Aires,
This is a piece I wrote a few weeks ago:
I was very impressed that the GA had taken on challenge of hosting the
GGC as part of your own celebrations. However, in the quiet light of
day, the convention raises many questions.
I am not into criticising or detracting from the conference. My efforts
are aimed at setting out the facts. Is the convention worthwhile or not?
If it is, why, what does it deliver? If the convention is to have a
future, what is the best way forward? A professional redesign of the
convention? I also have a problem with the use of the word “convention”.
Perhaps it is a word favoured by spin doctors to make a meeting look
grander than it actually is. According to the venerable Oxford English
dictionary it is:
a large meeting or conference, especially of members of a political
party or a particular profession or group:the party held its biennial
convention
North American an assembly of the delegates of a political party to
select candidates for office.
a body set up by agreement to deal with a particular issue.
historical a meeting of Parliament without a summons from the sovereign.
I find it hard to defend the relevance of the whole thing. I do not know
of one iota of the cause of Goans in UK or the wider Goan diaspora or
the Goans in Goa was enhanced in any shape or form by the GGC. I also
found those speakers quite irrelevant.I would even suggest that this
meeting had more to do with drumming up business for the celebration of
the golden jubiliee of Goa’s liberation/annexation than anything to do
with the community of Goans or the dialogue therein. The argument is
forwarded that the Goan Festival was the most successful ever. My answer
is that you don't need a global convention to organise the festival.
Goans from around the world have attended the festival on previous
occasions.
1. What was the purpose of the Goan Convention? What was the
architecture of the conference: Aims, objectives, deliverables, key
messages, tangible achievements in Goa, easier access and solution to
personal/individual, property issues, opportunity for genuine dialogue
rather than an opportunity to kowtow to people.
2. Was this achieved in London, if yes, how was it achieved?
3. How did this convention benefit the Goans of UK or Goa?
4. With so many speakers focussing on the past, was this not a just a
drumming exercise to celebrate the anniversary of annexation/liberation?
5. Would it be fair to say most of the speakers were irrelevant in terms
of Goa's needs today and in the future (with the exception of Carmen
Miranda)? Was this not the ideal opportunity to engage people in
attempting to debate some of Goa's critical problems? Not just paying
lip service, but serious transparent
commitment to beginning the path to repairing the damages of
institutionalised corruption?
6. How much money, if any, did it cost the Goan Association? How much
was contributed by the Goa Government? What is the total cost of the
convention? How much interference was there from Goa? Why and what was
it about?
7. What is your answer to your accusers who say these conventions are a
waste of time, do not achieve anything and are just junket which
benefits Sir Lunchalot or Lord Travelalot?
On the other hand, I have been hearing good things about the Know Goa
programme. It seems to be a reasonable programme which is delivering
what it has set out to do: allowing young Goans from around the world to
get to know their ancestral motherland.
What I tried to do was establish the bona fides of the GGC. Is it a good
thing? Does it deliver what it sets out to do? Does it enhance the lot
of the Goan? Is there another project that would deliver better value
for the Goan rupee?
If the answer is in the negative for most of these questions, then the
GGC should be dumped and whole process rethought and given a fresh start
with transparency in all facets.
Cyprian Fernandes
