---------------------------------------------------------- Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goa-net/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Goanet2003/ ----------------------------------------------------------
Without getting caught into the debate below, I'd like to point to some inconsistencies in arguments put forward: * Foreign exchange earnings are a notional concept. If Goa earns foreign which goes to New Delhi, it does not necessarily mean that Goa is/was being bled by the latter. After all, foreign exchange only allows one to decide priorities on what such (once-scarce) foreign-currency resources should be used for, internationally. It is not the equivalent of actual earnings. Take the case of mining -- it brought in a lot of 'foreign exchange' for Goa, which then went to Delhi's common kitty. This does not mean that the money itself was taken away -- it stayed in the pockets of private mine-owners in Goa. Only that, the Yen, D-Mark, Dollars or whatever went to Delhi, and the private mineowners got rupees instead. (The environment got nothing..., but that is another matter completely being overlooked by this emotive debate. Whether mining-workers gained or lost, and whether local communities paid the price by way of increased TB, etc is an issue that neither side of the 1961-gap seems to be focussing on... From a Goa perspective, these are critical issues.) Same is the case with tourism.... or expat remittances (while the positive benefits of this is clear, there are arguable also some negative fallouts -- the dependency syndrome, inflation... probably one of the factors in making Goa one of the costliest states in India). * There are other issues which need to be better understood. Understanding shrouded-in-mystery state finances are a complex affair. Just because the Centre repeatedly pointed to the grants it gave Goa, does not mean that it was actually subsidising the existance of post-1961 Goa. Colonial Portugal too made similar claims (that retaining Goa was costing them money), but fought tooth-and-nail to stay on. What about the fact that the decision to have an over-bloated bureaucracy seems to have got the political support from governments both at Delhi and Goa? Or that political corruption has been tolerated for long years? Or the reality that even under colonial rule, Goa's per capita income (of course, a misleading figure in itself) was significantly higher than that of neighbouring states or of most other regions? Today, Goa is staying afloat economically with a hugh debt burden. Liquor is also a major source of revenue for the government. A closer study of how-the-rupee-comes and how-the-rupee-goes from the state exchequer (assuming this reflects a realistic picture) would give a deeper insight. Once we decide which side of the debate we are on, it's convenient perhaps to find suitable arguments to back our stand. But these are not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. Terms like 'invasion' and even 'Liberation' tend to have emotive overtones. Perhaps the question we need to be asking is how Portuguese colonialism and post-1961 change have affected Goa and her people (not just *us*, but all sections). It's not as one-sided as made out to be. This is a complex, yet-to-be-understood balance sheet that needs to be drawn up. This is a difficult task; not simply because different segments got affected in disparate ways, but they also *feel* and *believe* that they got affected in diverse ways. Other viewpoints/corrections to the above welcome. FN > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > From: "Nagesh Bhatcar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Goa has certainly been one of the big contributors to India's Foreign > Exchange, due to a lot of remittances from overseas. However, there are > a lot of misconceptions about the revenue generation from Goa and its > industries. In the 80s when Goa was on the verge of getting a statehood, > the biggest problem for the Central Government was to see how Goa could > survive by generating its own revenue. I had met the Dy. Director of > Accounts just before Goa's statehood and he told me that of the entire > Goan budget of 100 crores, 80 crores used to come from the Centre! 80% > of the money had to come from Delhi, because Goa did not have the > infrastructure to generate such revenues! This high percentage of > funds allocation to Goa, was by virtue of its being a Union Territory! > I know that at the time of granting the Statehood, some arrangement > was worked out to provide Goa with the necessary cash. > > I do not know what the present arrangements are between the Centre and > the Goa Government. But, it would be wrong to infer that Goa is being > ripped off by the rest of India! WANT TO check out which mailing lists you could subscribe to? Send a blank email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ========================================================================
