MARIA DO CEU RODRIGUES
The First General Election was held in Goa in December 1963. The status of Goa was the main bone of contention in the elections. MGP wanted Goa’s merger into Maharashtra lock, stock and barrel. UGP opposed merger tooth and nail. In the House of 30 members, the MGP bagged 14 and UGP 12 seats. The Indian National Congress drew a blank in Goa. However, it got one seat from Daman. MGP formed the Government with Dayanand B Bandodkar as the Chief Minister. Dr Jack De Sequeira became the Leader
of Opposition.
The most important question that absorbed the minds of the people of Goa after Liberation related to their political status within the Indian Union. Broadly, there were two currents: One strongly favouring Goa’s merger into Maharashtra. The other strongly favouring Statehood for Goa.
Idea of merger
Researchers say that the idea of Goa’s merger into Maharashtra was not at all a post-Liberation idea. It existed much before and was developed by both the Goans and the Maharashtrians. In 1917, Vithal Vaman Tamhankar advocated the formation of Maharashtra, which was to consist of Berar, Bombay, Central Provinces, Goa and the State of Hyderabad. It was pursued subsequently at the first Maharashtra Unification Conference at Poona in May 1940; at the 13th Session of the Marathi Sahitya Parishad in Belgaum in May 1946; and at the Maharashtra Unification Conference in Bombay in July 1946.
Under pressure
In January 1964, Bandodkar told the House that although the Governor’s Address made no mention of merger, a resolution would be introduced at the right time. He proceeded cautiously, judging the communalised political climate unfavourable. Education Minister V. S. Karmali argued that the electorate had given the MGP a clear mandate for merger with Maharashtra and that the Assembly was competent to approve a resolution reflecting the people’s verdict to Parliament.
The MGP urged the Centre to hasten merger but was shocked in October 1964 when Congress leader S. K. Patil revealed a decision from April to retain Goa as a Union Territory for ten years. Defence Minister Y. B. Chavan distanced himself from this. Frustration grew, with calls for agitation and criticism of Bandodkar’s caution. After Nehru’s death, the MGP Legislature Party submitted a memorandum in November 1964 warning that failure to act would prompt a merger resolution. The Centre ignored it.
On January 22, 1965, the Assembly approved a private member’s resolution for merger by 15 votes to one, declaring Marathi as Goa’s language and Konkani its dialect, urging Parliament to act. Maharashtra’s legislature unanimously supported immediate merger on March 10, 1965, provoking Mysore’s opposition.
A five-member delegation of MGP, headed by Bandodkar, was sent to Delhi on April 25, 1966 to seek an assurance from Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that elections would be held in Goa simultaneously with the general elections in the country. When the delegation returned empty-handed, M Shinkre, MP (MGP), advised the Bandodkar Ministry to resign on June 1, 1966, as that alone would force the Union Government to hold fresh elections. On June 4, 1966, in Bombay, Bandodkar declared that MGP could not be deceived by the Central Government by referring the matter to any Commission. Hence, he would oppose “tooth and nail” any move by the Union Government to refer the matter to a Commission. He even threatened to go on an indefinite fast if the Union Government pursued such a proposal.
In September 1966, the Congress recommended an Opinion Poll. Parliament passed the Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966, with polling set for January 16, 1967, to decide merger or Union Territory status.
Voters list
After Liberation, a large number of people from various regions of the country settled in Goa to pursue their professions, occupations, and trade. People other than Goans were not as much concerned as the Goans. Hence, their participation in the Opinion Poll was likely to distort the outcome of the Poll. This was the fear of some political parties and associations within Goa. Hence, the United Goans Party demanded a totally new electoral roll, which must include Goans not only from Goa but also from all parts of India as well as Goans settled in countries outside India. They also insisted upon the deletion of ‘non-Goan elements’ from the electoral roll.
The Indian National Congress in Goa supported the United Goans Party and further demanded the exclusion of the ‘deputationists’ from the electoral roll. The ‘deputationist’ was the term used to identify officers serving in the Goa Government but belonging to the neighbouring states, especially Maharashtra.
The opponents of merger thought that they could nullify the impact of the ‘non-Goan element’ on the Opinion Poll by including the Goans settled outside India in the list of voters.
Chief Election Commissioner asserted that ‘outside Goan’ will have to ‘convince’ the registrar that his stay outside Goa was tempo-rary and that he was a permanent resident of Goa and ‘outside Goan’ cannot claim voting rights just because he was ‘born in Goa or his ancestors were born in that Territory.’ As no time limit was prescribed for an ‘ordinarily resident’, everything depended on factual statement made by the voter to
the registrar.
Opinion Poll Bill
In September, 1966, the Congress Parliamentary Board recommended an Opinion Poll in Goa to ascertain the wishes of the people on their future. On the recommendation of the Government of India, Parliament passed Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Bill, 1966, which was assented to by the President of India on December 11, 1966. The Act stated that January 16, 1967 would be the date for hold-ing the Opinion Poll in Goa, Daman and Diu. After accepting the resignation of the Bandodkar Ministry, the President of India dissolved the Goa Legislative Assembly on
December 3 , 1966.
Unable to defy the Government of India, the MGP welcomed the Opinion Poll. The Bandodkar Ministry resigned on December 3, 1966, and the party prepared by organising public meetings, morchas, street plays, and door-to-door canvassing. Bandodkar personally addressed 133 meetings. He dismissed claims that merger would harm Catholics, noting many lived in Bombay and elsewhere in Maharashtra. He assured Konkani speakers that merger would not neglect their language and warned that a vote for Union Territory status did not guarantee a separate State, which the Union Government had not provided. In pro-merger areas, emphasis was placed on Hindu sentiment, with Bandodkar highlighting that merger would reunite Goddesses Shanta Durga and Bhawani after 450 years of separation under colonial rule. He also stressed economic benefits, arguing that selfish interests exploited religious and linguistic emotions to keep Goa isolated, and that without merger, the territory’s development would be stalled.
The MGP’s Opinion Poll campaign was planned and coordinated by Maharashtrians. To counter Maharashtrian propaganda, the UGP established offices in Bombay and Delhi and sent delegations to persuade the Government of India.
Maharashtra’s guarantee to Goans
In December 1966, ahead of the Opinion Poll, Maharashtra Chief Minister V P Naik announced guarantees if Goans voted for merger. These included economic development through Five-Year Plans, infrastructure growth, protection of small farmers and weaker sections, technical and vocational education, and employment opportunities. Konkani and Marathi would develop together, prohibition would not be imposed without central direction, and government employees’ pay and service conditions would be safeguarded. Grants to private schools, teacher salaries, and denominational education would be maintained, with free higher education for low-income families. Other assurances included a university, freedom for religious institutions, identification of backward classes for concessions, a Bombay High Court bench at Panaji, and due representation of Goa in
Maharashtra’s administration.
KBM and Tiatr
Konkani Bhasha Mandal (KBM) worked tirelessly in New Delhi to counter the misconception that Konkani was a dialect of Marathi. In November 1966, KBM demanded Konkani’s inclusion in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. Many members—Uday Bhembre, Chandrakant Keni, Ravindra Kelekar, Father Lucio de Viega Coutinho, Felicio Cardoso, Dr. Manoharao Sardessai, and Shankar Bhandari—played leading roles in the Opinion Poll campaign. Bhandari and Sardessai composed poems and songs responding to Maharashtra’s Shahirs and Kalapathaks.
Tiatrists, performing street and theatre dramas, joined forces with Goan and Bombay artists to oppose merger. Artist Ulhas Buyanv sang powadas in Konkani celebrating Goa, countering Maharashtra’s powadas.
Economic Groups
While some mine owners supported the merger. Mine owners such as V. S. Dempo, V. M. Salgaocar, Leader of the Opposition Dr. Jack De Sequeira, and Lima Leitao opposed Goa’s merger into Maharashtra. Mine owners such as G. N. Agarwal, Shantilal Gosalia, and Damodar Mangalji were either neutral or helped both supporters and opponents of the merger. During the Opinion Poll, ‘The Navhind Time’ campaigned against
the merger.
Media
The media played a big role in convincing the people of their view point. For the Marathi readers, Rashtramat was the powerful voice of anti-merger. The most effective and popular part of the Rashtramat daily was the column ‘Brahmastra’, written by Uday Bhembre under the pen name ‘Parshuram’. For the English readers, The Navhind Times wrote in support of anti-merger . Two Konkani publications ‘Sot’ and ‘Duty’ and two Portuguese ones—’A Vida’ and ‘oHeraldo’—followed the anti-merger line. ‘Vavradeancho Ixtt’, brought out by the clergy and ‘Goa Times’ from Bombay, besides ‘Goa Today’, the monthly English magazaine, were also strongly anti-merger.
Pro-merger supporters were ‘Gomantak’ and ‘Gomantwani’, the Marathi dailies. ‘Pradeep’, also in Marathi, was for merger. The voter turnout was massive. Polling registered was 81.7% on January 16, 1967. Counting went on for three days and a see-saw battle
was witnessed.
(This is an abridged version from: Opinion Poll In Goa — An Evaluation of the Method to Settle the
Controversy, A PhD thesis)
