As long as people are judged on the basis of their names or clothes they wear, there will be a tendency to mobilise along community lines
On last weekend, the State Governor threw the cat among the pigeons by raising the issue of the declining Catholic population in Goa. For some reason, news reports gave the impression that he seemed to contrast this with the rising Muslim population in Goa.
His comments at Ernakulam, as could be expected, stirred up a major row. One day later, he sought to clarify on the same. But this has not stopped the issue from being analysed in various columns, video commentaries and other media spaces.
There was a time, not so long ago, when it was not polite to discuss religion or caste in the public domain. We all knew who we were, and also the religious or caste affiliations of others. Yet, such issues were seldom if ever raised in public. Least of all by top State functionaries.
But we are living in changed times. After Mandal and Mandir, it is passe to wear one's religion or caste on the sleeve. We can say things about other peoples' faiths, and then go on to add: "Nothing in their religion requires them to do this or that."
Goa's religious divide has been often discussed in the past. More so, because it has political implications. This has been true both before 1961, and more so after 1961 (when one-person-one-vote elections made religious and caste identities all the more important).
Few realise that Goa was a Catholic-majority region (including both the 'Old' and 'New' 'Conquests'). This was the position till almost exactly a century ago. In 2025, we would be marking the centennial year of a changed demographic, religion-wise in Goa.
Studies have pointed out how religious identities got cemented, and suddenly turned important, after the British started their Censuses.
RG Bhagat, in a 2012 article in 'Asian Ethnicity', argues that the British census of India, since 1872, with the question on religion "involved sharp communal reactions".
Bhagat adds: "The demographic issues found a core place in the communal discourse that continued in Independent India.... the demographic data on religion was one of the important factors that raised Hindu-Muslim consciousness and shaped the Hindu and Muslim relationship in both colonial and postcolonial India. As a result, several demographic myths have found a place in the communal discourse shaping the political imagination of India."
The writer notes that the question on religion was included right from the first Indian census (1872). But, in Britain, it was included only in 2001, though the first census there was conducted in 1801. Strange but true.
In Goa's case, elections have been long contested on caste-communal or communal-caste lines. This was true in MGP-UGP times, It is true, quite overtly, under the BJP. In the Congress era, things were just a bit more subtle. After all, the post-1980 Congress in Goa was made up of both UGP and MGP elements. So, do numbers really matter?
It is true that communal-caste politics can build 'imagined communities' and go on to monopolise the State, based on concepts like 'majority' and 'minority'. Political power and privilege can be cornered by a few, in the name of majoritarian politics.
When it comes to the cultural representation of Goa, culture, language, dialects, scripts that belongs to the 'minority' elements tend to be edged out. Post-1963 Goan politics spoke out in the name of the 'bahujan samaj' ("the many" or "the majority"). But only a small coterie benefited.
One counter-argument is that it's more about power, than numbers. Take the case of the Parsi community in India. With a population of 57,264 in India, nobody will say that the Parsis are a discriminated lot.
Numbers are not everything; though numbers can be converted into strength too, as is seen at election time every time in Goa. In such a context, what are the options available?
As long as people are judged on the basis of their names or clothes they wear, there will be a tendency to mobilise along community lines. This prevents from working unitedly as a State or nation, and it causes an inefficient market.
In retrospect, Goan Catholics have done well by educating their womenfolk (who might be the better educated of the genders today, causing other problems in terms of finding marriage partners). They have built their own social and educational network, and also contributed back to Goa with this. (Though, this infrastructure has increasingly become State-dependent, unlike earlier when voluntarily run.)
Goan Catholics have allowed themselves to be politically fragmented -- as seen in Navelim, 2022. This is a borderline communal perception, but in a State where communalism is rife in politics, it is also a reality.
Being a largely middle-class, somewhat democratic community, every Catholic can be a self-styled leader. Better to build a leadership, but everyone sees themselves as a General.
When it comes to ensuring a fair share of government jobs or cultural space, not enough has been done. The leadership of the community can sometimes come across as clueless, unaware or even self-centered. Especially the political class, though more is expected of religious leaders as well. Even non-self-serving leaders can be seen as more keen on protecting their temporal assets, rather than the long-term community interests.
Ultimately, one has to recognise a limit to such a logic that has descended on us in our times. Every individual is a "minority of one". Just because people belong to the same religious community, does not necessarily mean that they share the same interests.
In the spirit of diversity, cultural groups need to protect their own issues and concerns. But how we understand this, and what we do about it, would share the future both of Catholics in Goa, and of Goa itself.
