Hi Cornel, This is a response to some of your comments in the two recent posts on this thread. Both your posts have statements which appear to be confusing. In themselves, some may be true statements, but they (the various facts) are not connected.
As I stated previously and discussed about two years ago, Hindu temples were destroyed to terrorize the native population and as part of a LAND GRAB. Thus the Hindus left their ancestral land and villages and fled the Portuguese territory. This was part of the military's plan. All invading armies did the same - used some excuse (extending from destruction of places of worship and homes, slaughter, intimidation, introduction of laws, etc.) to confiscate / grab the land. The land was then distributed (as compensation) to the retired soldiers and officers of the invading army. The same happened in England leading to estates and titles like Baron, Earl, Duke etc. Within the Indian context, the titles of the land holders were zamindar, Emir, Sultan, Nawab etc. And prior to that, the Hindu dynasties had their own hierarchy. This had nothing to do with building places of worship which all the new rulers did. The very actions of the Portuguese military in driving off the local population was counter-productive to the efforts of conversion and a very poor example of Christian kindness (and likely scarring the new converts). It must have been frustrating to the young motivated nuns and priests who came all the way from Europe to help the natives. Portuguese colonials in Goa were a law unto themselves. Even the King of Portugal had little control on them. The Church had even less influence, in spite of repeated protestations. See letters of St. Francis Xavier to the King. As expected some Catholic Goans misinterpret these letters. The Portuguese Governador generally came on a three-year term of duty. They and their administrative staff started accumulating wealth as soon as they landed in Goa. It was to control these excesses (moral and criminal activities) by the Portuguese (Catholics), including its military, that the Church introduced the religious, not civil (difficult to separate the two) inquisition and its deterrence effects in Goa. The Portuguese who came to Goa were not necessarily a civilized lot. Goa was not the best place to be posted, even though we call it - amchem bangarachem Goem. It is wet like crazy in the monsoon, hot like hell in the summer (with no fans or air conditioning), and the rest of the year (Goa of the 16th, 17th, 18th century) had endemics of malaria and many other tropical diseases. Even Portugal's most famous poet, Camoes, landed in Goa because of the choice given to him - continue to be in jail (for a drunken brawl in Portugal) or go to Goa. And while in Goa he also landed in jail due to bad debts. Wonder where this intelligent guy was spending his money.:=)) Yet, I am not blaming the young Portuguese bachelor-men, who with no education, were shipped off to Goa away from their families for the sake of King and Country. This was just what life was in the 16th, 17th, 18th century. The type of social life the Portuguese led is also exemplified by the reported 500 cases of syphilitic deaths EVERY YEAR in tiny Goa (pre-penicillin era). And these cases do not include the numbers with primary and secondary stages of the disease and other STDs. Many of these non-curable diseases were endemic (not epidemic) to "golden Goa". I wonder if you or other critics of the inquisition have any suggestions that should have been used to confront these social and medical problems. The inquisition may have been worse than the disease. In my estimate the proportional statistics (based on the population at risk) for the STD illnesses are much worse compared to today's AIDS epidemic. The churches in Goa as expected were built to meet the needs and built where the Catholic population grew / existed. (According to your theory and a few other anti-Catholics it is: "Ah a temple is destroyed, let's go and build a church on top of it.") The majority of the Catholic population in Goa in the 16th, 17th, 18th century were white Portuguese and other Europeans (who came to Goa for commerce, shipping, and to serve in the civilian and military administration) and the mesticios. Velha Goa's population was reported to be as large as that of Lisbon and Madrid. There was no connection between Hindu temples and the Catholic churches. Let me explain by putting it in today's context. In the USA, many Christian churches are closing down and physically deteriorating because of declining worshipers. At the same time many new Hindu temples are being built to meet the needs of the increasing Hindu population. While these are going on simultaneously, the events are not connected. As a faith believer, it is great that Hindus can build their temples in the USA and continue their religion, culture and traditions. I personally have visited their well designed and beautiful temples across the USA. Yet one is not built as an "arrogant displacement" of another. Similarly, a few years from now when peace prevails in Iraq, some Christians from UK and USA and elsewhere may raise money to help the Iraqi Christians build a church. In old city of Baghdad, that may well be on some destroyed site. So perhaps five-hundred years from now some amateur is going to write, "Baghdad in 2005 and 2006 was destroyed by the west, just so that the Christians could build their churches on top of the mosques." Finally, one cannot make a claim if there is no evidence - in reference to your statements below, which are confusing. There is contemporary historical accounts of Hindu temples being destroyed by Portuguese soldiers and Hindus fleeing Goa. Beyond that, there is no evidence for further wild statements that many make. A positive statement needs hard documentation for verification. And one cannot prove a negative! Hope this information helps your (and other Goans') future reading and writings. So you are right with, "I detect a presentational problem over some of this debate." Regards GL ---------------------Cornel I asked if, because Gilbert had not personally found the evidence about Hindu temples, he was happy to accept that there was no such destruction? I have come across material in texts and I am sure Gilbert must as well that, there were Hindu temples destroyed for the construction of Catholic churches in Goa. ---------------- cornel Thanks for your response. I detect a presentational problem over some of this debate. However, my understanding is that in Goa, some Hindu temples were demolished and Catholic churches were built in their place in a spirit of arrogant displacement. Have I got this entirely wrong according to you? Are you saying that it is not acceptable to say that Catholic churches were built following Portuguese destruction of Hindu temples as you have not found firm historical evidence for such a claim? _____________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list ([email protected])
