There are mistakes (don’t know if they are mine as I wrote the piece just a few hours before my departure to Goa) in what appeared in OHeraldo. I have found some an d the missing words have been put in brackets.
*E*ugene Strange interpretations about Nehru’s quote Eugene Correia In a week or so, Goa will again herald the coming of Independence and rejoice in the ex- colony joining the motherland called India. December 19, 1961 will be remembered with fervour and vigour by those who felt elated with being free of the colonial yoke. No doubt, the date remains a D- Day in the history of Goa, particularly so in the tortuous annals of Goa’s freedom movement. It’s the day to honour and remember those who gave their blood and sweat in the long march for freedom. Those who laid down their lives deserve a minute of special reverence by Goans who are patriotic in heart and mind and feel that their sacrifices have not gone in vain. Since the dawn of a new era, there have been critics of the Liberation. For these pro- Portuguese as well as those who wanted Goa to be a separate independent nation, December 19 is a day of mourning. They take recourse to the Supreme Court’s verdict that Goa’s take over was annexation as per international law. Since this ruling doesn’t make any impact on its new rulers to change the status quo, it only matters in academic circles whether one considers the embracing of Goa within the Indian federalism is termed as Liberation or Annexation. In the midst of the Liberation/ Annexation debate, the focus has been then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. True, Nehru abandoned his diplomacy for military. Circumstances of the time forced his hand, and obviously someone like Krishnav Menon, a trusted friend and his Defence Minister, prevailed upon Nehru to launch the offensive that ultimately resulted in Portuguese running away, though with little resistance. The die had been cast a few days before the first step towards Goa and the sweep down by Air Force planes with strafing the surrounding areas of Dabolim airport. In the post- military action, as Goa limped back to normalcy and attainted steadiness in its daily life, Nehru visited Goa in 1963. In between 1961 and his Goa visit, Nehru had a shock with the Hindi- Chini bhaibhai diplomacy got hammered as Chinese army amassed itself on India’s borders and gave a crushing blow both to Nehru’s trust in Chow En Lai and to the Indian army. Never did Nehru expect that his faith in the Chinese premier would be a such a reward. First, Nehru suffered global shame for his use of force in Goa and then he suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of China. This twin- episode obviously played on his mind—and heart—and Nehru succumbed next year, in 1964. Nehru has gone from this earth but he remains in memory of those Goans who felt Nehru went back on his promise to retain Goa as a distinct society, which Goans calculated as being a separate entity, out of mainstream India. Nehru obviously based on the premise that Goan society and culture is of both Hindu and Catholic streams, and both a mix of Indian and Portuguese influences. A confluence of such cultures, though even Pondicherry ( now Puducherry) displayed such a fusion, was what defined Goa, a legacy that persists till today. So, in the narratives of both national and regional identities Goa has been given a special place. It’s said that Nehru remarked, “ Ajeeb hai yeh Goa ke log.” But I am not able to find the quote attributed to Nehru in my desperate search for its reference. Even authors who used the quote hasn’t referenced to it. In one of his pieces for OHeraldo, Vivek Menezes used it, and so did Rajan Narayan elaborated on it with(out) pinpointing its source. Even before these two writers took liberty with the quote other journalists flayed the alleged remark with gay abandon. Those who take history serious(ly)need to find the quote’s origin. If none is able to trace it, it could well be dismissed as a canard and put to rest. Talking to a couple of freedom fighters ( including my dad’s cousin, the late Felix Valois Rodrigues, a journalist and writer in Portuguese, Konkani and English) in the late 70s, I was informed that Nehru seemed to have one of his temper moods when he scolded the nationalists, as there were at least two major groups in the forefront of the freedom struggle, for not coming to a compromise plan for action. The association(s) were making different sort of demands and were not in disagreement with each other. He’s supposed to have found it strange that Goans didn’t agree on common points. Were those who met Nehru responsible for spreading this quote? Or was it an antagonistic shot at Nehru by one of the disgusted party? It’s a well- known fact that the different groups espousing the cause of Goa’s freedom differed from each other in their approach and method in achieving the goal of freedom. There was no consensus, except its affirmed target—to get the Portuguese out of India. From those advocating armed struggle to those taking up non- violent Satyagraha, freedom fighting groups clashed with each other on the ideological front. Each group found its own way to carry on its mission. For example, the Azad Gomantak Dal, and the Goan Liberation Army had their own agendas, though with one common plank—the revolutionary path. On the other hand, the All- India Sahayak Samiti ( All- Party Goa Liberation Committee carried its work on the wheels of Satyagraha. While the United Front of Goans, under Francis Mascarenhas, took to non- violent methods, Dr. Tristao Braganza e Cunha led Goa Action Committee on the nonviolent dictum of Satyagraha. In his speech in Goa on 22 May 1963, Nehru said that “ Goa has a certain distinctive personality.” Obviously, he was referring to the syncretic nature of Goa’s culture. To the best of my knowledge, the English meaning of the Hindi word “ ajeeb” is “ strange” and that of English word “ unique” is “ anokhi.” But the words “ unique” or “ distinctive” could have been loosely translated as “ ajeeb” in newspaper reports or in common discourse. I may be wrong or my spelling wrong, when I say that in Konkani ( Devnagiri, or in the lexicon of “ new Konkani”), the equivalent or translated words are “ vichitr” or “ ananya” for “ unique”. As they say that if a lie is repeated a thousand times it appears to be truth. It’s definitely Goebbelsian theory. After Liberation/ Annexation, the quote marched very fast into Goan texts, attaining different contextual meanings. It’s not clear still what connotation it carries. Goans are characterizes by many names, and Goans proudly proclaim themselves to be “ different” than the rest of Indians. But after more than 50 years of freedom, the lines separating Goans from the rest have blurred. Today, Goa is nothing but a “ cultural pot”, a multi- racial and ethnic community. The quote has gone around in texts written on Goa with great alacrity. I doubt if it has been challenged in the academia or in serious discourse over Liberation. In the absence of the original text it becomes difficult for contextual reasoning and, thereby, renders the quote untenable. The quote cannot be left hanging by itself. Even granting that Nehru may have said it in a private conservation, he may have made it to show his frustration and not as a jibe at a Goan’s character. Does the quote dovetail into what otherwise alarmingly called the “ sussegado” culture of Goans? Or, does it mean different than what “ sussegado” means either by definition or by implication? Without proper context, the quote is “ unsustainable argument.” I am reminded of W. E. B. du Bois’ notion of “ double consciousness” in his description of the cultural dilemma of Afro- Americans. ( Eugene Correia is a senior journalist)
