Monday, October 24, 2016

Indian Navy Personnel Arrested For Assaulting A Goan On False Pretext

Five Indian Navy personnel were arrested in Goa for assault late on Wednesday, a police spokesperson said on Thursday. The navy personnel had assaulted a man in South Goa after they suspected him of allegedly abusing the daughter of another naval officer. The personnel involved are posted at INS Hansa.
Police said that patrolmen Amit Jaiswal, Jitendra Singh, Shamlal Pakshak, Rajnesh Pachar, led by commandant Anupam Sharma were arrested in connection with the assault on Atul Dicholkar, a resident of port town Vasco, located 35 kms from Panjim. “The navy personnel suspected that the complainant had abused a minor daughter of their colleague on Tuesday. So they accosted and assaulted him together,” the police said.
The victim is currently hospitalised at the Goa Medical College, a state-run facility, for grievous injuries. The accused were booked under sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 and 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), and 325, 326 and 338 (causing grievous hurt endangering life voluntarily using dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code and are now in custody.

Marginalization Of Goans Must Not Be Tolerated - by Jose Maria Miranda

Having watched helplessly our beloved land being destroyed and disfigured by our greedy and selfish rulers, past and present, and their accomplices, some from outside but many from our own soil, and our Goans being overwhelmed by a heavy and uninterrupted inflow of migrants, the time has run out for us to unite and go all out to stop such attempts which are solely aimed at marginalizing Goans and making them irrelevant in the political and electoral scenario of the State. Though belatedly, we may still manage in salvaging what is left of Goa if this last opportunity afforded to us, is availed of to send the crooks home and elect few good people, who truly love Goa.
The process of disfiguring Goa and crushing its distinct identity was a well-conceived plan of the Indian rulers, at the time of the so-called Liberation, carefully executed thereafter with active connivance of Goan politicians and mostly outside bureaucrats. Even the most preposterous movement of Goa’s merger with Maharashtra, with its own leaders realizing, in hindsight, what a blunder it would be, was part of this long-term plan. It goes without saying that if today Goa is a preferred tourist destination, it is not alone because of our beaches and the scenic beauty of this place but also because our culture is a fusion of East and West, of the people’s savoir faire and savoir vivre.
Freedom of the Press and of expression was suppressed by the Portuguese in Goa. Perhaps, this made us highly submissive and docile. But many Goans of yesteryears stood up to the might of the Portuguese and yet, in a democracy, we have turned into a spineless, meek and cowardly lot, over-tolerant of the abuse of power and highhandedness of a highly authoritarian, despotic and fascist Government. The crude, insensitive and irresponsible way this Govt. goes about giving orders and implementing works with least regard to environment and ecology and the sentiments and livelihood of the people of Goa, as if this State is its private property and Goans some cattle bound to follow its directions, is highly reprehensible.
It is not alone the Police who were treated inhumanly by being served food unfit even for animals, during BRICS summit. Poor women coming all the way from Canacona, Quepem, Shiroda, etc. to Margao to sell their produce like vegetables, mashmelons, etc. were asked to stay away for four days when they squat nowhere close to the dignitaries’ route, while handcarts were seen moving freely through the town.
Who pays for their losses on the produce and livelihood as also of the fisherfolk prohibited from fishing during the period? Anyone with two inches of sense uses such opportunities to help the locals earn some additional income, but not so with selfish imbeciles who deprived our people of their daily bread. Though I hold no brief for our taxi drivers’ tantrums amounting to biting the hand that feeds them, it was grossly unfair to hire, for BRICS a Delhiite, who took only a few Goan taxis and apparently went back without settling some dues.
As it is, Goans are struggling to get jobs and are compelled to migrate, either to other States or abroad to earn a decent income. This sad exodus is a testimony to the impotency of this Govt. in providing employment to locals. Yet, it is using the EC to delete names from electoral rolls of those who, for this sole reason, obtained Portuguese passports and are desirous of trying their luck abroad. One wonders whether the Govt. and EC took similar pains to ensure that migrants, having voting rights elsewhere, are not enrolled here or whether bureaucrats were in fact instructed to ensure the contrary. Our rulers, being proponents of Hindutva, are averse to the West and their culture.
Yet, the Central Govt. finds it expedient to seek support, aid and cooperation from the West. Millions of Indians also enjoy Western hospitality and nationality, have made West their home and are unwilling to return because of the mess this country is in. Has the EC gone an extra mile, as it is doing in case of Goans, to ensure that they too have no voting rights in India?
No self-respecting individual will tolerate being discriminated and treated shabbily in his own land. I recall the protest in Margao in 60s when MG Minister Tony Fernandes called Goans second-class citizens. Today, we are treated worse than that. Goans are too docile and decent to take up cudgels to fight the threat to our very existence posed by heavy influx of outsiders and preferential treatment given to them. This is bound to have serious repercussions, particularly when one’s identity and culture are in danger. The anti-migrant agitation in Usgão and the incident of razing tribals’ huts in Nirankal are signs of things to come. It is not right that those who came here to earn a living be driven away.
But, it is equally unfair that undue advantage be taken of Art. 19 of a Constitution dictatorially imposed on us, to import people to destroy the character of our land and the identity of our people. The farce of the BJP in demanding Special Status and the false promise of the PM were attempts at throwing dust in our eyes and eventually promoting the opposite. This Government, while gifting us with some cosmetic development, is diverting our attention from their larger plan of destroying Goa and Goans, through marinas, port at Betul, nationalization of rivers, etc. which will eventually kill our small communities, their trades and livelihood solely to satisfy their bosses in Delhi and their magnate acolytes. It is imperative that we destroy them and their plans before they destroy us.

Monday, October 17, 2016


It was with anger and disbelief that I read Deepti Kapoor’s recent article in The Guardian titled “An idyll no more: why I’m leaving Goa”. While there is no denying that Goa is in fact facing a looming ecological and political crisis, what is galling is that Kapoor does not acknowledge her own role in the mess that Goans find themselves in. Kapoor is silent about the privilege that she enjoys – the privilege of the (largely North) Indian elites, who dominated British India, led the anti-colonial nationalist movement, and who now operate as the embodiment of colonial power in places like Goa. This is precisely the relationship that is to blame for the many ills that Kapoor documents, and that allows Kapoor to escape Goa with relatively no loss, while Goans are left not only with a ruined ecology and social fabric but a continuing brutal colonial relationship with India.

The relationship of the Indian elites to Goa is by no means innocent. For that matter, neither is the relationship of India to Goa. Rather, these relationships are built on the willful ignoring of history, to enable Indians to create Goa and Goans not only as property of the Indian empire but as a pleasure park where they can imagine themselves to be in their own little part of Europe. Take, for example, the way in which Kapoor chooses to label older houses in Goa “Portuguese villas” despite the fact that many Goans, including scholars, have pointed out that there is nothing Portuguese to these homes. Except for the fact that they were built by Goans, who were Portuguese citizens at the time, these were, and are, Goan homes. The reason for this stubborn insistence is linked to the fact that these houses are in high demand by the Indian elites who choose to own second homes in Goa. It is precisely in calling the built forms “Portuguese” that Goa and Goans are transformed into props that allow for the territory to be read as Europe in South Asia, as a seaside Riviera where Indian elites can play out their European fantasies.

This colonial relationship, it should be pointed out, is not unique to the relationship between Goa and India. In fact, it follows a longer colonial relationship enjoyed by the Northern European, and principally British elites, with the European South – namely, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. It was to these historically Catholic locations that the largely Protestant elites of the North fled to enjoy not just the sun but the pleasures of the flesh. The European South, and by extension the overseas colonies of these countries, were marked out as spaces for frolic and relaxation, and fabulous lifestyles afforded as a result of the poorer economies of the host locations. Additionally, these locations were identified as places for inspiration for artistes and writers. In post-colonial times, the elite British Indian has actively taken on the gaze and privilege of the British overlord, and looks at Goa precisely through the lenses that the British used to view the European South. No wonder then that Kapoor, author of the novel A Bad Character (2014), also chose Goa as a place for future writing projects.

The continuation of this imperial gaze is also deeply rooted in colonial politics. As Sukanya Banerjee demonstrates in her book Becoming Imperial Citizens: Indians in the Late-Victorian Empire (2010), the end of empire and the creation of an independent nation-state was not the goal envisaged by early Indian nationalists. On the contrary, South Asian dominant caste elites were stakeholders in the empire rather than its opponents. Given this proximity to the imperial project, what they deeply desired was the status of Imperial British citizen and equality with the British overlord. Banerjee also demonstrates the way that Gandhi himself was invested in the pursuit of this status. The figure of Gandhi is critical here, because it was he who effectively created a mass movement by recruiting subaltern groups to make what had earlier been a largely elitist cause. This mass recruitment was necessary for the elites to be taken seriously by the British Crown. The Crown was convinced that while the Indians merited the status of subjects, they could not be imperial citizens and thereby claim equality with the British. The rallying of the masses forced a change in the nature of the movement to assume the character of a nationalist anti-colonial project. Independence was now the only answer.

Thus, the objective of the nationalist elites was, rather, parity with the British and participation in the imperial project. The continued desire for imperial prominence that motivated these caste elites ensured a number of features that have marked post-colonial India. By exerting various pressures on the princely states and acquiring, forcefully if necessary, the territories of other colonial powers, the nationalist elites put together an Indian empire that even the British Raj had not managed to. This new post-colonial empire was held in place by retaining most of the colonial laws, and an imperial perspective guided the relationship with the territories and peoples that were assimilated into post-colonial India. Thus, along with Goan houses being labeled “Portuguese”, Goans have been marked out as fun-loving, relaxed, and laid back, just as the southern Europeans and Latins. Further, just as the British elites travelled to the European South for sensorial excess, so too has Goa been marked out as a place for excess. Note that Kapoor’s narrative suggests that her brother had his mind blown – normally a reference to the effect of psychotropic drugs – when he saw his first nudist in Goa. The Kapoor family’s relationship with Goa seems to be marked by an excess that is unavailable in India. As R. Benedito Ferrão points out, Kapoor suggests her own sensorial relationship with Goa through the excessive exclamation marks that she uses when listing the things that brought her to Goa: “The beaches! The restaurants! The music, and the people!” Further, as if to prove the point of a continuity between the imperial British and the contemporary imperial Indian elite, Kapoor states that she has decided “to look toward Europe or Latin America” in her search for a new place to live. It should be obvious that Latin America is placed along the same continuum as Goa in terms of being the place of Iberian influenced tropical languor and excess. Therefore, Kapoor will merely shift from Goa to another location that offers a similar southern European backdrop for the party.

Interestingly, the insistence of Indians, such as Kapoor, on labeling the built landscape in Goa as different from India reveals a disinclination to be attentive to the historical and legal differences of this former Portuguese territory. Unlike the legal scenario that unfolded in British India, Goans were constitutionally recognized as Portuguese citizens as far back as the early 1800s. This resulted in a restricted segment of the population being entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. And vote they did. Goan elites regularly sent voluble representatives to Lisbon, who established the legal and social parity of Goans with metropolitan Portuguese. This situation was temporarily suspended in the years when Goa, like the rest of Portugal, suffered an authoritarian regime from the 1930s until 1974. It was in this situation that India sent troops in to militarily wrest Goa from the Portuguese. Rather than engage with the political agency that was being expressed within and outside of the territory, India simply asserted sovereignty over the territory and extended citizenship to persons residing in the territory. Given the right of colonized peoples to self-determination, this was an act for which there was no legal precedent, but was based on the assertion of a dubious argument of cultural homogeneity.

With the normalization of relations between Portugal and India in 1975, Portugal recognized the continuing right of citizenship of residents of its former territories in India. As consciousness of this continuing right percolates through Portuguese Indian society, many have chosen to access and assert this right. The Indian state, and consequently most Indians, however, fail to see this as a resumption of an existing right. They see it instead, as the acquisition of dual citizenship, which some argue is prohibited by the Indian legal system. This places Portuguese Indians – in this case, Goans – in an awkward situation, where they have to give up political engagement with Goa, and a host of other rights, if they choose to assert their right to Portuguese citizenship. Like most Indians, Kapoor seems to fail to recognize this complexity and naively suggests that Goans are leaving, or, as she puts it, “looking elsewhere”. As I articulated in an essay some time ago, Goans are not leaving; they are merely employing one more way to maintain their historical connections and pursue livelihood options. It is only in the face of an Indian state that refuses to recognize the complexity of Portuguese Indian history, and prevents this movement, that Goans are, in fact, being forced to leave.

At the end of the day, it is the refusal to recognize this most basic of rights, that of citizenship pre-existing the Indian takeover of Goa that complicates the relationship of India, and Indians, with Goa, and Goans. The refusal to recognize a pre-existing constitutional right of citizenship transforms the Indian presence in Goa into one of occupation and not post-colonial liberation.

The colonial nature of India’s presence in Goa is perhaps best captured in the way the territory has been actively converted into India’s pleasure periphery. In his book, Refiguring Goa (2015), Raghuraman S. Trichur points out that “it was only after the state sponsored development of tourism in the 1980s (more than two decades after Goa’s liberation/occupation in 1961), was Goa effectively integrated into the Indian nation-state” (p. 13). This is to say that the integration of this former Portuguese territory, which ought to have been given the right to self-determination, was ensured through the process of articulating Goa’s “otherness” or cultural distancing, as evidenced by the social practices and performances that constitute the tourism destination in Goa. Thus, Trichur argues, Goa’s emergence as a tourism destination is more than the fortuitous agent of economic growth: “it is also an arena, a discursive frame where the Indian State intersects with Goan society” (p. 16). Tourism, then, is precisely the way through which Indian colonialism is exercised in Goa. Indeed, the usage of “Portuguese” houses, in reference to the homes of Goans, suggests homes not continually inhabited by Goans but open for occupation by the “helpful” outsiders that come to renew Goan life.

While Kapoor correctly lists the many problems that are cropping up in Goa as a result of a tourist industry gone wild, she seems to place the responsibility for the looming ecological and social disaster primarily in Goan hands. One reads in Kapoor’s narrative the usual suggestion that it is the greedy Goans who are selling agricultural land and pulling down ancestral homes, and that the local government has no vision. What escapes her is that Goans are all too often subject to forces not within their control. Goans are trapped in an economy that, rather than working on producing more varied opportunities for the locals, has for decades now relied exclusively on tapping the extractive industries of either tourism or mining, or on overseas remittances. While the tourist economy has produced huge profits for some, incomes have not risen to keep pace with the increased cost of living. In such a context, there are two options that will assure people without the material resources or skill sets to fuel social mobility of persons who cannot achieve betterment in Goa. The first is the sale of land to persons in search of the fabled Goan lifestyle. The second is migration in search of gainful and respectable employment. The irony is that the critique of the Portuguese presence in Goa was that they failed to develop a viable economy, which required people to migrate to earn a living that would assure them and their families of a higher standard of living. Indeed, for the vast majority of the population life under Portuguese rule was experienced more as life under landlord rule. And this Goan lifestyle was no idyll. It was only through migration that they could economically emancipate themselves. It was only with the economic liberation possible through migration that Goa, now a place to return for the summers, was constructed as an idyll. As it turns out, the transition to Indian rule has not changed much, as many Goans are still forced to migrate.

Yet it is not economics alone that Goans are trapped by but, the political system itself. There is a clear understanding among the many groups in the territory that this system is not delivering good governance and that there is a need for dramatic change. In their imitation of Britain, British Indians adopted the unsophisticated first-past-the-post system of determining political representatives. As Dr. Ambedkar pointed out, the ills of the system are such that it does not allow for marginalized groups to find a voice in the legislature. Even though there are moves to shift to a system of proportional representation, it seems unlikely that there will be a change anytime soon. Thus, Goans are chained to a political structure that they had no say in determining, and that clearly does not work for their territory, given that it reproduces persons who represent majoritarian politics. One wonders whether Goan politics may not have been dramatically different if the people of the territory were allowed to innovate with a proportional representation system followed in Portugal.

But Kapoor’s text is not merely illustrative of the problem that Goans have with the Indian elites. Rather, it exposes the colonial relationship of these elites with marginalized Indian populations. The trouble with the Indian elites is that they do not see themselves as a part of the political processes of the subcontinent, believing themselves too good for the rest of the citizens of India. Indeed, this is part of their adoption of the colonial gaze. These elites see the residents of the rest of the continent as a strange race that requires firm governance. The review of Kapoor’s book by Prashansa Taneja makes this quite obvious when she reports, “more often than not, she gives into the temptation to exoticise Delhi, and India, for the reader. Many Indian women cover their heads on a daily basis, but when Idha [the character in Kapoor’s book] does so at a Sufi shrine, she feels she becomes ‘Persian, dark-eyed, pious and transformed’.” One could argue that she succumbs to the use of clichés precisely because like other members of her class, Kapoor looks at the people in the city of Delhi, through a gaze adopted from the Raj.

Goa and Goans are locked in an unequal and unfair colonial relationship with India. Until and unless this inequality and injustice are resolved, and the relationship is made more equal – indeed, until the colonial equation at the heart of the imperial Indian project is resolved – Goa and Goans may be doomed to destruction. Kapoor’s text is offensive precisely because she is blind to these facts, and while also being blind to her own privilege is completely oblivious to the extent to which her article is a gripe about the loss of her own privileges. Kapoor’s problem seems to lie in the fact that with other Indians, and not just other elites but all sorts, coming to play with her toy, the party has been ruined. While Kapoor may be able to trip off to some other island paradise and live the life of the wandering elite, where, pray, will the Goans go?

Friday, October 14, 2016

Geopolitics from a Global perspective By UltraGoan

We need to look at Geopolitics from a Global perspective.

India successfully TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE COLD WAR ( exploiting the tensions between the superpowers), by becoming a Soviet ally, and getting Soviet backing/veto to invade other territories.


INDIAN ARMY invaded Goa in 1961 ( Soviet leader Brezhnev was in India at that time of war, backing India’s operations. . Also Soviets vetoed the UN Resolution calling for ceasefire and withdrawal of Indian forces. Therefore the US naval fleet could not react to the Indian Aggression)

INDIAN ARMY invaded Kashmir, Hyderabad 1948, Sikkim in 1974, without holding a plebiscite to determine these people’s wishes. No International intervention due to Soviet cover.

India INVADED East Pakistan in 1971 ( only after signing the Indo-Soviet Friendship treaty a few month earlier, which guaranteed Soviet support for the 1971 invasion). US (President Nixon) sent the Task Force 74 with aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal. But the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, who trailed US fleet. USSR also vetoed UN resolutions calling for ceasefire and withdrawal of Indian forces. Again, the US fleet could not bomb the Indian forces due to the COLD WAR politics. However, the presence of the US fleet, forced India to withdraw, creating a new nation of Bangladesh. Otherwise the East Pakistan territory would have been OCCUPIED territory ( like Goa, Kashmir, Sikkim, etc)

A GENOCIDE against the Sikhs by the INDIAN ARMY in the 1980s.. India got away with this crime, due to the COLD WAR tensions.

The last territory INDIAN ARMY illegally invaded, during the COLD WAR, was Sianchen Glacier in 1984. 

After the COLD WAR ended in 1990, India’s expansion also stopped. Another Soviet ally Iraq thought it could expand , and invaded Kuwait in 1990, but was quickly demolished by US (with no Soviet rescue) with huge reparation costs. India too realised that it had no cover from Russia, and would be susceptible to International Military Intervention, if it tried to INVADE any more territory. Now India is trying its best to HOLD ON to the territories it had already illegally INVADED in the past. But for how long ??

KARGIL CONFLICT (1998) was the FIRST conflict fought by INDIA after the end of COLD WAR.... Initially, when gun-toting infiltrators were detected on Kargil mountains, the INDIAN ARMY and AIR FORCE threw everything at its disposal at the intruders. However, this could not achieve any substantial gains. Indian soldiers tried to climb the mountains to capture the peaks, but they were mowed down by AK- 47s. The entire Indian Air force kept bombing the mountains, but still, they could not accurately target the intruders at high altitudes. Only the accurate Swedish Bofors artillery Guns made some impact, but the constant shelling of the mountains caused a shortage of Bofors shells and spare parts.. The INDIAN ARMY was STUCK !! With their whole armoury slowly getting depleted. ----Next, the INDIAN ARMY then threatened to attack Pakistan by crossing the international border , but this was considered to be an aggressive act by the international community. Moreover, as an aggressor, India’s rival Pakistan would have got instant support ( via military hardware/logistics/ technology supplies from US) to punish India ..---- For the FIRST TIME, India was in a precarious situation with no Soviet protection/ Veto/ diplomatic support. So INDIAN ARMY had to abide by the International rules. They even kept their fighter jets within their own airspace. Unfortunately, two fighter jets accidentally strayed into Pakistani airspace and were swiftly shot down. ----But in the end, by following the rules obediently, India got the much needed international diplomatic support. Laser guided missiles/ technology (supplied by Israel, approved by US) were fitted into Indian Mirage 2000 fighter jets to accurately target the intruders at high altitudes. Heron surveillance drones ( from Israel) provided high altitude real-time imagery of targets. Bofors shells (given by South Africa/ Israel) provided greater firepower, which led to a significant Indian advantage during the conflict. The Pakistani infiltrators eventually withdrew from Kargil ,after a few months stay in these mountains, bowing down to negative international opinion. 

As of today, INDIA has been reduced to just making external threats (of striking Pakistan) along with their Bollywood-style jingo Indian media/ news channels, to fool the illiterate/ ignorant Indians. Internally, however, the INDIAN forces continue to kill/ blind/ suppress the indigenous civilians ( Kashmiris, Manipuris, etc), although much reduced now, due to international monitoring since the massacres of the 1990s.


Pseudohistory covers a variety of theories that do not agree with the view of history that is commonly accepted by mainstream historians, which are often not properly researched, peer-reviewed, or supported by the usual historiographical methods. One of the primary examples of pseudohistory is Annexation denial, but many types of conspiracy theories are also properly classed as pseudohistory. One of the characteristics distinguishing pseudohistory from history is shared with other forms of pseudo-scholarship: the choice of medium. Normal scholarly debate, including legitimate historical revisionism, is conducted in specialised publications such as journals. Many pseudohistorians jump that step and directly publish their claims in a popular format, in books and articles aimed at the non-specialist general public that can not effectively evaluate their plausibility.
Though "real" history has many gaps and plausible assumptions are sometimes necessary, the historians behind it seek the truth and honest mistakes can be made. Pseudohistory is the work of intentional revisionism or deluded attempts to desperately prop up beliefs. This isn't to say different presumptions of history are unreasonable given ambiguous findings, but reasonable historians don't try to shoehorn their agenda into the past. Honest historical research tries to find the blanks that need to be filled in. Pseudohistory treats past events like Mad Libs.
The first principle of understanding history, I was taught, is to sympathise with the historical actors, to immerse oneself in their context and perspective. Otherwise, history becomes a fabricated reconstruction – more about the writer's ideology than the events of the past. Such a benchmark can be challenging when addressing advocates of false knowledge: how can one portray their claims as reasonable and false both? One seems to risk abandoning rationality and slipping into relativism.
Naive, biased, prejudiced, cynical, gullible, undiscriminating, unscrupulous, undisciplined, unorthodox, irrational, spiritual, flawed, fallacious, sensationalistic, amusing, quirky, eccentric, crazy, bizarre and embarassing, pathetic, off-beat, audacious (or 'almost unimaginably audacious'), outrageous, rhetorically clever, wild, extremist, over-eager, obsessive, manic, nefarious, reprehensible, and contemptible, not to mention communist and obfuscating. Pseudohistory is a 'charlatan's playground' of 'opportunists', targeting those all too 'willing to suspend disbelief' and slip into an 'abyss of fantasy'. It is 'corrosive of concepts of authority, objectivity and factual evidence' – an 'enemy unto Knowledge'. A triumph for those who revel in others' errors and credulity.
My historiography, however, seems to rest, in part, on a once popular but now outmoded epistemological model. Philosophers today acknowledge that human minds are the product of evolution, with various cognitive patterns and limitations. The conventional ideal of transcendental rationality (whether in philosophy, economics or other disciplines) is simply unrealistic. Epistemology has become naturalised. Cognitive science or psychology is now integral to understanding how we can know what we know – or what we don't know.
I ask, 'how can a person know what is truth and fact, and what is lie and error in history, or science for that matter?', - 'the answer is evidence'. Any 'educated person' or 'competent reader can and should be able to identify it [pseudohistory]'. This is the conventional rationalist's stance, echoed in other books about pseudoknowledge for a popular audience. Of course evidence is foundational. But when epistemics is naturalised, the problem is not so simple. One major cognitive phenomenon is confirmation bias: early perceptions and interpretations tend to shape later perceptions and interpretations. As a consequence, we often draw conclusions before all the relevant information is available or when evidence is essentially incomplete (the conventional fallacy of 'hasty generalisation'). In addition, our minds unconsciously filter observations, tending to select or highlight confirming examples, while discounting or peripheralising counterexamples. Ultimately, all the 'available evidence' is not really cognitively available. The believer in pseudohistory typically does respect the need for relevant evidence – and believes that it has been secured (witness their expansive volumes). Merely rehearsing the evidence against pseudohistorical claims, is hardly sufficient for remedying those beliefs – or for understanding why anyone holds them.
One cannot know everything. Typically, one relies on experts. Even experts rely on other experts. One inevitably depends on the testimony of others. But who is an expert? And how does the non-expert know? Even if reliability of evidence is the ultimate aim, assessing credibility becomes the proximate tool. The foremost challenge for most people becomes deciding who to believe – not what the evidence indicates. Trust is essential. (Ironically, believers in pseudoscience often parade their skepticism, challenging acknowledged experts.) In targeting reliable knowledge in practice, then, well-placed trust seems more important than the rationalist's widely touted skepticism. Social assessments of credibility loom larger than logic. In such contexts, attributions of gullibility offer little insight or guidance.
Equally important, when one addresses pseudohistory as beliefs, one implicitly adopts the challenge of interpreting a psychological phenomenon. Beliefs need not be rational or grounded in evidence at all. Indeed, beliefs sometimes (often? nearly always?) precede the 'justifications' that, post facto, are used or developed to rationalise them. It should surprise no one that a religious orientation will generate a history that legitmates its views, even if that history is false – or, further, that believers will seek to inscribe that account into unassailable nature or imbue it with some other form of irrefutable authority. No wonder, then, when counterevidence fails to weaken those beliefs. Given how our minds function, evidence and 'rational' thought are often secondary to belief. 'Kooks' are everywhere.
Even in the best of all possible (human) worlds, then, individuals can be mistaken. Even Nobel Prize winners. Smart people can advocate false history, paranormal phenomena and other 'weird things'.
Several academics espouse 'wrong' ideas: Barry Fell, Charles Hapgood, Martin Bernal, and others. But they remain a conundrum for me: their irrationality contravenes the academic mantle of absolute authority. Alternatively, one may well wonder how we manage to construct academic and other institutions that seem to buffer themselves against spurious thinking. We might want to celebrate how public institutions, for the most part, do not succumb to pseudohistory when it is so rampant in the culture, as well as to ask why this is the case. For conventional rationalists, rational belief is the expected norm, and one attributes 'deviation' from those norms to social and psychological factors. But the real challenge seems to be the symmetrical explanation: how does something as unusual or fragile as rationality, empirical science or reliable history emerge psychologically and socially? Most recent analyses by professional historians, philosophers and sociologists of science highlight the significance of the scientific community. Error is regulated socially, through a system of checks and balances. Individuals may each err or adopt idiosyncratic perspectives, but collectively, through critical discourse, they expose and accommodate each other's blind spots. The locus of scientific rationality (if one finds such a concept fruitful at all) thus lies at the community level, where different perspectives interact: a social epistemology. Contrasting cultural perspectives, properly deployed then, are a source of epistemic strength, not a handicap. Indeed, all the cases I describe have been resolved within the academic community through this social system – not through raw facts or brute methodology alone. In a healthy intellectual community, individuals who espouse pseudohistory become isolated and ineffectual. So, one may ask, in what ways is popular culture structured similarly or differently – and what types of mutual accountability result?
Scientific communities and their conclusions can still express bias. Witness historical cases of sexist theories of hysteria and other female behavior, racist theories of intelligence and human evolution, religious theories of Earth's age and history, and theories of eugenics, biological determinism and others. When scientists all share the same cultural perspective, bias can persist unchecked, even amidst claims of objectivity and evidence. In pursuing reliable knowledge, science thus relies epistemically on diverse communities. One might well apply that insight to non-academic communities, as well: conceptual or ideological homogeneity is generally not congenial to securing truth.
My concerns about pseudohistory include the popular context. On several occasions, I call upon the diffuse theme of a 'cultic milieu': a nebulous subculture (or counterculture) that serves as a reservoir for false beliefs and somehow nurtures their continuity. According to Colin Campbell, who introduced the concept, the cultic milieu is inherently heterodox and dissident. It thus celebrates free expression, the liberty of belief, and resistance to authority. In this view, pseudohistory, pseudoscience and pseudoreligion all reflect a similar and ineliminable feature of secular society: expect no remedy. Here (finally!) is an analytical claim to seed a potentially fruitful psychological and sociological analysis. A feature of singular value in my account is the dogged tracing of 'intellectual pedigrees'. Ideas discredited on one occasion, I show, tend to reappear later in another guise. The same false ideas are recycled time and again. That might lead one to explore, following Campbell's sketch, the social structure and communication networks and how they convey such ideas. How do certain cultural contexts or power relationships foster pseudohistory, eclipsing or peripheralising available evidence? I set aside this opportunity in favour of purely 'rationalist' criticism: apparently, we are simply to lament the 'vague anti-intellectualism' and fret about the 'nadir of objective and empirical knowledge'. The disparaging connotations of the term 'cultic' seem more valuable here than sociological analysis. My view of authority may be reflected, perhaps, in the immoderate use of epigraphs.
While focusing primarily on threats to the integrity of academic rationality, I have also touched upon the cultural consequences of false beliefs. Unscrupulous profit, foremost. Power, too. Fun, amusement and entertainment, perhaps (Da Vinci Code, Indiana Jones, etc.) – but apparently unjustifiably given the lies. Add mass suicides, racist serial killings and civil war, and you have quite a spectre. Yet the causal power or role of the historical claims is usually overstated. The history typically seems to rationalise other, deeper motives, such as in-group identity, out-group blame or political power. 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult died in 1997 believing they were the privileged team to board a spaceship that had arrived to annihilate Earth. But their motives were surely more about belonging to something larger than themselves than adhering to some alien apocalyptic tale. One can find flaws in the Nation of Islam's historical claims, too. But as my notes, members also found personal stability and purpose, adopting a healthy and abstemious diet, while refraining from alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, promiscuity, adultery, prostitution and gambling. One may ask about the scale of harm in some subsidiary details of a derived false history (which surely had little to do with promoting racist or religious behavior) compared with such benefits. I implies that if pseudohistory, etc., were remedied by rational (factual and methodologically correct) thinking, we would forestall racism, anti-Semitism, religious cults, capitalistic exploitation, etc. This causal connection is, of course, far from established.
Some claims of pseudohistory or pseudoscience do warrant public concern: for example, Holocaust denial, the teaching of creationism or 'intelligent design', or portraying global warming as a hoax. These are significant to both public and personal decision making. To solve such problems, I suggest more teaching of critical thinking. This would seem plausible, were it not for the empirical evidence otherwise. Belief in the paranormal is extraordinarily resilient to such teaching (as currently taught). Levels of belief, for example, have remained steady over several decades as 'critical thinking' instruction has spread. Deeper thinking seems to be correlated, rather, with personalities that are open to new experiences, and that also exercise high standards of proof: reflecting a natural selection epistemic model, coupling blind variation and selective retention. Education surely seems appropriate, but only if we use a better model of 'critical thinking' (or 'rationality').
Deeper historical understanding of the cognitive and social origins of error, as profiled above, can guide reform. First, we need to dramatise the cognitive flaws associated with appeal to 'evidence' and 'logical thinking'. Too often, imagined justification is merely superficial rationalisation. We need to instill some appreciation of the fallibility of our minds. Evidence can be deceptive. Awareness of confirmation bias is foundational. Second, we need to underscore the role of social checks and balances and of distributed expertise (and sanctioned, or registered, credibility). That means profiling occasions for trust and respecting others' perspectives. Ironically, echoing the experience of the ancient Greeks, we may need to deflate epistemological hubris and instill greater intellectual humility. Third, we need to foster tolerance and the valuing of heterogeneous perspectives and even seeking of alternative views – along with the responsibility of engaging critics. That, in turn, may involve nurturing a strong sense of self and personal security (a worldview not threatened by difference). More may be needed, but let these three benchmarks help us begin to restructure the meaning of teaching effective thinking skills.
More effective education will also need to respect the research literature on teaching and learning. Informed educators now reject the model of authority whereby teachers list known fallacies, provide illustrations, and test for recall and taxonomy. Professional educators underscore the value of problem-based learning. Students need to be engaged in the process to develop skills: by following exemplars and practicing applications. Episodes such as discussed could be valuable case studies in such an education. But to be effective, one must recreate the historical contexts, problems and information at hand as in historical simulations. One must sympathise with the central characters and appreciate the reasonableness of error, given an incomplete view. That can then be contrasted to the later, more complete view. One must appreciate the 'ironic diptych' of reasonableness and falsity that often characterises history. Understanding the awkward relationship of alternative perspectives is how one can tame relativism without resorting to artificial absolutes. My account, unfortunately, leave you wanting for just such an enriched historical understanding.
It is all that - Pseudo-historians capitalise on and exploit anomalies in evidence to support their claims, rather than examining the preponderance of research as a whole.


In which and what manner does a "rift" cause "unity"? Allow us to explain.
BJP very well sponsored this particular film;… garner votes, unfortunately it didn't work out as how Manohar wanted it to be, it caused a rift amongst "beliefs". Goa Freedom Struggle is a C-grade cheap flick based on illiterate personal sentiments, and not based on the basis of "law". It does please uneducated individuals who have yet to understand their present situation, who are infact stuck in a time where Parasurama excereted in a river, and that he defecated to such an extent towards which a mound was formed that dried in the oh! so lovely, tropical weather, and he named it Goa!
What astounds us "sensible Goans" that how can this Mr. Pseudohistorian be proud of the same "C-grade film" and mumble on "Pesal Bhaji (Special Status)" for Goans on the same wavelength towards asking "unity" amongst us?
Mr. Pseudohistorian needs to hold an public apology towards acting in the film and calling it "true history", by damaging our sentiments. And even if he does it someday, we are sure it won't be enough to please the masses but only the foolish, as it'll only be carried out to provide another with their own "ulterior motives".
Even the book on the said Inquisition written by the Brotherhood of Happy Jewish Dicks of Priol (Anand Cockbhai Priolcar) too is extremely exaggerated and fabricated. One can take an account with a few what many have to say on the said book:-
1. It is a bit of a puzzle to understand the man and his ideas. It was he who played the most important role – at least in the subcontinent – in shaping our understanding of the Inquisition. Priolcar wrote around the 1960s, quite some time ago, and often in Marathi.
2. Priolcar’s book ‘The Goa Inquisition: The Terrible Tribunal for the East’ was published in 1961, and printed at the Bombay University Press (Fort, Bombay). It was reprinted in Goa this year. In between, the Hindutva-oriented Delhi-based Voice of India press also published a second impression in 1991.
3. Dr. Teotónio R de Souza mentions: Priolcar was a Bombay-based Goan Gaud Saraswat Brahmin who produced literary output as linguist and historian in the 1960s. His research served to buttress pro-Marathi and pro-Hindu interests. He emphasised the excesses of (the) Inquisition and the cultural backwardness of Goan Christians and their Concanim ‘dialect’. He reserved to Marathi the distinction of being the true literary and cultural language of Goa.... I wish to classify this type of writings as ‘Priolcar-Angle literature’.
4. Priolcar relies heavily on the accounts of Buchanan and Dellon, the latter who was caught up in the Inquisition. Claudius Buchanan (1766-1815) was “a Scottish theologian, an ordained minister of the Church of England, and an extremely ‘low church’ missionary for the Church Missionary Society.” Nothing wrong with that, of course, as every man has the right to hold his religious preferences. Buchanan apparently had a problem with anything that didn’t fit in with his own views on religion. Buchanan “resorted to a simple juxtaposition to demonstrate the superiority of rational Christian life to a morally repugnant Hindu culture. Christianity and Hinduism were [to him] inverse reflections of one another, but Christianity had demonstrated its effects and the civilising power to overcome all the crimes and superstitions that tormented India.” His “encounters” while touring India are interesting too. He meets native Syrian Christian communities along southwestern India’s coast, who trace their lineage to a legendary first-century visit by Jesus’s own apostle, Thomas. Buchanan wanted to see the Syrian branch transplanted on the Church of England. He visits Roman Catholic populations in the South, and is shocked to find priests “better acquainted with the Veda of Brahma than with the Gospel of Christ”. His encounter with the Inquisition is described from pg. 91 onwards of the book Was Hinduism invented? by Brian Kemble Pennington. As Priolkar mentions, he visited Goa at the time when British troops were stationed here. (Or, in Priolcar’s words, “The forts in the harbour of Goa, were then occupied by British troops (two King’s regiments, and two regiments of Native infantry) to prevent its falling into the hands of the French.” Author Brian Kemble Pennington says Buchanan’s “resulting account of Catholicism in India included not only clerical abuse, empty ritual, moral laxity, and papal tyranny, but even a hint of human sacrifice.” Interestingly, Buchanan was “not less indignant at the Inquisition of Goa, than I had been with the temple of Juggernaut” (sic). These are fine individuals through whose eyes we rely on to understand our past (or to play political games in the present).
5. David Higgs in The Inquisition in Late Eighteenth-Century Goa, in Goa; Continuity and Change, edited by Narendra K. Wagle and George Coehlo (sic), University of Toronto 1995, gives us another perspective when he acknowledges the role Priolcar’s 1961 study played in shaping the debate. Higgs writes: “Priolcar drew heavily on secondary sources in his sketch on the Goan Inquisition, especially on a late seventeenth-century Frenchman, Gabriel Dellon, arrested in Goa, whose case was made famous by the denunciatory account of his experiences published after his return from France.” He calls Dellon’s version an “exuberant account of his misfortunes”. Likewise, Higgs points out, Priolcar also used the “over-imaginative account of a British clergyman, C. Buchanan, who wanted to think that what he was not allowed to see in Old Goa in 1808 was what Dellon inveighed at more than a century earlier.”
Any educated versed historian will explain towards why was the Inquisition placed here in Goa, or better known as 'Orlem Gor'.
When we particularly questioned this Mr. Pseudohistoian, we were confound to understand that he had no "answer" at all for more than 24 hrs., this is an exact extract posted to the same:-
In concern of Art. 49 of the Geneva Conventions, this is how some Citizens of the Indian Union behave in Goa.
At Inst. Nsa. Sra. da Piedade em Nova Goa.
Mr. Sacordandó,
Nice of you to support Goa. But few stop at certain explanations and delve not much.
If you care for Goa, you should know that it was demarcated in 1788. British India, Portuguese India, Dutch and French India were all different entities. Indian Consulate was housed in Damodar Mangalji & Cia edifice in Pangim.
Before the history professor Mr. Prajal Sacordandó can enlighten us, please note that, we will only match our thoughts if the other comprehends with detailed facts of evolved homo sapiens and not bow/arrow theories.
Allow us for the "enlightenment" process, wherein you shall understand Goa's case in simple English.
1. Were you Mr. Prazal Sacordandó as an indigenous Goan consulted at any given time by a special "Visiting Mission" of the UN as per their Resolutions 1541/42 - A Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples?
2. Then Mr. Prazal Sacordandó, A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with ius congens of general international law. The number of ius congens is considered limited but not exclusively catalogued. They are not listed or defined by any authoritative body, but arise out of case law and changing social and political attitudes. Generally included are prohibitions on waging aggressive war, crimes against humanity, war crimes, maritime piracy,genocide, apartheid, slavery, torture. As an example, international tribunals have held that it is impermissible for a state to acquire territory through war. As per the Vienna Conventions. Hence the Treaty between Portugal (Soares) & India (Chavan) is nothing but a farce, a sham.
3. Are there any Treaty's signed by Regedores of the 223 Comunidades/Gãocarias of Goa with the Indian government?
4. Was a plebiscite ever held between 1961 - 74?
5. Article 49, 6th paragraph, of the Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Additional Protocol I:- Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.
ICC (International Criminal Court) Statute:- Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Nowadays we term people who have crossed the frontiers of Goa as "Ganttias".
So Mr. Prazal Sacordandó, what does the Indian Military Manual mention? And even if there is one! That to term Annexations as Liberation?
6. What is the exact meaning of "Satiamev Jaiate"?
Please note Mr. Prazal Sacordandó, Special Status or even the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India is nothing but a "sham", others are only fooling indigenous Goans again and after, if Goans want to get fooled for ever and ever, then it is fine for them.
Kind Regards,
A. Lyndon Pereira.
So, who’s taking up this strong language of polemic and using it for today’s purposes? When you come across counter-views that challenge past perspectives and claims on the Inquisition, it’s time for a re-think. More so when we have ample documentation about the Black Legend created (for instance, by the Dutch about the Spaniards, their rivals) in centuries past, due to colonial and religious rivalries.
Is the Inquisition related to the International Court of Justice and or United Nation. One cannot relate Bows and Arrows to Mortars or Booby Traps or for say Missiles! The International Red Cross society too mentions how we as Homo Sapiens have evolved. Hence the conventions, resolutions et cetera. Speaking of Inquisition for the Freedom Struggle of Goa and or Speaking of Inquisition towards Special Status for Goa - is as good as watching the movie BACK TO THE FUTURE and a CAVE MAN starring in the same as "Doc" as Mr. Pseudohistorian.
What I personally witness is History based on personal emotions of cave man period, than based on the basis of international law and evolution of homo sapiens.
There’s no point getting defensive about the realities of the past. But what happens if these ‘realities’ are not quite accurate, and, in fact, based on a whole lot of myth?
The "Jews of the Indies" have traits to fool the masses as always and one has to be aware of such kinds. One may not agree with some of the categorisations above, but there’s hint enough about the interest-groups who give current-day fuel to the - Inquisition flame and Fake Liberation theory.
How we define History is like this. History is a record of events, most of which ought not to have happened, but did happen because some of those in power influence made them happen for their selfish benefit mostly by Subjugation of those powerless. Our immense interest in History is to find out the real causes behind those events based on and not to be called as a historian.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Contribution Of Christians In Goa's Progress – by A. Veronica Fernandes, Candolim

BJP’s “Christian appeasement” ‘forced’ formation of GSM (Goa Suraksha Manch), the newly political party disclosed this, as appeared in the Herald on 05.10.16. This political party accuses Goan Christians as promoters of western culture and western education. Christian bashing looks to be the main purpose of this party.
It is a hard fact that Christian bashing was started openly immediately after Goa was invaded by Bharat, by those who dubbed Chrstians as Pro-Portuguez.  Many of them were wrongly informed that Hind means Hindu Raj and this view in his mind, on 17thDecember 1961 at about 7.00 PM, one Dhobi Esso from Candolim Orda when he came to deliver the laundry of Candolim Asst. Parish Priest Fr. Marcus Menezes, where Esso got the news that Indian military already entered Goa, Esso left the laundry in the Church premises and ran home like a mad man shouting bad words against Christians saying“tumkam atam ami kitem tem dakoitoleaum, tumkam ami marun kobar kortoleaum, tumcheo igorzo ani kopelam ami moddun kobar kortoleaum etc.
Elsewhere from Siolim and Chopdem side the promoters of Hindu Raj came in big Trucks and Tempos in our side on 20th-21st-23rd December playing Drums and hailing Hindu Raj and in Candolim at least for 2-3 days after 19th December some fanatic Hindus namely Shamba Xet, Balkrishna and others started abusing Christians and their Saint Sr. Francis Xavier and also taunting Him saying “where is gone your Forsulo now?” Thy were also firing crackers in front of the houses of Christians and also in front of some Christian passers-by taunting them as pro-Portuguese.
The formation of Maharastrawadi Gomantak Party immediately after 19.12.61 was an act against Goan Christians in the sense to decimate the power of Christians by making Marathi as official language and thereby weaken the power of Christians in Goa who are almost foreign to Marathi.  Secondly, the followers of MGP were under the impression that Goan Christians enjoyed better facilities during Portuguese time and for this they should be punished by merging them with Maharashtra which is a big ocean where they will  dissolve and live like non-entities without any importance. MGP was under the impression that Goan Christians were the promoters of Western culture, language and traditions and as such they are pro-Portuguese.  By dumping them in Maharashtra will be the best course of action to liquidate the influence of Goan Christians in Goa. This view was also subscribed by the Nagri Konknnivadis. According to MGP, in Christian community there was no Bahujan Samaj, it was only in Hindu community, for this reason MGP is called communal party.
It is wrong notion that Goan Christians are pro-Portuguez.  The involvement of Goan Christians in the freedom movement was second to none. The first mighty revolutionaries who revolted against the Portuguese rule in Goa were the Christians and moreover they were priests from Candolim known as Pintos. When they were caught they were punished very savagely.  Dr. Francis Luis Gomes the Goan parliamentarian in Portugese Parliament who raised his voice in support of Goa’s liberation was a Christian too. Likewise there are so many Christians who fought against Portuguez rule in Goa.  Overwhelming majority of Salcette Freedom Fighters were prominent Christians having secular principles and not fanatic anti-Christians as many from the North.
Our Church leaders should have told the faithful from the Pulpit and Altar the contribution of Christians in the service of Goa to make ignorant Christians aware of the excellent work done by Chrisitians in getting Goa liberated from the Portuguez rule. Instead our Church leaders behaved like cowards, slaves and ignorant with fear complex instilled in them by the crooks from the opposite camp who thought they alone were responsible to create an awakening against Portuguez rule in Goa.
During Portuguez time the entire Mining Industry was in the hands of Hindus and the major portion of Commerce was also in the hands of Hindus. Most of the government jobs were in the hands of Hindus only. Where were Christians then to enjoy better facilities?
Was it not wrong then to say Christians were given better facilities by the Portuguez? Christians were used after 19.12.61 by the interested persons and segments to get better dividends for them. For example: During Opinion Poll the entire Christian community was used to win this Poll.  For Konkani movement again the entire Christian community was used to support Konkani and in the end the script used by Christians was rejected and Nagri script was forced on Christians by the crook Konknni Nagrivadis. For any mass movement Christians only came forward to support the Goan causes. Christians showed much higher patriotism for Goa and Goan causes even though they wore western dress and many of them converse in Western language more fluently, this does not mean they are the followers of west.  They are as Indian as any other Goan Indian though Indian citizenship was forced on Goans by Indian government. 
Why those who bash Goan Christians as promoters of western culture and education don’t stop wearing western clothes and taking western education?  They are traitors and jealous of Christians and the progress Goan Christians have made.  Becaause they are jealous of Diocesan Schools they want to starve them by cancelling the grant to these schools as if they are giving this grant from their Azo’z account.  The Diocesan Schoools are not discriminating between students from Hindus and Christians.  These schools serve all the communities and not only Chrisitans.  Last time MLA Wagh was roaring like a“Ranantlo” Vagh in the Goa Legislative Assembly against these schools but within a short time had to be admitted into Bombay Hospital where he is still not fully recovered (Devachea Marank Avaz Na), thus goes one Konkani proverb.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Movement for Special Status discusses action plan

MARGAO: The Movement for Special Status for Goa (MSSG), met at the Rosary Parish Hall to discuss the future course of action.

At the meeting, a number of youth, expressed their anger at successive governments “for fooling Goans by dangling the Special Status carrot during elections.”
The youth pointed out that the Central government is denying special status for Goa on ground that it is unconstitutional, even as it has not been honouring the commitments it made at various international conventions vis-à-vis territories acquired by conquest. 
While the various UNO resolutions mandate that the demographic character and identity of an acquired territory and its indigenous inhabitants must be preserved at all costs by the conqueror nation, hordes of people from all over India are moving into Goa, the pointed out. 
The young members expressed their deep anxiety that in no time Indigenous Goans will be a minority in their own homeland. They also sought to know that if India has adhered to the Indo-Portuguese Treaty.

, then how is the civilian airport in the control of the Navy? 
It was resolved to study all the issues and spread the movement all across Goa. Members also wanted to expose the Goan politicians who have reaped personal benefits by singing the Special Status tune. It was resolved to bring out a comprehensive document defining the tenets and the parameters of Special Status.
It was also resolved to form village level committees and hold awareness programmes on what Goa as a decolonised territory is actually entitled for. It was also resolved to force the panchayats to look into the conditions of migrants staying on rent in small cubicles as this amounts to human rights violations. 
The MSSG would petition the Directorate of Panchayats to impose the mandatory submission of PAN cards as rent is taxable income.