Nice backtracking by George. He says he does not want to take sides, but he has
attacked me as saying that I was drunk when I wrote. It is easy why he wants to
side with the Saldanhas. A single representative of those
association/organizations spoke, while Goa Sudharop had three -- George,
Philomena and Arcaria. Besides, Goa Sudharop had a page and half of
"promotional piece" in the souvenir. No other association, both local and
foreign, got so much play. Understandly, the Goa Sudharop members are the
loudest cheer-leaders of the Saldanhas.
Coming to the souvenir, Ben Antao, the editor, told me that he had NOT invited
me to write for the souvenir. I told him that the website says submissions are
welcome. Hence, I send it to Francis who forwarded it to Ben. After Francis
informed me that Ben was the editor, I began to deal with Ben.
On his advice, I cut out some paras. And I asked him to edit the rest as he
feels fit. As editor, it is his prerogative to edit articles. He said that it
was very opiniated and that I had indulged in "name dropping." Well, I have
quoted some top writers and academics, such as Amartya Sen and Fatima Gracias,
the Goan historian, to given but two names. To any one who writes essays,
quoting others is "research". As I know, name-dropping is what you told when
you mention personalities and celebrities while talking.
He said that there were many gramatical mistakes. To my surprise, he said that
I had criticised Tony Martins for his grammar. I informed him that it was Tony
who was pointing out gramartical erros in the posts of netters and so I told
him to check his won books.
In the souvenir, one piece is taken from Parmal, the Goan journal, Victor's
piece is from Aparanta, the piece on Pakistanis Goans (updated) I think,
appeared on Goanet, Dr. Francisco's piece on Mando, which I also think has been
taken from elsewhere on appeared on Goanet, while Corelie's piece and mine are
"original."
>From what I learnt now, Ben did not want to carry the piece but was persuaded
>to do so by an office-bearer in the committee. Many delegates told me that my
>piece was good. One of them was Victor whose opinion I greatly value. His wife
>(sorry, can'r remember the name as I write in hurry) quoted a para from the
>article during her talk at the Identity session.
As for Cecil saying that my pieces were in "bad taste", all I can say is that
he fails to understand that they were "critical insights." Well, he is a humour
writer and I am not. He amuses while I provoke. That's the difference.
Eugene
