From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Beneficial piece of legislation? Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 01:04:23 +0530
A writ petition on a Mundkar Case in the High Court had this to state in its Judgement: “Generosity, kindness of heart and charity not always sow the seeds of goodwill and gratitude and not so seldom as desired but more often than expected, brook ingratitude and bring up the base sentiments in a human being. These thoughts come to mind as here is an eloquent and unfortunate example of it, a case where a fine humanitarian Act, dictated perhaps by those noble teachings to give shelter to those who have no roof under which to live or to give food to those who are hungry, is answered by utmost ingratitude. The petitioners indeed having given shelter to respondent No. 1 and his family in their hour of need, find now themselves in a strange situation of being deprived, due to the acts of the latter, of their ancestral house. The old story of the camel and the kind hearted Arab, who is driven out of his tent, is thus repeated.” Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/614857/ It is very clear from this judgment that many have misused the Mundkar Act and usurped ancestral land of genuine landowners. The so called “beneficial piece of Legislation” had actually only one aim, that of garnering votes by the then prevailing government. In Goa, Mundkars were not bonded labourers as in the case of ‘Zamindars’ in certain parts of India. Mundkars were basically individuals who were expelled or left their homes for whatever reasons, and went a begging to be given shelter and food in return for work. They were given shelter in one of the various huts used as store rooms in the properties, and in lieu to sometimes assisting in work of property with a salary at reduced rate; definitely not FREE! The rest of the time they had to fend for their daily work. Some land owners gave them also the responsibility of supervision of the property and produce. Which ultimately means; that the Mundkar worked for the landowner for maybe maximum a month at reduced salary and stayed in his property and hut free of cost for the full year round. It is definitely perverse or ignorance, and definitely human ingratitude as stated in the above judgement; to state that their fundamental Rights and Right to education had been denied during the erstwhile regime by the landowners, as someone puts it in ‘people’s edit’ (Herald 8 July). There is no necessity of a research. Goa had so many schools that educated Goan peasant children and the school records will show. It is very easy to make statements without knowledge of facts. And this is exactly what majority of Goans have grown to be; just literate ignorants. Any establishment has an owner who is the overall manager. He employs workers as well as supervisors and managers. It is irrational to think, or even imagine that the owner has not worked for the establishment and the establishment should belong to the workers who have toiled for it. Owners of ancestral land are in two categories, those who are persecuted by Mundkars or encroachers; and the other who have a well bounded property with no Mundkars nor encroachers. This makes them either sellers or non-sellers of their ancestral property. And whoever sells anything, is not a fool to sell it to the one who gives a lower price. The government need to therefore make land Laws more genuine owner friendly if it wants the land in Goa preserved. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
