The exchanges between Kannada Sahitya Parishad (KSP) President Siddanna Meti and Revolutionary Goans Party (RGP) leader Manoj Parab have triggered the sensitive Goan versus non-Goan debate once again. Meti, while responding to Parab’s jibes, urged for a refrain on labelling the community of migrants “Ghantis,” citing it to be derogatory and insulting, while asserting that they are now a force to reckon with in Goa’s politics.
Meti also argued that the Indian Constitution allows citizens to live and work anywhere in the country and that RGP is targeting small-time vendors while ignoring wealthy outsiders who buy large tracts of land in Goa. Stating that the Kannadiga community has been an integral part of Goa’s social fabric, significantly contributing to its progress for decades, Meti highlighted the electoral strength of the Kannadigas in Goa and said every constituency in Goa has around 5,000 voters from their community.
On Tuesday, Parab launched a scathing attack on political parties, slamming them for playing appeasement politics with migrants, and did not spare even the Goa Forward Party, with whom there was a recent bonhomie. “Maybe the MGP, BJP, Congress, or Goa Forward Party survive on the votes of migrants. We don’t want a political alliance sacrificing our core issue of POGO,” he said. Goa Forward chief Vijai Sardesai responded promptly, stating that Parab should do some study before speaking, while retorting that he never relied on migrant votes to win elections.
The ball is set rolling once again on the contentious debate over migrants, Goa’s identity, and the political influence of migrants. While these discussions are undeniably important in their essence, their timing and purpose need a closer scrutiny, especially given the proximity to the election season. This discourse diverts attention from the larger systemic and political factors at play. Bastis and slums are a result of vote-bank politics and have been facilitated by top leaders for political gains. By targeting individual migrants or the working class, the blame shifts from those who have orchestrated or benefited from these arrangements.
Moreover, the discourse appears to oscillate between community issues and political posturing. Meti’s emphasis on the contributions of the Kannadiga community in Goa and the constitutional rights of Indian citizens appears rooted in socio-cultural affirmation. On the other hand, Parab’s stress on the impact of migrants on Goan identity, although well-founded, appears to galvanise a specific voter base.
While the State government is going full throttle with its Mhaje Ghar scheme to regularise houses, the RGP seems to be preparing a solid offence based on “Mull Goemkars”. At the hustings, the battle lines are clearly drawn. It now remains to be seen how the Opposition positions itself. In a fierce political display, defining a Goan could be a major rallying point for the Opposition, one that may be a perfect foil for the BJP’s polarisation politics.
However, there is a twist to the tale. Lest we forget, Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, in the monsoon Assembly session, rejected a resolution to legally define "Persons of Goan Origin", stating that existing laws and a gazette notification already cover this. He said a legal definition is unnecessary because it already exists in a February 10, 1995, gazette. While his reply has been largely accepted, parties have been sporadically seeking implementation of the notification.
The resurgence of a Goan versus non-Goan debate at this time essentially reflects political expediency over anything else. Lest we forget, the RGP made a rousing dash in the 2022 Assembly election, gaining massive voter support. The party is going into the electoral season once again, riding aggressively on the same issue. The question is whether it will succeed this time, and whether the Opposition will play along.
