in response to this from me: a: The Hindu-Christian-Muslim Goans in Goa (pre-1961 ....let's say in 1960) were living peacefully together OR
b: The Hindu-Christian-Muslim Goans in Goa (pre-1961 ....let's say in 1960) were NOT living peacefully together Floriano Lobo wrote back thus:< To JC's question as to if the three communities living peacefully during the later Portuguese rule, my answer is YES. The moment Portuguese left, the communality of the three communities showed> Fred Noronha (perhaps disagreeing with Floriano) emitted uncharacteristic froth by way of : <Please tell me how people can "live peacefully" together if there is official discrimination against a section of the population (in this case, Hindus, till 1910)? Is it the peace of the graveyard? Also, Catholics were having an intense war among themselves.> jc's response: (I will disregard the allegedly "intense war among Catholics" . THAT is NOT what is being discussed here. Obfuscation is fine ...but on another day) I can only re-submit the question and leave it there for those who are open minded, to think. Were Hindu-Christian-Muslim Goans in Goa living peacefully together in (say) 1960 or NOT? If they were NOT, then I have nil further to add. If ....and ONLY IF Hindu-Christian-Muslim Goans in Goa WERE living peacefully together in 1960 , the Operative Question is ... WHAT made them change in 1961 and go after each other's throats? It might also be worth asking IF ... JB (Journo-Bondollam) serve a beneficial purpose in assisting inter-communal harmony? Furthermore, I am not very sure IF what is involved here is Fredrick Noronha's Conflict of Interest ....or Interest in Conflict ...or perhaps both ! (;-) sincerely jc When the froth settles down, it might be worth reading the following from one of FN's links: (excerpted, EMPHASIS added by jc). http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/news-monitor/2001sept.htm Even a writer like V.S.Naipaul who has lived all his life in England .. believes that the Muslim conquest of India resulted in genocide and destruction of flower of Hindu civilisation. He believes that to maintain that Hindus and Muslims have coexisted in India for centuries is a 'LIE and a HOAX'. Needless to say, it is not understanding history but to surrender uncritically to one's CHAUVINISTIC emotions. It assumes highly SIMPLISTICALLY that there was NO VIOLENCE, much less genocide in Indian society BEFORE the Muslim conquest. In other words pre-Muslim society was quite ideal. All violence, including the KALINGA and other wars are pushed UNDER the carpet. But this is what is happening on the part of intellectuals. Such tendencies in all religious traditions are, unfortunately, on the increase. We become quite uncritical when it comes to OUR OWN religious tradition and bash up the 'OTHER'. Today most of us have no religious or ethnic identity per se. Our identity owes its existence to the 'other', not to ourselves. It is borne out more due to hostility to the 'other' rather than to our own genuine feelings about our own faith, language or culture. And due to such hostile attitudes we easily surrender to political PROPAGANDA. There is another tendency, which has been doing great deal of damage to our national unity and integrity. The Hindutvawadis not only IGNORE VIOLENCE in pre-Muslim Indian society but also quote Shastras to prove the non-violence and tolerance in Hindu religious tradition. It has been observed that more they talk of tolerance of Hindu tradition, more intolerance they display towards minorities and more they talk of non-violence, more violence they commit against Muslims and Christians. While glorifying no-violence in Hindu tradition these Hindutvawadis KILLED the apostle of no-violence Mahatma Gandhi. I must say to build a modern tolerant and non-violent India no one more than Mahatma Gandhi deserves our real leadership. He was as relevant in his life as in his death. However, our interests are more relevant than Gandhian ideals. In the context of the Hindutva ideology it is important to note that a homogenous notion of 'Muslims' and 'Christians' is highly doubtful. All Muslims are not wedded to the doctrine of jihad even in Pakistan, let alone in India. And all Christians are not supportive of conversions even in Christian majority countries, let alone in India. There are Muslims and Muslims and Christians and Christians as there are Hindus and Hindus. In other words each community is quite diverse in its religious, social and political proclivities. Perhaps the slogan 'unity in diversity' is as much applicable for every religious or ethnic community as for India as a whole. Diversity is the law of life as that of nature. The Hindutvawadis should note that more they emphasise their extreme form of territorial chauvinism more they weaken the political and cultural unity of India. This unity can best be strengthened by developing genuine respect for religious and cultural autonomy of different and diverse communities in India. More we respect this diversity more we strengthen Indian unity. But then the Hindutvawadis have stood more for interests of Hindu power elite rather than the unity of India. The author runs the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism in Mumbai, India [ http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/i_csss/main.html ] please visit "NEW" on The Goan Forum at http://www.colaco.net Recommended Goa related sites 1. http://www.goa-world.com 2. http://www.SuperGoa.com _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
