lagun amcheamni tachea Gunaaji-k prosn korunk yeta. Hem film amkam inosent disot (ani kaim zageamni tem inosent-ui asa) punn je toren ukteponnim ani lipovn kaim khinn hea filmant asat te Kristanv vo olp-sonkhechea monxeak ugddas korun ditat ki tanchi sonvskruti ani tancheo rit-roviseo sodanch ‘majoritarian’ (bhov-sonkhyea) sonvskruti poros veglleo asat mhunnon ani tannim sodankal ‘majoritarian’ sonvskrutiche xeka khal ravpak zai mhunnon. Naikan hi bhirankull stithi nirmunk nam zait punn tannem tika urba dilea hantunt dubhav nam.

Tor Gunaaji kitlem borem cholchitr zaun asa? Hacher mhaka bhasabhas korunk naka. Punn mhaka oxem sangunk zai ki hi novolika ani hem film sadheo ghoddnuko nhoi. Kaim gozali distat titleo sadheo nastat ani tantuntlim gupit karannam amche modem aslolea boreantlea boreank pasun tim kaim pavtti disti poddonant. Jeo sonvskrutiyo ani rit-roviseo Hindu nhoi teo poisavpachi pod’dot   (trend) Bharotant atanch suru zaunk na. Taka xembhor odhik vorsancho itihas asa. Zor tor amkam hea itihasacho ugddas na zalear olp-sonkhechea lokank ami  rajki ani her molla voilean poisavunk zababdar thartole.

(Ho lekh Amcho Avaz-acher uzvaddak aila, tarik: 6 Setembr, 2014)

‘GUNAAJI’ AND THE OTHER ALLUSION

Over the last couple of weeks the Konkani film Gunaaji has been screening in some theaters in Goa and not wanting to miss it, I decided to watch it one evening. Two hours later, when I walked out of the theater I had an uneasy feeling about the movie. This column would like to reflect deeply on the feeling of unease that I experienced after viewing Gunaaji.

The film is based on a novella of the same name written by Pundalik Naik, recipient of the Sahitya Akademi award. Before it was published as a book in 1998, this novella had appeared in Konkani Bhasha Mandal’s annual magazine Konknni and was also serialized in the Sunday supplement of Rashtramat, both in 1998 itself. Thus one can conclude that this story has already enjoyed a fair share of circulation, even before it was made into a film. Knowing that generally films tend to depart from the plot of the book, I also decided to read Gunaaji before talking about my unease.

Gunaaji is a story about a cowherd living in a remote village of Goa, who gets selected to receive a national award for being the best raknno or cowherd in the country and about the journey he undertakes from his village to New Delhi to receive the award. The film is saturated with colour-rich images of a bucolic landscape, like the ones that gladden the hearts of any true-blooded Goan. The book as well as the movie has many funny and lovable moments, and in most places the film has remained faithful to the plot of the book.

But the places in which the plot of the movie departs from the book are very interesting to note. There are particularly two instances that need our attention. In the beginning of the book/film Gunaaji recounts an incident where he had stopped a cow from being taken for slaughter as it was not the right thing to do, and towards the end of the book, after receiving the award he makes a speech reiterating the same point. In both instances in the book there is nowhere a hint that a Catholic character is involved in the progression of the plot. However, in the film there are some obvious and not-so-obvious markers that allow one to understand that these point towards Catholic characters. In the first instance, the accent that is employed is enough to establish that it is a Catholic person who has purchased the cow for slaughter. In the second instance, after Gunaaji makes his point about stopping cow-slaughter, immediately the camera zooms-in on a “Shri. Melvin Pereira” who is seated on the dais of the awards ceremony in New Delhi and who seems visibly uneasy and embarrassed about what Gunaaji has just said.

Given the fact that Naik, the author of the book, was closely associated with the screenplay of the film, one has to ask the question why Catholic characters or markers of a Catholic person were incorporated in the film, whose original story had so little to do with any Catholic subjectivity? To go back to the book, there is only one place where the author consciously identifies a person as Catholic and that is when Gunaaji has to go through the airport security check, where the police officer is depicted as Catholic. But this instance is in no way related to the larger plot.

So why have I felt uneasy with the way the abovementioned two instances from the story by Naik are portrayed in the film? The reason lies in the manner in which cow-slaughter (thus beef-eating) and Catholics are juxtaposed in the film, whether wittingly or not. It is common knowledge that beef is consumed by Catholics and Muslims in Goa, and it is also common knowledge that of late the selling and consumption of beef in public have been encountering opposition. Against this background how do we understand a story that was published in 1998 and made into a film in 2014? What one can immediately suggest is that the politics of cow-slaughter, beef-eating, and hurt Hindu sensibilities is not a recent one for either Goa or India. It was a process that was set in motion much before right-wing groups started creating a fuss in Goa around beef-eating, western sanskriti, Portuguese colonialism, Catholic dietary, dress and other cultural practices.

This column is not suggesting that Naik is at the forefront of – or championing – anti-minority politics and rhetoric. But his uncritical conformity (knowingly or not) to certain given ideas and ideals within Indian national life that have become normalized, such as (for instance) not seriously considering the minority perspective, certainly allows us to question his Gunaaji. The film may seem innocent (and perhaps it is in many places) but the subtle and not-so-subtle codes that are found in the movie reminds the Catholic (and other minority groups) that their cultures and being is not always allowed to co-exist with the dominant, majoritarian cultures. Indeed, it has to remain subservient to it. Naik may have not created the monster, but he has certainly fed it. 

So is Gunaaji a good movie? This column would not like to sit on judgment on this issue. Neither was this the intent of my column. The point I would rather like to forward is that the book and the film are not isolated incidents. There is something that operates on a deeper and insidious level that can escape the best of us. The trend to de-legitimize non-Hindu cultures in India has a long history of more than a hundred years. If we are not aware of this history then we shall only further a brand of politics that distances minority groups from mainstream discourses and politics.

(First published in  O Heraldo, dt: 24 July, 2014)