------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Scholberg's piece "Journalism in Portuguese India 1821-1961" makes
very interesting reading. It's surely a very abridged version of an
extensive research, with resource to several languages.
I would like to comment upon some points Scholberg refers to.
He states that "In 'O Brado Indiano' one finds the beginning of genuine
Indian protest as indicated in its title". I would be delighted to have some
more clarifications about this. What is meant by "genuine Indian protest",
in Goa, around 1895, even more than ten years before the concept of "Swaraj"
was invented in the Indian National Congress meeting at Calcutta? How
"Indian" and political were these journalistic "protests" really?
This leads to me to the concept "Indian" applied to 19th century Goa.
Regularly, Goanetters and other amateur historians or scholars (Scholberg
obviously not included) seek to legitimise anti-colonial protests in
pre-1961 Goa with quotations from speeches and articles or editorials in
Portuguese language where there are references to "India". My concern, and
guess, is that "India" had a completely different understanding in those
times. First, India was often seen under an apolitical light, simply as a
geogrophical entity (the sub-continent). Or, second, India, specially in
continental Portugal, was the short designation for Portuguese India, i.e.
specially Goa. In this second meaning, for example, "India" is not the
present independent political entity called Republic of India (non-existent
at that time, and largely absent as a project even for the British India
freedom fighters). It is specifically Goa, and perhaps also Daman, Diu and
other enclaves at the time.
I feel further study should be done in this domain. What were the
perceptions and meanings of "India" among the Goan intellegentisa in the
19th century, and even up to 1961. And what was "India" for the Lisbon-based
journalists, politicians and thinkers?
These concerns of mine relate specially to the following paragraph by
Scholberg:
"As for Goa's identification with India, consider: "Bharat Mitra' (Brother
India), The Indian Bulletin, Indian Civilization, Echo of India, Gazette of
India, The Indian, Journal of India, Reporter of India, The Voice of the
People of India, and, after Independence, 'India Portuguesa' becomes,
simply, 'India'." If my supposition is right, Scholberh unrightly derives a
political interpretation out of these titles.
A second point relates to the statement that
"A difficult period for journalists in Goa was that which existed between
1946 and 1961, a time identified with the movement to bring the blessings of
Independence to Goa."
No doubt that it was a difficult period for freedom of expression and
consequently for free journalism in Goa. As it was in Portugal itself. My
attention rather goes to the last part of the sentence. First, unlike what
many try to prove, there was no "one movement" against Portuguese
colonialism in Goa.
There were radical terrorist groups fighting for Goa's integration within
India, as well as there were peaceful groups looking out for the same
objective. There were different patterns and different startegies, as well
as different nuances and geographical locations. There were also different
orientations, one important and quite neglected by current research, being
the one demanding a wide autonomy for Goa within a Portuguese confederation,
a special status within the Indian Union, or complete independence and
sovereignty. There isare several Goan intellectuals and politicians who
openly defended these options and presented them to both sides - the
Portuguese and the Indian.
Thus, given this large diversity of movements against Portuguese colonialism
in Goa, there is one more concept to be discussed. Scholberg defines the
objective of these being the "independence of Goa". As far as I know, the
dominant mainstream in the Goan freedom struggle was striving for
*integration* within the Indian Union. India being independent since 1947,
there was thus no more demand for "Indian independence", and, exlcuding the
small circles I referred to above, no demand for "Goan independence".
This last calrification is necessary for the reason that confusion
(consciously produced or not) can easily emerge in the Goan researchers
community and even in mainstream debates and education in Goa. Goa has never
been independent, nor has there been any relevant movement aspiring to that
status. What Goa witnessed, mainly during the last period Scholberg analyses
in his piece, was an anti-colonial movement which in its mainstream agenda
demanded the integration of Portuguese India into another sovereign nation -
the Republic of India. Thus, careful with the word "independence"!
A last point I would like to make, specifically directed at the last part of
"Journalism in Portuguese India 1821-1961", which deals with the post-1961
era. Scholber asks "What is the state of journalism today?". In my opinion,
any researcher or even interested in media affairs and historical
journalism, taking a close glimpse at newspapers produced in Goa in the
past, and then at newspapers produced in Goa today, will, without
hesitation, conclude that the panorama is much worse off today.
*Relatively*, i.e. in relation to the standards and constraints of each
historical period, I think Goan newspapers are today worse than their
counterparts fifty, or even hundred years back. While in the past Goan
journalists and newspapers were many times perhaps closely following
world-class standards, had strong political impact despite censorship and
covered issues in-depth and with great international outlook (the same
applying to the radio and the "Emissora de Goa"), look at the panorama
today.
Though I feel that over the last 3 years there has been some improvement, is
it possible to compare Goan newspapers and magazines with the very own
Indian media standards, not to speak about international ones?
A last note: it is amazing (and also frightening) to note the ostracization
the "Goan Observer" has been suffering by the "mainstream" research and
media agenda in Goa. Once again there is no reference to this most important
weekly English newspaper in Goa, which, in my opinion, has fostered the
changes we have seen over the last three years in terms of invetsigative and
outspoken journalism. My guess for the reason for this neglect goes
precisely to the person you refer to as being one of the "main sources" for
you post-1961 study, Frederick Noronha. A good friend of mine, I might
understand his personal feelings against the "Goan Observer" endeavour. What
I cannot understand, nor accept, is that he systematically ignores the
newspaper in any study or reference he produces about journalism in Goa. The
same applies to a larger chunk of the contemporary Goan intelligentsia.
But, Prof. Scholberg, let me renew my congratulations for your research. It
is a great re-discovery of a part the rich Goan history, which I read with
great interest. I wish there were more people like you, especially Goans,
doing this kind of work about our past and heritage.
Constantino Xavier
Delhi/Lisbon
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
