Today we have people in the villages in conflict with some land sharks who have bought land in Goa. These land sharks seem to be hand in glove with the powers that be and appear to be out to prey on the land resources of Goa.
The advent of the land sharks mostly from outside have not just provoked anger of Goan people but have also have set in fear of alienation and sense of being on an exile in one’s own land among the people of Goa. Often questions are raised about the way land use of those respective lands were clandestinely changed further accentuating discontent among the locals.
In order to profoundly understand and sense of trouble that Goans are undergoing, we may have to study the colonial legacy of Goa. The Floral of 1926 issued by the Portuguese crown may provide us some insight. This floral is viewed as an agreement between the gaunkars and the Portuguese Crown of the then Island of Goa, which then had come under the Portuguese rule. It was later republished by the Portuguese Government from time to time to make it applicable to entire Goa.
We have brilliant study of the said Floral by Rochelle Pinto. Pinto indicates that the Floral has incorporated a local legend dealing with the origin of gaunkaria.
It says that four men had cleared the forests of two inhabited islands and made them fertile for cultivation. In due time, the islands were densely populated and in recognition for their good governance, administration and cultivation these original settlers had the title gaunkar bestowed on them. Although, the above legend does not tell us the exact details of the foundation of gaunkarias, it is important that it finds its place in the Portuguese law as early as 1926.
The gaunkarias paid tax or foro to the rulers that ruled over land that came to be known as Goa with coming of the Portuguese. The legend being incorporated in the floral legitimized the claim that gaunkarias were autonomous communities and a Gaunkar was on par with the govenador, ministrador and bemfeitor. It also bestowed a timeless claim of the Gaunkars over their land.
By the 19th century, gaunkaria got accepted in the orientalist discourse as an original form of settled society, akin to the concept of ancient village community universalised by the Roman Empire. Thus, in the 19th century, we saw a historical description of the realities of the 16th century Goa and invoked a sense that an ancient tradition was threatened by the then changing economic policies, much like the way we feel about Goa today.
This sense of timeless collective ownership of land is a good feature inherited by the Goans and indeed remains in the forefront to save Goa from land sharks who simply think that Goa’s land is merely an economic resource.
To Goans, Goan land is memory, history, belonging and more. There are some Goans who may see that land that they inherit as their ladder to grab their pie of the economic cake.
At the time of liberation, major part of the Goa’s agrarian land was held collectively by the gaunkarias. Many of these lands were recovered lands from waters that are known as Khazans. These lands were managed by a unique engineering that evolved the construction of the embankment and sluice gates to manage the inflow of waters.
Soon after the liberation of Goa, the Government appointed a land reform commission that reported that about 33 % of land was under paddy cultivation and was owned by the gaukarias. This made up the 64% of the net sowed area in Goa.
In 1964 the then Government brought in a Tenancy Act to make land occupancy equitous. This and other reforms of 1965 and 1975 made it possible for the tenants to buy agricultural land for a fixed price. But it meant that some of these lands got inundated by salinity as they were poorly maintained by the new owners.
The village economy that was managed through gaunkaria was hit and Goa at that time saw mining and later tourism as new economic propellers.
Mining brought its own environmental damage and in the years to come, mining activities also received a deadly blow and were brought legally to a halt and Goa from then seemed to see the Casino Industry as a major revenue generator.
The coming of tourism shot high the land prices and some Goans began to sell lands as builders began to offer lucrative gains and non-Goans began to buy a second home away from home. Goa also became a steady retirement destination for the rich and the famous.
Today, very little is left of Goa. Goans seem to live in exile in their own land. New gated complexes and inflow of the migrants not just changed Goan demography, but also rang in cultural changes that are alienating Goans. Several Goans, especially Catholics, have taken to migration to England and other countries in search of greener pastures. This has drastically brought down the numbers of the sons and daughters of the soil.
Peter Ronald D’Souza a famous political theorist says that the geography of Goa undermines its history. Goa is small land with a great history and this history has not largely been on Goa’s side. Sandesh Prabhudesai ends his insightful book, Ajeeb Goa’s Gajab Politics with profoundly chilling words that describes the fate of Goa when he says, from ‘land to the tiller to land to the dealer to land to the killer’, we have come a long way. Goa has undergone a deep transformation and land is at the center of this change.
All politics is fast becoming a politics of land. Goans are caught in a tangle of inter-generation justice that raises an important question: What Kind of Goa will remain for the future generation of Goans? Will Goa remain or are we seeing what is described as go Goa gone?
(Fr Victor Ferrao is an independent researcher attached to St Francis Xavier Church, Borim, Ponda)