MAN is a social animal. This famous phrase is applicable to all stages of humankind from birth to its present maturity. Time has also shown that it will be equally applicable to the future journey of human civilization. Whether it is an outcome of human genetics, an inborn quality of human being, or a need of the human physique remains a debatable issue. It may be a genetic urge that makes the human being a social animal. It could also be man’s physical nature which makes him associate with other human beings in activities which are not possible single handed.

Whatever the psychology and physiology behind the coexistence of human beings, a philosophy of co-living has paid rich dividends in the development of human race through the ages. Man has always lived in a group, thought in and acted in groups, resulting in the progress of the group which ultimately leads to the progress of the individuals.

Ancient Indian literature gives an account of people’s organizations and their collective achievements. Vedic, Epic, Pali and other ancient literature reveals that ancient people led a corporate life through guilds of local bodies emerging as fully developed self-governed institutions from the soil of the land (sui generis). Gramika, gopa, sabha, samiti or panchayat, to which repeated references occur in ancient literature, indicate an existence of a collective life in the villages, more or less independent of central influence. Political history, whether in the East or West, indicates that whenever centralization became an order of the day – in the name of security, efficiency or for other political reasons – local government institutions were invariably reduced to the position of governed rather than self-governing units. Scholars hold that centralized rule, like that of the Moghuls and British, was mainly responsible for the gradual decay of Indian local self-government units.

Interestingly, although the village communities disappeared from the rest of the country, for one reason or another they continue into the present in the tiny state of Goa, earlier under the title ‘gaunkari’ which the Portuguese renamed ‘comunidades’ (communities). Their continuing existence could be attributed to the nature of their structure and governance. In ‘gaunkari’ land is owned collectively and the profit is shared individually among gaunkars (members). An element of inalienability of the right to membership was the main force for their continuous existence. Some credit also goes to the rulers, mainly Muslim and Portuguese, who allowed their functioning, though with restrictions.

The term gaunkari is a combination of two words, namely gaun (village) and kari (associations). ‘Gaunkar’ means the members of gaunkari who owned the land of villages collectively, managed its affairs collectively and obviously shared the profits. There is no unanimity of opinion about the origins of gaunkari. The report of the Goa Land Reforms Commission (1964) observes that some centuries ago, long before Goa came successively under the domination of Hindu, Muslim and Portuguese rule, a large number of families from across the western ghats abandoned their original homesteads on account of war, epidemic or famine and settled in Goa. They formed themselves into cooperative associations, governed by heads of families who were known as gaunkars. These gaunkars reclaimed and brought under cultivation marshy and other village waste lands with the assistance of dependants and servants.

 

 

Some scholars relate gaunkari to the distant regions of Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and so on. According to them the people who migrated from these regions and settled in Goa brought with them the institution of gaunkari. This hypothesis is based on two assumptions. One is connected to the legend of Parshurama, the sixth incarnation of Lord Vishnu. It is said that Parshurama created Goa by reclaiming it from the sea with his arrow, and settled Brahmin families from outside on this land. These original families formed associations and undertook collective farming activities.

The second assumption is based on similarities found in the Goan gaunkari and communities in regions outside Goa. Both assumptions do not do justice to the contribution of the original settlers of this territory, the Kunabi and Gauda communities, who were the architects of gaunkari. It is a known historical fact as described by Sir Henry Maine that in many parts of India there existed collective land owning, self-governing village communities simultaneously. There is no logical reason to exclude Goa from this historical rule. As in other parts of the country, the original settlers of Goa too must have constituted village associations out of genetic thirst and physiological necessity, as mentioned earlier.

 

 

Gaunkari, alias comunidade, is generally a heterogenous entity, though there are some cases of homogenous gaunkaris. In some gaunkaris there are gaunkars belonging to both Hindus and Christians. Some have only Hindus or only Christians as members. Some have a mix of castes among Hindus and Christians while others have only members from one caste. There is no sound explanation as to why there are no members from the Muslim community in gaunkari even though the territory of Goa was once ruled by Muslim rulers and Muslims settled in certain villages in Goa. However, different sources provide explanations with some valid points.

It is a historical fact that all gaunkaris were not launched at one time and all sects of members of gaunkari did not settle simultaneously in Goa. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Marathas and others settled in Goa at different times. Likewise Muslims who were also newcomers, could have like other immigrants associated with a gaunkari in one or other capacity.

There was a provision of buying accões (shares) of the gaunkari cum comunidade, which were of an alienable nature and open for purchase by non-members. This practice still continues, though Muslims show no interest in this process. Generally, Muslims involved themselves in trade and commerce and professional activity with little or no interest in farming. This could be one reason for their non-association with gaunkaris either in the capacity of gaunkar (member) or kulacharis (clerks) or kulacharans (village servants). Their meagre population, poverty, illiteracy are some other characteristics that may explain their non-inclusion in the gaunkari.

The foundation of the gaunkari (comunidade) is based on the collective ownership of land by a group of villagers and not as individuals. The lands were collectively cultivated and the produce distributed among villagers according to established custom and practice. Out of the total produce, a certain portion was earmarked for village welfare. The government’s share (taxes) in the produce was kept aside. The balance was distributed among the members which was called jana (individual profit).

 

 

The government’s share and the jana still continue. The share of produce earmarked for the welfare of the village has been reduced, restricted to donations and offerings to local deities and charitable organizations, as most village welfare activities are now undertaken by the village panchayats, constituted and regulated by the state government since 1962. The right of jana is by birth and not inheritance. It is inalienable and hence non-transferable. It is exclusively of the male descendants, through masculine lineage.

The structure and governance of the affairs of gaunkari is identical with that of the Hindu joint family, another ancient institution among Hindus of this territory. The ancestral property of a Hindu joint family is carefully preserved in order to be enjoyed eternally from generation to generation through inalienability of the immovable property by sale or gift. No member of a Hindu joint family can alienate or mortgage the land as a surety against debt. The management of a Hindu joint family is done through the head of the family. Similarly, the management of gaunkari is through an administrative body called managing committee, elected from among the gaunkars, with the state government retaining the right to appoint an administrator to control and regulate the affairs of the gaunkari by the managing committee.

 

 

There are two divergent opinions with respect to the future of these age-old popular institutions. One is that these institutions have become outdated in the present context of our democratic set-up and should therefore be either abolished or merged with local democratic unit of the gram panchayat, or be transformed into state-aided cooperative farming societies. The advocates of this view advance the following reasons:

a) Over time, the old institutions have lost their original characteristics and degenerated into mere societies of rights holders (gaunkars) who accidentally happen to be members by birth. The non-gaunkars who came subsequently and settled permanently in the villages of the gaunkari and shared in the process of village development have no say in the gaunkari. The discrimination becomes even more glaring when one takes into account the fact that the jana (profit share) is paid to the descendants of gaunkar even when they no longer reside in the village, are not concerned with the working of the gaunkari, nor render any service to it or to the village. At present over 50% gaunkars reside outside the jurisdiction of the gaunkari from which they take jana. Moreover, the right of membership does not extended to the female members of the family.

b) The gaunkaris have ceased to be collective farming societies and nor is cultivation any longer undertaken on a collective basis. The managing committee leases the land to individual tenants. The latest trend is to lease the land for housing schemes and other construction, sidelining the original purpose of cultivation.

c) The village development activities, once the preserve of the gaunkaris, are now entrusted to the gram panchayat, rendering the gaunkaris non-functional.

d) The working of the comunidades is rigorously controlled by the state government leaving little scope for them to act as self-governing units.

 

 

Those advocating the opposite opinion, advance equally compelling justifications for retaining these institutions. They argue that:

a) The property of the gaunkari is the fruit of efforts undertaken by the ancestors of the present gaunkars. It is a sort of private property as is the case with the Hindu joint family. An abolition or transformation of gaunkaris will be a breach of the right to private property.

b) The gaunkaris can still perform the functions of village welfare on modern lines to meet the needs of village life.

c) They foster a spirit of cooperation through affectionate link of common ownership of land and its governance collectively, irrespective of class, caste and creed differences among their members. Communal harmony and tolerance, a special quality of Goan society, is the gift of a corporate lifestyle, nourished through the ages by the gaunkari. This valuable heritage could be a Goan model for the country to emulate.

Both arguments have some merit. The validity of these points provide a basis to work towards a suitable decision with respect to the future status of gaunkaris. Inspite of all odds, they survived to see the present day while their counterparts elsewhere failed. This only indicates their durability as they obviously serve some purpose and as such deserve to be supported as a heritage of Goan society. At the same time, their inefficacy, discriminatory and unjust positions serve to discredit them, denying them the legitimacy to continue. The functions that were once discharged by these institutions are now performed by other agencies such as gram panchayats, NGOs and the state administration, as a part of national policy and may have made them redundant in this area. With this background, a golden mean needs to be worked out.

 

 

The gaunkaris possess vast holdings of cultivable land amounting to approximately 50,570 hectares and covering about 14% of the total surface area of Goa. They have a long tradition of being agrarian societies. An ideal mean could be to transform them into agricultural cooperative societies, restricting their activities to cultivation and marketing. To add a democratic feature, a provision may be made to extend their membership, or at least to sell their shares, by choice, to the residents of the villages covered by the gaunkari, irrespective of religion, caste, creed and sex differences, on certain conditions and compensations. This may not be a perfect design for their future, but would be preferable to their dissolution or merger with other institutions, wiping out their identity totally.

The Balwantrai Mehta Committee, appointed by the central government, had proposed a three tier system of panchayati raj for the country in 1957. The central council of local self-government, while recommending the new scheme to the state governments for implementation, permitted them to adopt the new system with modifications, suitable to their local needs and environment (1959). As a result, there emerged various patterns of panchayati raj in various states.

Goa, Daman and Diu was liberated from Portuguese domain in December 1961, 14 years after Indian independence. In keeping with the national pattern for the then union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, the village panchayat regulation was promulgated in September 1962. It was later replaced by the Goa Panchayat Raj Act 1994, as Daman and Diu were separated from Goa in 1980 when the status of statehood was conferred upon Goa. The first elections to the village panchayats under the 1962 regulation were held in October 1962. For the first 38 years Goa adopted a one tier system of panchayati raj, namely gram panchayat at the village level. The second tier of zilla panchayat of two units (North Goa and South Goa zilla panchayat) was added in 2000, consequent to the passing of the 73rd constitutional amendment.

 

 

The first election to the gram panchayats held under regulations 1962, had two features. First, in the rest of India, panchayati raj was an extension of democratic decentralization, i.e., panchayati raj was established after sufficient experience had been gained in operating parliamentary institutions at national and state levels. In Goa, the process was reversed. The panchayats were established and began to operate a little before (October 1962) the state assembly and members of the Union Parliament were elected (December 1963). Second, the system of local self-government was not altogether new to Goan society, since a similar institution called gaunkari (comunidade) and ‘camara municipals’ (municipal councils) were present in Goa at the time of establishment of panchayats, though with certain limitations, as already discussed. In addition, the maands, caste oriented village associations with the village temple, church, mosque at the centre, were also functioning simultaneously and were involved in religious, cultural and social activities.

 

 

The inception of panchayati raj, after a lapse of four and half centuries of colonial rule, was in itself a momentous event. It brought about considerable political transformation in Goa, moving it from a traditional discriminative set-up to a modern structure based on democratic principles. One of the significant consequences of this political transformation has been the replacement of the traditional high castes by the middle castes to a large extent. The economically dominant and highly educated classes also have to make space for the economically non-dominant and less-educated classes in rural leadership. However, the new leadership has not been totally divorced from traditional leadership. It is an amalgam of new and traditional trends. In the case of Goa, where the process of democratic decentralization was introduced only recently, it is too early to expect uprooting of traditional elements. However, a change in political power brought about by the introduction of panchayati raj, will no doubt encourage changes in other areas of rural life.

A problem with people’s organizations in Goa and elsewhere is the excessive emphasis on physical and financial accomplishments in the operation of their programmes, and not enough on educating the people into new ways of doing things. Another important target of these institutions, which is not realized, is to educate the mass in order to raise social and political consciousness. The gram sabhas, which were specially designed for political participation of the villagers are poorly attended. The main reason is that the structure of panchayati raj was introduced without educating the people in its philosophy, principles, potential and purpose, the very foundation of panchayati raj. As people are not enlightened, they define it according to their understanding or expectations. Thus, politicians call them ‘vote banks’, for officials they are inevitable power-rivals, for panchayat committee members they are ladders to political ambition and people see them as extension of government agency. A systematic awareness programme to remove wrong notions and to establish correct values of panchayat raj is the need of the day.

 

 

Goa is in a good position to showcase itself as a model for the rest of the country – an ideal size, good economic development, a highly literate population and an enviable record of communal harmony. It can serve as a laboratory for socio-economic and political experiments. What is lacking is self-consciousness about its potential and the will power to use it.

 

References:

A.S. Altekar, State Government in Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1958.

Maria Aurora Couto, Goa: A Daughter’s Story, Viking, Penguin Books India, 2004.

Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, Report of the Goa Land Reforms Commission, Panaji, 1964.

Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, Techno Economic Survey of Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji, 1964.

V.T. Gune, Gazetteer of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji, 1979.

T.D. Halarnakar, Gram Panchayats in Goa: A Critical Study, Rajhauns Vitaran, Panaji, 1990.

Gomes Rui Pereira, Goa, Volume II: Gaunkari, A. Gomes Pereira, Panaji, 1981.