Comunidades had a stronger continuity in land traditions. Panchayats are more influenced by electoral politics and changing governance priorities
After every transition of power, it is a habit, in Goa too, to praise the new and critique the old. We like to believe that we are far better off now, compared to the decades behind us.
So our lives are seen as more 'developed' (forget about its unsustainability, food-insecurity and loss of traditional lifestyles). Our economy is growing by leaps and bounds (never mind the debt, and uncertainty over where our earnings really come from). Our fishing is showing impressive growth, and even Goa's forest area is actually increasing (leave aside what a visit to the market, or our own eyes, tell us).
So, we build myths and exaggerations, and then go on to believe them. For instance:
* “Goa was economically backward under Portuguese rule, and development started only after 1961.” This is often overstated. While there were limitations under Portuguese rule, Goa had relatively high literacy, functioning local institutions (like comunidades), and a monetised economy. Post-1961 development did expand infrastructure, but it was not a case of starting from zero or complete backwardness.
* “All sections of Goan society benefited equally after Liberation.” In reality, development gains have been uneven. Urban areas and tourism-linked regions grew faster. Also political links made a difference in terms who who gained and who lost. Land pressures and a loss of traditional livelihoods were a reality too.
* “Poverty was largely eliminated after 1961.” This claim is not accurate. Although Goa has one of India’s better human development indicators, pockets of poverty and economic vulnerability still exist, especially among agricultural workers, migrants and informal labour sectors. See people struggling to maintain their homes in good shape.
* “Modern governance under panchayats is fully more effective than older village systems” While democratic in structure, panchayats often face issues like political interference, limited funds and weak administrative capacity. Older systems like comunidades, though not covering all, were more efficient in managing local land and resources.
* “Tourism has been an unqualified benefit for all Goans.” Portrayed often as universally beneficial, tourism has also contributed to rising land prices, environmental stress, seasonal employment and the uneven distribution of income.
* “Goa’s identity and culture were fully preserved and strengthened after 1961.” Mixed results here. Konkani and local traditions gained official support. Yet, there has also been strong external influence, migration-driven cultural change and concerns about dilution of local identity.
TODAY'S PANCHAYATS
Comparing the panchayats of today and the comunidades of the past in Goa is an exercise which tends to show the former in good light. But how true is this?
Agreed, both are different in structure and historical context. Today's panchayats, part of the constitutional system introduced after Goa’s integration into India, are based on elections and a standardised administrative framework across the country.
By contrast, the comunidades were centuries-old village institutions that predated Portuguese rule and were later formalised under it. They were not elected bodies in the modern sense but were based on membership rights tied to ancestral landholding families. This made them more hereditary and community driven in nature.
Comunidades were primarily focused on land management and agricultural regulation. They managed the use of village resources and controlled village land (gaunkari lands). They also decided cultivation rights and maintained traditional systems of revenue and the community-based resource sharing.
Panchayats today deal with local infrastructure, sanitation, welfare schemes, water supply and implementing government programmes. While comunidades were deeply rooted in agrarian governance, panchayats are more connected with development administration and welfare delivery. At least on paper.
Both were different in participation too. Comunidades covered traditional gaunkar families, limiting participation in decision-making. Panchayats, at least in principle, are more inclusive. On paper, they have provisions for reservations for women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes and elections based on universal adult franchise.
However, while panchayats are more democratic on paper, comunidades are sometimes viewed as more stable and historically rooted institutions. Comunidades had a stronger continuity in land traditions. Panchayats are more influenced by electoral politics and changing governance priorities. Today, our experience is that if the panchayat-level politicians support whoever is in power at Panaji, they can get away with anything.
Were the comunidades better in some ways? They had an approach of long-term continuity and local resource management efficiency. Comunidades were deeply rooted village institutions with centuries of accumulated customary law, especially in managing land (gaunkari lands), water resources and agricultural cycles.
Decisions were based on established traditions and collective ownership principles. This ensured stability in land use and prevented rapid fragmentation or arbitrary redistribution, as we see now.
Comunidades were stronger in community accountability and resource discipline, even despite the limited social context. Because membership was tied to traditional gaunkar families with clearly defined rights and responsibilities, there was often a strong sense of obligation toward maintaining village assets. So, agriculture and resource sharing was well coordinated.
Panchayats, while seemingly more democratic and inclusive, sometimes struggle with political competition. If the comunidades are criticised for being exclusionary of non-gaunkars and outsiders, the panchayats can be the same for anyone not favoured by those in power.
In today’s Goa, one major shortcoming of panchayat functioning is limited financial and administrative autonomy. Panchayats, the backbone of local self-government, actually depend heavily on state government grants. So, they can't independently plan and execute development projects.
