DEMOCRACY came to Goa in 1961 – much before it came to Portugal. It was only under a new Constitution in 1976 that Portugal became a Parliamentary Republic. Democracy was essentially foreign to Portugal both in terms of its history and culture. According to K.G. Jayne, ‘In the opening years of the twelfth century, Portugal was an obscure county, tributary to the petty Iberian kingdom of Leon’.¹ Jayne further states: ‘In 1460, Portugal was one among several petty Iberian principalities: by 1521 it had become an empire of world-wide fame, with dominions extending eastward from Brazil to the Pacific. Then followed a period of decline, caused partly by certain defects of national character, but more by the pressure of inevitable misfortune which ended in the loss not only of greatness but even independence’.² Portugal’s fortunes were made essentially by spice trade with India. As H.V. Livermore pointed out: ‘A few years later Afonso de Albuquerque… asserted that India had made (King Manuel I) the richest of the rulers’.³

Portugal was never at the forefront of democratic movements in Europe. And for a long time, Portugal could not be democratic because it could not separate the state from religion. Reformation and the separation of the state from religion were late to come to Portugal. It became a Republic in 1910, but soon lapsed into a dictatorship in 1928, largely of Salazar. Portugal became a parliamentary Republic only in 1976 and later joined the European Union in 1986.

Considerable literature on democratic governance focuses on the electoral process and the institutions of democracy, especially an elected legislature, an accountable executive and independent judiciary. The essence of democracy, however, lies in the Freedom of the citizen. Hence the emphasis on Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution adopted on 26 January 1950. And the Indian Constitution begins with ‘We the People of India’, clearly indicating the ultimate sovereignty of the people – a founding statement which has not yet been imbibed by the institutions of governance of the country, neither of Goa.

In substance, however, democracy needs not just institutions of governance but a far greater and deeper respect for ‘diversity’ of opinion, thought, culture and religion which in essence is ‘freedom’. This was foreign both to the European and, of course, to the Portuguese culture. As Robert Pinkney points out, the Portuguese and Spanish colonizers ‘had articulated a clear racialist ideology with a strong belief in European and Christian superiority’.⁴ Europe took more than a thousand years to separate religion from the state with the advent of Reformation, a process which the other great Judaic religion viz. Islam has not yet been able to do. The religious ‘overhang’ of both Christianity and Islam in countries dominated by both religions with its tight regime governed by the ‘Holy Book’ make full freedom to the individual a constant contest, even struggle.

 

 

In that sense, ‘secularism’ as understood in India today is the paradigmatic product of European history and Judaic tradition in which Christianity (and Islam – the other great Judaic religion) never separated religion and its dictates from the state for a long period. In fact, Islam is still struggling to come to terms with the problem. It is, in essence, the story as to why relatively ‘Hinduism’ in India did not conflict with democratic values and Pakistan and Bangladesh, both Islamic states, have yet to make the critical transition. And Nepal perhaps has made the mistake of declaring itself a ‘Hindu’ Kingdom. There is no record to show that ‘Hinduism’ or Buddhism were ever ‘state’ religions in India even if the King was a Hindu or Buddhist.

Portugal did not separate religion from the state for bulk of its history and certainly could not understand the relevance of diversity and freedom. It, at best, looked for assimilados – the assimilated as the ultimate approbation. The Inquisition was part of the same desire for ensuring the security of the empire by having assimilados – as complete as possible.

 

 

The civilizational atrocities by the Portuguese in Goa, which have left permanent bitterness in the majority Hindu community, were with respect to religious intolerance. Christianity came to India, especially Kerala, much before it came to Portugal. The Syrian Christian church was reputedly set up in the 1st century of the Christian era. It was a natural and smooth process of individual choice. There was no ‘clash of civilizations’. Today, Kerala’s Christian population of over six million is much larger than Goa’s Catholic population of 3.6 lakh.

Witness the Portuguese record, especially the Inquisition Tribunal established in 1560 in Goa. ‘It was a tribunal to take cognizance of offences against Catholic religion and its main object was to maintain the purity of religion. In Portugal, Inquisition had to deal with the possible Jewish, Mohammedan, Lutheran or magical rites influence on the Catholic religion. A similar attitude prevailed in the Inquisition in Goa, which tried to prevent the influence of some customs, connected with the Hindu religion, from infiltrating into Catholic religious practices of the neo-converts’. ‘Baiao gives a figure of around sixteen thousand cases, tried by Inquisition from 1561 to 1774’.⁵

Democracy and intolerance, whether of religious faith or of opinion, are contradictions in terms. The Portuguese cultural and political legacy, in this sense, was fundamentally antithetical to freedom and human rights – the foundations of democracy. It was not Christianity but the Portuguese which was the problem. In that sense, while the history of Portuguese rule is an accepted fact, the Portuguese contribution to the essentials of present-day Goa remains a big question mark. Today, both Portugal and Goa have democratic political systems in which religion is separated, at least in law, from the state and therefore share a lot in common. So do both the faiths of ‘Hindus’ and the Catholics of Goa. The relationships of Portugal and India today are good, as they should be.

 

 

The problem of ‘democratization’ is not limited to historical Portugal. Even though the modern democratic movement began in England and subsequently spread to the United States of America, the two ‘oldest’ democracies still have a long way to go to become models. There is often a feeling in both countries even at the beginning of the 21st century that there is one law for the whites and another for non-whites. Despite long eulogies for its ‘democratic’ performance, the fact is that in the 44 US presidential elections not once has a White Jew even been nominated by either of the two main political parties for the Presidency. Nor has England ever come close to electing a non-Protestant Christian as the prime minister. This apart from the fact that the head of state viz. the queen of England is also the head of the Church of England! European and North American democracies have in many ways been ‘Christian’ democracies and several political parties in Europe are identified as such, e.g., Christian Democratic parties.

In contrast, despite Indian constitutional democracy being only 54 years old, in 2004, India, a majority ‘Hindu’ country, has a Muslim president in A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Sikh prime minister in Manmohan Singh and an Italian born Roman Catholic, Sonia Gandhi, as the leader of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) ruling coalition. It was an interesting experience for me when I mentioned this fact to a senior Pakistani politician recently. He said India has always had this ‘tradition’. How many foreigners share this view? Or for that matter how many Indians have thought of it? In any case the record of India, a relatively new entrant to democracy with all its history of ‘communal’ or religious conflicts, stands distinctly apart from the two ‘old’ democracies. And India had a woman prime minister much before England did and the US has yet to elect a woman president despite its long democratic history.

 

 

As against the British and American historical record, the Indian cultural and political tradition was essentially based on ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. Even in so-called ‘Hindu’ religion, there was no ‘one path’. Since the Indian religious practices could not be classified in formal religious definitions, any one not belonging to ‘organized religions’ in India was classified as ‘Hindu’ – a term which finds no reference in any classical Indian texts such as the Vedas or the Bhagvat Gita. As Robert Pinkney states, ‘Hindu India with its traditions of dispersed power and compromises between elites was able to sustain a pluralist system after independence whereas the more authoritarian culture of Pakistan was less conducive to democracy’. ⁶

The thread that holds the great Indian civilization is its tremendous respect for ‘diversity’ of every kind, including of religion. Goa was part of the great Indian civilizational cosmos. 450 years of Portuguese rule in some talukas or less than 200 years in others was essentially antithetical to Goan and the wider Indian civilization of religious and other tolerance and hence best forgotten. What holds Goa and the Goan society together, despite differing religions is the identity of ‘one people’. The ‘two nation’ theory never afflicted Goa – and thank God for that! Goa’s success truly lies in this single factor of identity as ‘one people’ which is a good example for the rest of the country to emulate rather than the Common Civil Code which also is worth emulating but not critical.

 

 

India’s democracy itself is under-going considerable transformation. Fundamentally, India is witnessing simultaneous process of change in political, economic and social spheres. Transfer of political power to the masses, especially since the 1967 elections is a process which no political party has been able to understand or come to grips with. As a result, the bigger parties often lose their vote share. In Goa, the ‘transfer of power’ took place by early 1980s but the local units of national and regional parties have yet to come to grips with the change.

In economic matters, Nehruvian ‘socialistic pattern’ like the Cheshire cat has gone – but its grin remains. Nehru, as prime minister, himself chastened by the reports coming in about the way state capitalism was working in 1958 wrote to the chief ministers thus: ‘Democracy and socialism are means to an end, not the end itself". If the individual is ignored and sacrificed for what is considered the good of the society, is that the right objective to have?’⁷

The rise of Bahujan Samaj Party et al reflect the changes in the social and political power structure of India. That Uttar Pradesh, the largest of the Indian states could have a ‘Dalit’ woman as chief minister speaks volumes of the change. India as well as Goa are in the process of profound social change, something most foreigners and some of our own people do not understand or comprehend. It is both essential and inevitable to build India into ‘one people’ as the Constituent Assembly hoped for.

Interestingly, the much used pejorative reference to the divisive ‘caste system’ of India is essentially of Spanish-Portuguese coinage. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the entomology of the word ‘Caste’ is ‘a physically distinct kind of individual with a particular function’. Origin: Spanish and Portuguese ‘casta’ – lineage, breed. The actual origin is in Latin ‘Castus’ or ‘Chaste’. Not a very derogatory origin! Actually, in India, the words used in the ancient texts to describe the Indian social structure are Varna – literally ‘colour’ but more ‘profession’ and ‘Jati’ or ‘the properties peculiar to a class that distinguish it from others’.⁸ Though the word ‘caste’ is even used in the Indian Constitution especially with reference to the Scheduled Castes, it does not mean that the word is Indian nor is its present day connotation.

 

 

Goa missed the general elections of 1952, 1957 and 1962. The first election to the state assembly took place in 1963 when Goa was a Union Territory and since then has had a total of 10 assembly elections including those after being made a full-fledged 25th state of the Union in 1987.

Political participation was always high in the elections and continues to be so even now. Dramatic socio-economic change can be attributed to the democratization of the Goan polity. Goa was perhaps the only state which dramatically changed the plan allocations. Unlike the Union government’s formula for plan allocations, the first chief minister of Goa, Dayanand Bandodkar, raised the allocations to social sectors from 18% of the outlay to 47% after 1963. This changed Goa forever. To date no other state has followed Goa’s example.

 

 

Three principle features of Goa’s success are (i) Democracy (ii) Demography and (iii) Development. Although it took Goa a while to adjust to democratic processes given the long history of authoritarian Portuguese rule, by the 1970s Goa had made a good transition. The political instability in the 1990s was largely because of the incapacity of the ruling Congress Party to understand the changing ‘politics’ on the ground. Goa is now moving towards basically a two party polity, i.e. the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Given the Goan ethos, the BJP has put a moderate face on its political agenda.

Goa’s political demography has changed since 1961. According to the Census data, the Hindu population has gone up from about 61% in 1961 to about 67% in 2001. The Catholic population has dropped from about 37% to about 27%. However, the Muslim population has increased from 0.5% to about 7% largely due to in-migration. Interestingly, Goa had a total of 10 chief ministers since 1963 of which five were Hindus and five were Roman Catholic Christians despite Goa’s political demography.

Goa’s most impressive performance has been in the demographic transition. From a birth rate of about 34 per thousand in 1961, it is now 14.5 per thousand – the lowest in the country. Behind this also is the dramatic decline in Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) from about 70 in 1961 to as low as 11 per thousand in 2004 – again the lowest in the country. The Techno-Economic Survey of Goa, Daman and Diu prepared by the National Council of Applied Economic Research in 1964 stated: ‘The general health standards in Goa, Daman and Diu are poor. In fact, the available information shows the territory’s position to be slightly worse than the average standards of the country’.⁹ A rapid decline in IMR, Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) plus access to family planning services brought down the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) below replacement level in Goa by the late 1980s. Goa thus was the first state to move towards population stabilization, the vital demographic transition which UP is expected to make only in 2100!

 

 

Economic development was equally dramatic especially in terms of poverty reduction and per capita income. For instance, even in 1973-74 Goa’s poverty ratio was estimated at about 45% as against about 53% in Maharashtra or 59% in Kerala. By 1999-2000, Goa’s poverty level had dropped to a little over 4% with rural poverty as low as 1.35%. In contrast, in Maharashtra, it was over 25% and in Kerala about 13%. Rural poverty level in Kerala was estimated in 1999-2000 at over 20% and in Maharashtra about 24% as against 1.35% in Goa.¹⁰ When a comparison is made with Bihar, the poverty level was over 47% with rural poverty over 48%. Sustained growth rates, especially in the secondary and tertiary sectors, had practically wiped out rural poverty in Goa – a lesson of economic demography which the country has yet to understand. And most impressively, the per capita income in Goa, estimated at around Rs 70,000 in 2004, is way ahead of Maharashtra or Kerala not to speak of the ‘poverty’ belt of UP, Bihar, MP, and Orissa.

Why did Goa succeed in reducing its dependence on agriculture and moved fast on secondary and tertiary sectors? Perhaps, Goa was lucky to be spared the Nehruvian ‘socialistic pattern’ and the stifling fetters of the public sector on the national economy. Goa did not have much of a public sector and its large public spending on social sector was wisely routed through the private sector. Education was a prime example. The bulk of Goan children go to government aided primary and secondary schools rather than government schools where the quality of education is extremely poor.

In other words, lack of ideological preoccupations in economic matters in Goa’s political class made public policies more pragmatic and prepared Goa for the transition to the market economy. Also, it made Goa relatively more efficient because there was less ‘rent’ available for the political class compared to most other states. Economic pragmatism was, in a way, a gift of democracy coming late to Goa!

 

 

Indian democracy is not complete without its ‘federal’ structure. Goa is an excellent example. Goa, even as a Union Territory between 1961 and 1987, could drastically change the structure of plan investments to make a great success of development. It is a tribute to Indian federalism even if many other states have not taken full advantage of the system.

Part V of the Constitution defines the powers of the Union and Part VI of the states and the Seventh Schedule lays down the Union, the state and the Concurrent List.

 

 

Although Goa became a state only in 1987, unlike many of the other smaller states like Nagaland and Mizoram, it does not have the restrictive provisions of Article 371 of the Constitution regarding ownership of land and other special provisions. Even though this had earlier caused some concern about the possible loss of identity of Goa, it can, in hindsight, well be argued that Goa was the actual beneficiary of both the federal structure and of not being covered by restrictions, especially of ownership of property under Article 371. Goa integrated fast both with the national economy and the global economy. In that sense, Goa ‘globalized’ before any state of the Union did.

The Indian federal system has made it possible for Goa to adapt and adjust some of the national policies to suit its own needs. Goa has been unwilling to have polluting industries after an unpleasant encounter with Zuari Agro-chemical project. On the other hand, Goa has almost gone on a rampage with the hotel and tourism industry. Even if the Government of Goa and the Goa Assembly can be accused of not thinking through its long-term development strategy, Goa cannot blame the Union government in the essentials of financial and economic freedom. In fact, Delhi can very clearly say to Goa: blame yourself and take credit as well!

The federal structure offers Goa in the 21st century enormous opportunities in the new hi-tech areas. Goa has so much to offer to attract global investments. But that is where the Goan leadership is way below par. No political party or institution is willing to think in terms of ‘discontinuity’. Past systems, antiquated procedures and rules still dominate the Goan political and bureaucratic minds. Basically, Goa is also affected by the ‘no change’ syndrome. This will not work. And as elsewhere, Goans will go where they want to and do what they want to within the framework of the law. Federalism and globalization will offer Goans new vistas and new opportunities as never before.

 

 

In conclusion, it may be said that democracy and federalism had a profound impact on Goa after 1961. In one historic step, Goa made a leap into the globe and in effect ‘globalized’ itself much before the WTO regime. Lack of freedom had bottled up Goa during Portuguese rule. Those who felt too suffocated migrated, mostly to the erstwhile Bombay state. Freedom and democracy after 1961 led to a rapid emancipation of the Goan mind and the person. Clearly the Hindu majority benefited the most. They felt truly ‘free’. In Goa, as in the rest of the country, while the institutions of democracy – the legislatures, the executive, or the judiciary – have not done well, democracy has been a great success story. This success of democracy tells you how even Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister and a great Second World war British leader, was shortsighted, almost small, in his understanding of the strength of Indian civilization and the Indian people. Less said about the Portuguese the better.

Goa’s ‘opening up’ to the world after 1961 has made possible for Goans to go abroad, especially to the United States, for higher and advanced technological education. The new Goa is profoundly influenced not by the Kadambas, or the Portuguese in their day-to-day life but by the United States of America with which it had no ‘colonial’ or any other significant relationship. English, or more correctly American English, dominates Goan schools as in many other parts of the country. The registration of children even in the primary schools is increasingly in English, not in the mother tongue or Marathi as was the case in my generation of at least the Hindus.

The limitations of the political and bureaucratic institutions in Goa which hold back every facet of life including education and health, does not stop the Goans. They just bypass the government and go wherever they wish and do what they want to. This applies to education, health or employment.

Democracy has this sublime gift of ‘freedom’ and the Goans have taken every advantage of it. Goans feel free! And that is the bottom line of Goa’s success.

 

 

Democracy also empowered the traditionally ‘deprived’ sections of Goa. For historical reasons, Goa did not have much of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population. It was less than 2%. Goa’s backward castes – the OBCs – in effect lead the first Bahujan Samaj Party in the form of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) which in essence ruled Goa from 1963 to 1980. Interestingly, its great success in making the ‘backward castes’ into ‘forward castes’ led to the political eclipse of the MGP. In that sense Goa is also a model for the rest of India especially Bihar, UP, Jharkhand among others – the areas of social, economic and political ‘darkness’ of the nation.

Three cheers for democracy in Goa. One for political freedom, second for economic growth, and third for social change, indeed transformation.

Federalism unquestionably helped. Without the freedom to choose its ‘path’ of social and economic development made entirely possible by the State list, Goa could not have moved as much or as fast as it has. Unitary solutions, even by a leader of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, would not have made the differential strategies of socio-economic change possible.

Goa’s institutions of governance under the federal system whether the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary may not have worked very well. Under the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution under Part IX, giving Goa multi-level democratically elected institutions of governance have yet to make an impact. Yet, the deepening of the ‘federal’ system of governance offers Goa new possibilities of addressing the coming challenges of globalization. That Goa’s political leadership is not aware of these possibilities is another matter.

Goa, like the rest of the country, has indeed not done its homework on the challenges of the ‘new globalized world’ – in essence Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the Universe is one family). The Goan political and administrative leadership is both uneducated and ill-equipped. Goa’s political class, like perhaps even in some European countries like Portugal, has no clue about the criticality of the ‘knowledge’ sector for the future of Goa’s polity, economy and society. Hopefully, the Goans will not stop moving into the 21st century as they moved fast forward after the arrival of democracy in 1961.

Even so, India’s democracy and federal system have prepared Goa much better than almost any other state of the country. It is not history, ancient or the Portuguese, which has made Goa and its people what they are today. It is the people of Goa and their civilizational values which have made Goa what it is today.

 

Footnotes:

1. K.G. Jayne, Vasco da Gama and His Successors 1460-1580, Methuen and Co., London, 1910, p. 1.

2. Ibid., p. vi.

3. H.V. Livermore, A New History of Portugal, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969, p. 143.

4. Robert Pinkney, Democracy in the Third World, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado, 2004, p. 48.

5. Carmo D’Souza, Legal System in Goa, Vol I, New Age Printers, Panaji, 1994, p. 72.

6. Robert Pinkney, op. cit., p. 48.

7. Jawaharlal Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers, Vol. 5, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1989, p. 185.

8. V.S. Apte, Sanskrit English Dictionary, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1970, p. 219.

9. National Council of Applied Economic Research, Techno-Economic Survey of Goa, Daman and Diu, New Delhi, 1964, p. 17.

10. Government of Goa, Economic Survey 2003-04, Directorate of Planning, Statistics and Evaluation, Panaji, 2004, p. 152.