John de Figueiredo reviews the article. He is a US based physician.
Arrival of thePortuguese in Goa:
Mr. Adiga states that the “start of thePortuguese rule in Goa” was
“brutal”. Was it really “brutal”? Goans and otherIndians invited the Portuguese
to occupy Goa and end the rule of Bijapur. WhenAlbuquerque arrived in Goa, the
Goan Hindus fought in his army and took him intriumph when he successfully
ended the rule of Bijapur. During the war of the occupation,Albuquerque
respected the cultural norms of Goa. For example, he ordered thatBrahmans
should not be killed and he wrote to his King he had done this “becausein this
land Brahmans are not killed”. Compared to some of the conquests thatthe Goans
had to endure before 1510, the arrival of the Portuguese in Goa canhardly be
described as “brutal”, at least from the viewpoint of the Goans ofthat time.
Compare it, for example, to the invasion of Goa by Achugi II, theSindha
chieftain of Yelburga, who “took Gove (Goa Velha) and gave it to theflames”.
During the 30 years that followed Albuquerque there was hardly
anydiscrimination against Goan Hindus as far as we can determine. When
religiousintolerance started, not all Hindu Brahmans left Goa. Many of them
remained inGoa, continued to practice their trades, cooperated actively with
thePortuguese, mainly as physicians, artists, interpreters, and
translators,fought bravely in court for their rights, and sometimes the
Portuguese(European) judges sided with them. For example, the Portuguese
preferred Hinduphysicians to their European counterparts. Even among those who
left Goa, therewere some who continued to cooperate with the Portuguese
Government from theirexile, and some returned to Goa after the Portuguese
guaranteed their safety.This has been firmly established by the research of
Panduronga Pissurlencar.
Francisco LuizGomes:
It is true that Gomes wanted freedom forthe natives of India and he stated
this in his famous letter to Alphonse deLamartine. But often carefully omitted
by those who picture him as an “Indian nationalist”is the next paragraph in his
letter in which he states: “More fortunate than mycountrymen, I am a citizen:
civis sum”. (He was paraphrasing St. Paul,who, when imprisoned, claimed his
rights as a Roman citizen.) Even a cursorylook at the writings and speeches of
Francisco Luiz Gomes clearly shows heviewed himself as a Portuguese citizen,
equal to those in Minho and Algarve,and viewed Goa as an integral part of the
Portuguese Nation. In fact, he was apracticing Catholic and went as far as
suggesting that the conversion toChristianity had significantly reduced in Goa
the social inequities found inneighboring India. In this sense, seems to me,
comparing him to Vivekananda,Tilak, or Gokhale, is totally out of order.
Vivekananda, Tilak, and Gokhalewould never view themselves as British citizens
or their India to be anintegral part of the British Empire, quite the opposite.
It is also of notethat Francisco Luiz Gomes placed the scenario of his novel
“Os Bramanes”,a wonderful portrait of the caste tensions, in neighboring India,
and not inGoa, as Mr. Adiga correctly recognizes.
Bernardo Peresda Silva:
Mr. Adiga’s description of the ascensionand deposition of Bernardo Peres
da Silva perpetuates the commonly held errorthat this was a conspiracy of
Europeans and their descendants against the Goans;in short, a racist
insurrection. In fact, it was not. Peres da Silva had manyEuropeans and their
descendants in his favor. He, too, viewed himself as aPortuguese citizen and
Goa as an integral part of the Portuguese Nation, and inone of his
publications, he describes himself as a “Portuguese from India”. Infact, Mr.
Adiga may be surprised to learn that the overwhelming majority of hissupporters
who were “butchered” by his opponents during the insurrection wereEuropeans and
their descendants. Such was the uproar created by his depositionthat an
European general, Marshal Correia da Silva e Gama, who was designatedto govern
Goa temporarily after Peres was deposed, tried very hard to bringPeres back but
he did not succeed. This is because the conflict in Goa was notbetween Goans
and Europeans as it is falsely portrayed nowadays. It was betweentwo political
philosophies, the “liberais” (to which Peres belonged) whobelieved in a
constitutional and representative monarchy, and the “absolutistas”,who promoted
the absolute power of the Kings. Unlike some modern daypoliticians, Peres was a
man with the highest standards of integrity. Hecontinued to fight for the
rights of the people of Goa in the PortugueseParliament. The Goans recognized
this by electing and re-electing him until hisdeath. The European who had
betrayed him by promoting the insurrection,Fortunato de Melo, was eventually
apprehended, imprisoned, and deported back toPortugal. Mr. Adiga is correct
when he writes that since Peres da Silva wasappointed Governor of Goa, “no Goan
ruled Goa” (as Governor), but it is not justuntil 1961, it is until today.
Finally, a few minor points need to be highlighted.Mr. Adiga writes that
Abbe’ Faria was “imprisoned in the infamous Chateau d’If”.Not really. He was
imprisoned in the Chateau d’If only in the imagination ofAlexadre Dumas Pere.
As regards the so-called “Conjuracao dos Pintos”, onewonders the wisdom of
those accused of plotting it (if indeed they carried outsuch deed). It seems to
me that Catholic priests would not fare well under the despotic rule of Tipu
Sultan, a tyrant who tortured and killed Catholics andforced many of them to
convert to Islam. Mr. Adiga is correct at regretting theremoval of the statue
of Camoes from aplaza in Old Goa and its placement in a museum. My
understanding is that thestatue was removed because it had been mutilated. It
is regrettable, not justbecause he was a great poet, but also because he landed
in jail and he wasevicted from Goa for defending the Goans against the iFaria,
who, a few years later, became a celebrity in Paris, where he practised
hypnotism on French ladies, dabbled in revolution, was imprisoned in the
infamous Chateau d’If, and inspired the figure of the charismatic Abbe in
Alexandre
