Dear Gabe, Please find my responses, perhaps woefully inadequate, below...
GABE RESPONSE: So what is your take? was it used wisely and carefully? Jason response: Frankly, there was much in the organisation of the event that upset me. Badly organized at least on the first two days, and way too much kowtowing to the representative of the Indian State (i.e. Mr. E. Faleiro), especially by a member of the British Govt. (i.e. a local counsellor). I still fail to understand why. As in, the power equations that would allow for this to happen, just do not appear to me. Am stumped on that front. Was it used wisely and carefully? If after all the effort the local organising committee put in (and clearly it was much), they are still accused of exclusion, allowing the same old INdian nationalist rhetoric to play out, then I think their efforts were to a large part misappropriated, which is sad. GABE RESPONSE: I think the NRI Minister has stated on more than one occasion that the aim of these Conventions is to bridge the gap between NRGs and Goa. That Carmen Miranda was given time talk to air her grievances w.r.t.rampant mining is on the plus side; even though it detracts from what the Conventions main aim is. Jason response: There are two partners in any GGC, the Commission (representing the INdian State) and the local organising committee. Should there not be a parity between partners? No one partner can dictate terms unilaterally. One partner may have one aim, the rest of us, must try to supplement the contents of what the aims of the GGC will be. That was the point of my post. GABE COMMENT: I know you are being impartial but it would have been nice to > have declared that you were one of the panelists on the recently concluded > Convention. Did you pay all your expenses or were you sponsored? > > Jason response: The fact that I was a panelist Gabe, was obvious to all on Goanet and the world. I could indicate whether I was sponsored or not, which I will. Before I indicate this however, I should point out, that I write these posts for the newspaper, and am often constrained for space. Not every detail gets to print. I know its important, but I did not find the fact of my being sponsored or not relevant to the arguments I was making. I did however know that the issue would get raised. My trip to and from the UK was sponsored by the local organizing committee, not by the Commission for NRI Affairs. I took care of my accommodation while in the UK, which was not the case for those speakers who had been sponsored by the Commission. Finally, I am glad you suggest that I am being impartial. i am indeed trying to be impartial. More importantly however, I am trying to see if there is a way for us not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The agenda of the Indian State exists, whether we like it or not. The question is, when we are called to be partners in this project, can be ensure that it accomodates a wider agenda, setting off unintended consequences? Stay well, thank you for your questions. Jason