[Goanet] Re: “UDAY BHEMBRE's ROAD MAP TO HELL” by Godfrey Gonsalves - VI

[Sebastian Borges]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|              Add your name to the CLEAN GOA INITIATIVE                 |
|                                                                        |
|      by visiting this link and following the instructions therein      |
|                                                                        |
|   http://shire.symonds.net/pipermail/goanet/2005-October/033926.html   |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re:  “UDAY BHEMBRE's  ROAD MAP TO HELL” by Godfrey
Gonsalves  VI
Re:  “UDAY BHEMBRE's  ROAD MAP TO HELL” by Godfrey
Gonsalves
                                                      
              Part VI

Godfrey has brought in some extraneous issues which
are not directly connected with Bhembre’s Road Map. 
But they are nonetheless important to merit attention.
 So let us discuss them as well.  Godfrey says:
6.  <<Bahujan Samaj non Brahmin Hindus writers who are
already separately at logger heads with a section of
the same Hindu Brahmins trying unsuccessfully to undo
a historical wrong viz;Mahajani Act – by time and
again giving a justified clarion call for reforms to
liberate the casteist trends in the Hindu 160
registered temples in Goa out
of which nearly 50% are in the hands of the Brahmins
depriving the non Hindu Brahmins of their legitimate
rights to temple rights.>>
 
     This statement refers to a practice prevalent in
Hindu temples in Goa.  Each temple has a Managing
Committee called Mahajani.  Members of this Committee
are elected at certain regular intervals, according to
law.  Many of the temples, especially the larger and
richer ones, are managed exclusively by Saraswat
Brahmins.  There are other temples which are managed
exclusively by non-Saraswats.  But THE CASTE
DISTINCTION IS ONLY SUPERFICIAL.  It is not possible
for any and every Saraswat to be eligible for election
to the Mahajani of a particular Saraswat-administered
temple; he must belong to one of the Mahajan families
of THAT temple.  The same rule applies to the temples
administered by non-Saraswats.  THE RIGHT IS
HEREDITARY and does not lapse on changing one’s place
of residence.  These procedures are laid down in the
LAW which governs the Mahajanis.  This law was
formulated during Portuguese rule.  Its working is
somewhat akin to that of the law on Comunidades with
which the readers will be more familiar.  
     A Goan can be a zonnkar of a Comunidade only if
his father is/was a zonnkar; this right is also
hereditary and does not lapse even when the person
leaves that village and settles in another.  One
cannot enroll as a zonnkar of  a village just on the
premise that he lives in that village and belongs to
the CASTE of the zonnkars there.  The Comunidades are
also governed by a LAW which was formulated during the
Portuguese regime.  Both these institutions existed
before the arrival of the Portuguese; the latter only
codified the procedures which were then in vogue.  
     Now some activists, notably N. Shivdas, are
demanding that the membership of Mahajanis be
universalized; that non-Saraswats too be made eligible
to become Mahajans of the Saraswat-administered
temples.  The Saraswats, on the other hand contend
that those temples having been built by their
forefathers, only they have a right to administer
them.  Shivdas and his group say that many of the
temples were originally built by the non-Saraswat
“kullavis” but the Saraswats used their influence with
the Portuguese to fraudulently register them as their
own.  This possibility cannot be ruled out considering
the enormous clout and vantage positions that the
Saraswats enjoyed during the Portuguese rule; but it
would be difficult to prove.  THE SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEM WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAW.  This
is possible only if the two factions come to some
consensus on the issue.  This again is far-fetched
since the human tendency is, “I shall not part with
even a bit of what I possess but I shall fight for a
piece of what you have”.  In any case, it is not a
serious problem since the parties to the conflict have
not yet come to physical blows.
     But if Godfrey thinks that such a conflict exists
only in Hindu temples, he is sadly mistaken.  It is
found in Catholic Churches as well and in a worse
form. Every Goan parish has more than one Confraria
whose MEMBERSHIP IS ENTIRELY CASTE-BASED.  The
membership of the “Confraria maior” is not open to
Catholics belonging to the subaltern castes nor will
an upper caste Catholic apply for the membership of
“Confraria menor”.  There is no heredity factor
involved.  Any Catholic who settles in a parish can
become a member of a Confraria of that parish; but HE
WILL BE ADMITTED ONLY TO THE CONFRARIA BEFITTING HIS
CASTE.
     The caste-exclusivism of the Mahajanis, however
unjust we may think it to be, is at least LEGAL.  But
the caste-exclusivism of Confrarias is ILLEGAL; it
contravenes the directive of the Archbishop-Patriarch
issued in 1945, by which all caste-based membership of
Confrarias was banned.  
     Unlike the conflict over temple rights, the
problem of caste-exclusivism in Church has led to
physical clashes.  It has even come to barbaric
levels; in one of the parishes, an interred coffin was
actually exhumed and placed at the gate of the
cemetery.
     Would the “journalist-activist” Godfrey Gonsalves
now do a N. Shivdas among the Catholics and take up
cudgels on behalf of the subaltern castes for the
membership of the “Confraria maior”? 
     I hope Godfrey is not suggesting that Catholic
Brahmins should also have rights over Hindu temples;
the term “non Hindu Brahmins” towards the end of his
statement appears to convey this meaning.  A
clarification would be in order.
                   (to be continued)
     S. M. Borges