------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remembering Aquino Braganca (b. 6 April 1924), who fought for freedom
of the former Portuguese colonies in Africa. An online tribute
http://aquinobraganca.wordpress.com/ (includes many historical
references, some photographs and documents)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking About Babush: Mapping the terrains of the operation
By Jason Keith Fernandes
[email protected]
On March 23, 2009, despite opposition to 10 of the 11 seats
being contested at the Panchayat elections, the panel floated
by [the controversial local politician] Atanasio Monserrate
won all 11. How does one make sense of the results of the
recently concluded elections to the Taleigão Panchayat
The dominant view within the opposition is that
Monserrate is the embodiment of evil, and that all
of Taleigão cowers in fear. Other views would argue
that he has filled Taleigão with migrants who
blindly vote in his favour. Others argue that some
sold their vote for the gifts of a thousand rupees,
a bicycle or a sewing machine. I believe that the
story of Monserrate is a little more complex than
this, and we need to necessarily rethink our
evaluation of him.
Countering the allegations that he bribed the voters,
Monserrate reportedly responded that we should not insult the
voters. Monserrate makes a valid point here.
As with any allegation of corruption, there is a certain
political point that Monserrate's opposition is trying to
score. The point is to undermine the individual decisions of
those persons who voted for Monserrate. The suggestion is
that they are not free-thinking, concerned and responsible
citizens. It is scornfully suggested that they are merely
opportunists who will vote for the highest bidder.
While I have no doubt that in fact money did exchange hands
and that gifts of cycles and sewing machines, drink and
chicken were in fact made, I would choose to look beyond the
allegation that the votes of the people were purchased. The
reason I choose to refute the argument that votes can be
purchased is because this scornful position refuses to
recognize that the persons who accepted these gifts were in
fact making calculated political decisions. Just like the
'apolitical' stance taken by Goa and Taleigão Bachao
Abhiyans, the argument that votes can be sold, refuses to
appreciate and engage with the politics of the people.
To begin with, whose is this scorn?
Clearly it is the scorn of those who do not need a thousand
rupees a vote, or cycles or sewing machines. It is the scorn
of the haves for the have-notes, the haves presuming that it
is only they who well and truly appreciate what democracy is
all about.
The gifts were accepted because these gifts, as petty as some
of us may consider them, did make a difference to the economy
of the households that they were presented to. Further, the
gift-taking is in fact a rather complex participation in
democracy.
The gift-takers recognize that the politician cares for them
only to the extent of their votes, that the system will not
address their condition. Thus, if they have to vote, they
will vote only if you pay (gift) them to do so.
It is thus, through this gift-giving, and their
construction of themselves as a vote-bank, that
they force the electoral process to in fact work.
If they didn't, then given the fact that most of
the middle class does not vote, the electoral
process would grind to a screeching halt! Our scorn
for the gift-taking therefore, is extremely
problematic and ironically, politically naive!
This political naiveté is built on the incredulousness of
the upper orders who are convinced of their own political
maturity and the corresponding immaturity of the labouring
classes. They reason that it is because these labouring
classes are so immature that our democracy is today
malfunctioning the way that it is.
These orders refuse to see that these
'malfunctioning' of democracy are in fact the
result of the deeply problematic socio-economic
divides that persist in our society, and that we
repeatedly refuse to address. It is because we
refuse to recognize this fact, and persist in our
confounded arrogance, that a good portion of the
opposition to the development lobby in Goa is
primarily engaged in "creating awareness".
They are firmly convinced that the only reason for the
silence of the majority is because this majority is not
aware. It is because we stubbornly refuse to consider the
alternative, that they are politically astute individuals
making carefully calibrated decisions that the tide we seek
to stem continues to inundate us.
If we recognized the 'maturity' of these gift takers and
recognized that gifts are accepted because these gifts made a
difference to the economies of the households that accepted
them, our positions and our strategies would change
instantly.
We would recognize that the presence of 'outsiders' in our
villages, and their transformation into vote-banks for the
unscrupulous, can be addressed if, and when, we address the
issue of their poverty. If we are able to ensure that their
working conditions are better, the salaries they are paid are
higher, and that social welfare extendable to any worker, we
would see a significant drop in the arrival of these
outsiders.
This for two primary reasons; first, because it would make
employing 'external' labour more expensive (especially if one
is talking of housing migrant construction-labour); and
secondly, with an increase in pay-scales and benefits, the
Goan, who in facts demands a more mature work environment,
would begin seeking employment within Goa.
As is increasingly becoming clear to me though,
much of the oppositional space in Goa is captured
by elites, who do not want to see radical change,
but want only a return to the status-quo. Secondly,
when the non-elites among this opposition take
charge, they unfortunately don't seem to be able to
articulate their demands in broader terms. On the
contrary, they too get caught in the whirlpools of
the discourse established by the elite. As a
result, rather than seeing solidarity with the
'outsider', they too begin outsider bashing. As a
result, there is no substantial progress towards
resolving Goa's crisis.
ANOTHER FORM OF DISRESPECT
To return to this matter of respecting the voter though,
while Monserrate's objection may have helped us see a valid
point, he too is guilty of disrespecting the voter. There is
a certain perversity, when one hands scraps to the needy,
even as the socio-economic and ecological base of these needy
are being destroyed. In addition, it is clear that while
Monserrate may share scraps, it is a lion's share that he
keeps for himself.
As I will try to elaborate in the next segment of these
reflections, while Monserrate has offered his constituency a
political dream that they can identify with, in reality he
offers them only a mirage, one that will never be realized
concretely.
What clinches the deal for him however, is the fact that he
has managed to offer concrete glimpses of this mirage. This,
is enough for the hopefuls of our land.
On the other hand though, his opposition offers no
dream at all. It offers only a return to a
fast-disappearing status-quo. And *no one* wants to
return to that, except the elite. If the opposition
to Monserrate (and the rest of the brokering
political establishment) are serious, then they
need to not only present to the people of Goa a
dream, but put their actions where their talk is
and working toward presenting a concrete example of
the dream that they offer.
Persist to think of Babush Monserrate as the embodiment of
evil, and it will be impossible to understand the reasons for
his victory in the recently concluded Panchayat elections.
If one is to provide a counter to him, then one has to come
up with another, more plausible explanation for the victory.
Demonizing him serves no purpose other than to blindly hate
him and provide a bonding among the various groups opposed to
him for their own varied reasons.
Earlier, I had suggested that the key to Monserrate's victory
was not the fear that he allegedly instills in the people of
Taleigão, but because he is congress with them for reasons
of a dream that he offers them.
One cannot capture votes merely by handing out
gifts. One has to also capture the imaginations of
the people one is gifting. Monserrate seems to have
done exactly this. He offers the people of
Taleigão, a dream. He offers them the dream, and
the promise (even if it is a false promise) of
modernity.
This modernity is has a definite physical location, and that
location is the city. More particularly, it is the city of
Bombay. As the Delegate of Fundacao Oriente, Paulo Varela
Gomes, has convincingly demonstrated on a number of
occasions, Bombay has, at least since the mid 19th century,
been the goal for the Goan, and especially for the Goan
dalit-bahujan.
It was the city that promised them employment, the city where
their culture blossomed and found mature expression, it was
the location where they were able to escape the vice-like
grip of their village and feudal elite, and if not wholly
escape it, contest these elites on a somewhat equal footing.
The city, with its broad avenues and high-rise
buildings, offers not just the chic aesthetics of
modernity (and we have to recognize that Monserrate
has oodles of oomph [style] as evidenced from the
public works carried out under his stamp) but also
the promise of liberation through the destruction
of the landscape and hierarchies of the village and
the introduction of the anonymity of the urban
environment.
What dream do we, his opposition, the forces that cry 'Save
Goa' have to offer instead? By and large, we offer the people
of Taleigão, and Goa, the dream of the village.
We do not point to them the way forward, but look back with
fondness to the aesthetics and relationships of the village.
What we offer them is a return to the status-quo. But as is
clear from the voices of the people in Taleigão, the people
don't want a status quo, they want change, and they will grab
at change any which way they get it.
The village is not necessarily the ideal place we imagine it
to be. To the vast majority of people it is a place marked by
the absence of facilities and most importantly glitz. In
addition, it is a place that is intimidating for any one who
is Queer. It is a suffocating location for the wife who
refuses to be raped by her drunken husband and returns single
and pregnant to her parents' home, the homosexual son or
daughter, the unemployed person who refuses to have
employment if it means his daily humiliation, a member of the
former 'servant castes' who chafe at the attitude of the
former dominant castes.
I have written much about the need for a revolution in Goa.
Silly me, I didn't recognize the revolution when I saw it.
Babush Monserrate and his ilk represent the
revolution and they have with them the masses of
the people. Unfortunately however, Monserrate does
not represent the revolution which I imbue with the
positive notions of establishing a commonwealth.
His agenda represents what I have earlier termed a
fitna, an upheaval without the necessary renewal of
society. Which is why, the task before the
opposition to Monserrate and his ilk is not merely
the presentation of the dream of the village, but
the dream of the village radically renewed.
Thankfully however, the opposition to the politico-business
lobby is not all composed of the elites interested in a
return to the status-quo. Some of us are opposed to this
desertification through concrete, and hold up the model of a
village because we are animated by the knowledge that the
concrete industrial city that has become the model for Goa
promises only a temporary relief from oppression.
It breaks the bonds of village hierarchies, but
simultaneously creates oppressions of other sorts. It
destroys ecological independence. In a few years time, there
will be no fields in Taleigão capable of producing food. The
hills covered with constructions will no longer soak up
rainwater; the village wells will run dry or turn saline.
Others will be fed by raw sewage rather than fresh water. The
rich will be able to up and leave; what of the poor? Where
will they get water from? Will they be able to purchase food
at exorbitant prices?
Monserrate's strategy may destroy the spatial and social
relationships of the village, but it is not producing
sustainable employment.
Lastly, the concrete city destroys intimate bonds of the
village to create the anonymous spaces and relationships of
the city that encourage crime. How many of the faces in São
Paulo -- Taleigão's market area -- do we recognize anymore?
The liberation of the city that Monserrate offers therefore
is in fact a mirage. It promises a liberation that it cannot
in fact deliver.
At some level, I doubt that Monserrate even
realizes the damage he is doing. It is possible
that he too, as a member of the society he leads,
shares in the misplaced assumption that the
trappings of modernity (the roads, high-rises and
conspicuous consumption) alone, rather than a
commitment to the social values of modernity, will
ensure deliverance from the curse of our
caste-bound society. It is therefore quite
possible, that Monserrate actually believes that
his vision will bring deliverance and liberation.
It is for this reason that I have been arguing for long that
we need a revolution, an inquilab in Goa. We don't require a
return to the village of old, or the creation of the concrete
industrial city, but a radical re-founding of our
communities.
We need to present to the citizenry of Goa, which now clings
piteously to the promises of the false prophets of our age,
concrete and material evidence of what this new commonwealth
will look like. It calls for a change in the way in which we
do and imagine politics and associations. It calls for a
demonstration of the possibilities of eco and community
friendly business ventures.
At present the elite groups who lead the opposition
both in Taleigão and in Goa seem rather reluctant
to commit themselves to this radical refounding. It
is not that they don't have the imagination, but
that they refuse to entertain any scheme that will
radically change the status-quo. They too are
committed to a fitna, a mere superficial management
of society.
It is this vacuum then, which Monserrate has filled, and will
continue to fill until such time as we are ready to talk
equality. Until such time as we are ready to establish a
radically equal society in Goa (the biblical New Jerusalem,
Sant Tukaram's Pandharpur, St. Augustine's City of God), the
city of Monserrate, will be the paradise towards which the
citizenry of Taleigão and Goa will determinedly walk toward.
And I can't say that I don't understand their decision.
NO UNCRITICAL CELEBRATION
The express intention of this Thinking About Babush series
was to move away from the position that demonizes Babush
Monserrate. The intention was not to essay an uncritical
celebration of the legislator from Taleigão, but to present
a hypothesis that would allow us to better understand the
dynamics at work in the constituency.
To demonize Mr. Monserrate goes beyond doing him a
disservice; it prevents us from recognizing the
socio-economic and political conditions and constituencies
that he manages to represent.
Above, I suggested that the eyes that demonize Monserrate
were, in part, also eyes of the elite that refused to see the
political motivations of those they alleged were either
bribed, or were blindly voting for him.
Above, one has also suggested that in addition to lavish
gifts to his constituents, Monserrate also presented them
with a vision. This vision was one of the City where the
hierarchies of the village would be dissolved, and all would
be able to participate in a genuinely modern existence.
I would now like to suggest that in many ways
Monserrate is trapped within his modus operandi,
both for reasons of his own personal location in
society, as well as the kind of society he lives
in. However, I would suggest that for these
reasons, he is also a possible repository of hope
for the future.
As suggested above, Goan society can be very punishing, if
you don't fit the rules it lays down. Despite his nominal
position among the landlords of Taleigão, the vicious
whispered rumours about his ancestry give Monserrate a just
and understandable reason to want to destroy the social
hierarchies of the village.
One way to destroy these hierarchies is through the
fashioning of the village into the city. What I am suggesting
therefore, is that the dream that Monserrate peddles could be
more than an evil plan he has for lining his nest at the
expense of the people of Taleigão. He could actually be
emotionally invested in it, believing that it would provide
deliverance as much as the others who believe in this dream.
India's encounter with modernity is peculiar.
Rather than being understood to be the values of
equality and respect, reasoned acceptance as
opposed to acceptance by diktat, modernity has been
understood primarily as the acquisition of
technology, the material benefits that come with
it, and the associated aesthetic styles.
The intellectual foundations of modernity have been rejected
in favour of the purely material. In focusing primarily on
the material, it is possible to spin the web of meritocracy
and argue that if one does not gain the material benefits of
modernity, it is because one has not worked hard enough for
it. Thus only the upper-castes and classes benefit from
modernity, while the rest slave under it.
Even worse, the myth of meritocracy, destroys tendencies
toward solidarity and allows the creation of a (slum)dog eat
dog world, where it is each one for oneself. To gain respect
in this faux modern world, one has to garner as much wealth
as one possibly can. In the process, one must necessarily cut
personal ties to climb the ladder of achievement.
Solidarity must now lie with those who are already
in the big game, not with those one is leaving
behind. In India, this automatically has caste
implications. The caste implications are at their
most stark when we expect Dalit leaders (e.g. the
vicious criticism against Mayawati) to somehow be
Colossi of morality, while other leaders who
feather their nests are somehow exempt from this
harsh social judgment.
It is in this context that I would like to see Monserrate.
In addition to the social agenda he may have, he is also as
hostage to the skewed understanding of modernity as the rest
of us. Thus, in his race for respect, feathering his own nest
is but a natural outcome.
While this is under no circumstances excusable, the question
we should ask is why we reserve such scorn for the
acquisitions of Monserrate (or indeed the similar figure of
Churchill Alemão), even as we excuse the sins of others in
the political establishment.
Why for example are we more accepting of the tactics of the
Rane establishment, in particular the father? It has always
been rumoured that it was he that initiated the land scams
with Mr. Ray when the latter was Chief Town Planner. Is it
his 'noble' birth and cultivated charm that allows us to look
the other way, not investigate these rumours? Perhaps. It is
therefore, in the social exclusions and hypocrisy practiced
by our society that the only route open to Monserrate is to
continue to line his own nest, and open up his own path for a
radically different social order.
It is this and other reasons then that are at the basis of
our demonizing of Babush Monserrate. We fear the social
reality whose coming he represents. We would prefer to keep
him and the classes he represents entirely out of our
perfumed consciousness.
In addition to this though, there is another, possibly
communal angle to the whole game. I don't believe that it is
entirely by accident that Monserrate (like Alemão) is
demonized, is Catholic, and effectively occupies the
lower-caste position in our society.
This has been a pattern of our society, where among the
Catholics, only the upper-caste is feted and the rest of them
are expected to just follow suit. Thus when J. B Gonsalves
had a chance at being Chief Minister, the gliterati on
Panjim scoffed, -- the baker wants to be Chief Minister
In recent times the communalisation of our society
has taken a more serious turn. As unchallenged Rei
de Taleigão, the demonization and destruction of
this man, theoretically opens up the way for the
unchallenged romp of the BJP into the village.
There are therefore multiple reasons for us to suspiciously
view the demonization of Babush Monserrate. And yet, none of
this should be taken to endorse the manner in which he funds
his agenda.
In the final sum, his modus operandi is going to give us only
skin-deep modernity and a resulting social, political,
economic and ecological mess. With so much power in his
hands, undoubted access to cultivated minds (as his urban
projects show, he definitely has talented architects working
with him) Monserrate's failure to engineer a more egalitarian
and sensitive politics cannot be condoned.
Our opposition to Monserrate's modus operandi (real estate
funded social change) must therefore continue. It must
however, be a principled opposition. Principled opposition is
not a notional, do nothing, and think much opposition.
Firm and unyielding when no quarter can be given, it is also
cognizant of the benefits he may possibly bring. It is
necessarily marked by action. In the long run, such an
unyielding but principled opposition will force him to
necessarily adopt, even if in slow and reluctant measures, a
more sustainable route toward the agenda that we support.
A neighbour of mine prays for the conversion of
Babush just like Sta. Monica did for the conversion
of her son, the future Doctor of the Church, St.
Augustine. In many ways, I join her in her prayers.
I do so because I believe that such a conversion is
possible; Monserrate does in fact have what it
takes to be the Augustine of our age. Until such
conversion however, this principled opposition (the
physical evidence of our prayers) in favour of the
village refounded must continue.
--
Published in the Gomantak Times 1st April 2009
Comments welcomed at www.dervishnotes.blogspot.com
