------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remembering Aquino Braganca (b. 6 April 1924), who fought for freedom
of the former Portuguese colonies in Africa. An online tribute
http://aquinobraganca.wordpress.com/ (includes many historical
references, some photographs and documents)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Adverse impact of Official Language Act by Tomazinho Cardozo
This is in reply to Message #1, Goanet Digest IV, no. 341.
There is nothing new in the article that Tomazinho Cardozo has now posted.
Much the same things were stated in his column published in GT sometime in
January 2009. Since that paper does not publish rejoinders, I had sent my
reaction to some internet groups. Though he himself chose not to respond, his
crony did in one of the forums. In my reply to that, I had requested the crony
to kindly obtain and post Tomazinho’s reaction; but he too clammed shut on the
matter.
If one were to analyse the impact of the passage of the Official Language Act
[OLA], one would need to compare data for a period prior to the passage of the
Act and a like period after it was passed. The Act was passed 25 years after
Liberation and 22 years have elapsed since. Therefore, we could consider two
20-year periods as (a) Jan. 1967 – Dec. 1986 and (b) Jan. 1988 - Dec. 2007.
The gist of the article may be summarized by means of a simple statement:
INJUSTICE HAS BEEN METED OUT to the "followers of Konkani in Roman script" /
"supporters of Konkani in Roman script" / "lovers of Konkani in Roman script" /
"followers of Konkani in Roman script" / "supporters of Roman script" / "Roman
script lobby" / "protagonists of Konkani in Roman script" ["group A" for
short] and UNDUE FAVOURS HAVE BEEN GRANTED to "protagonists of Devnagori
script" / "the Devnagori lobby" / "supporters of Devnagori lobby" / "lovers of
Devnagori script" ["group B" for short].
He has concluded by requesting me to prove him wrong as far as the above facts
are concerned. Now, one can prove "facts" to be correct or wrong only if they
are themselves meaningful; and this his averments are NOT. How does one, for
instance, differentiate members of "group A" from those of "group B" unless one
knows them personally and / or enquires from each of them their respective
inclination in this matter?
In his column he had advised the 'adversaries of Roman script' to ask for the
"relevant information from the concerned departments by making use of the Right
to Information Act." Would any Information Officer be able to truthfully
answer a question like, "Kindly inform how many followers of Konkani in Roman
script have been recruited in your department during (a) Jan. 1967 – Dec. 1986
and (b) Jan. 1988 - Dec. 2007. Also inform how many protagonists of Devnagori
script have been recruited during the same above periods. " Is this question
answerable at all? Let Tomazinho prove me wrong by posing this question to any
Government Department of his choice and reporting the results here.
Assuming that an official, authorized to make the relevant appointment /
nomination / selection, is sincerely interested in considering candidates from
the group that Tomazinho feels has been given short shrift, how is he / she to
decide who is a 'lover of Konkani in Roman script' and who is not? Is any list
/ roll / catalogue of such persons available? If yes, where? If not, what
guidelines should the official follow in this regard? Are such guidelines
available? Who prepares such guidelines? The general public, the President of
Goa Konkani Akademi [GKA] or the Government of the day? Tomazinho himself was
an important member of the ruling Legislature party; did he formulate or cause
to formulate such guidelines? If no, why not? Why did he not wake up then?
And why did he wait until political unemployment to raise the issue?
It is thus clear that I am unable to prove Tomazinho right or wrong as far as
most of his "facts" are concerned. His terminology, as listed above, is just
beyond my comprehension; does it make sense to you? But some facts can be
brought to light which Tomazinho could confirm / refute / clarify / answer.
As usual, he has quietly inserted a bald lie by stating that "AFTER the passing
of the OLA of Goa, the Government of Goa established Goa Konkani Akademy (GKA).
" The truth is that the Akademi has already celebrated its Silver Jubilee,
whereas OLA is only 22 years old.
He mentions the late Purshotom Kakodkar, Uday Bhembre, Pundalik Naik and N.
Shivdas as the Presidents of Goa Konkani Akademi who are ALL "protagonists of
Devnagori script. " I am not aware of the literary output of Purshotom
Kakodkar. But I know for sure that the other three have written Konkani in
Roman script as well; Pundalik Naik and N. Shivdas were regular contributors
to GULAB right from its inception in 1981. He also states that "ALL vice-
Presidents also were from the Devnagori lobby. " But I know that Dr.
Manoharrai Sardesai has published his Konkani books in Roman script. Another
vice-President was N. Shivdas.
He correctly reports that in 1992, two books in Roman script were published by
the GKA on the occasion of Tiatr centenary. [These were Tiatr anthologies
compiled and edited by Felicio Cardoso.] But he is bent upon hiding the fact
from us that there was at least one more book, related to Tiatr, which was
scheduled to be published at the same time; it was to be an anthology of 101
Tiatr songs. Does Tomazinho know who undertook to write this book? Whether
the manuscript of the same has yet (i. e. even 18 years later) been submitted
to the Akademi? If yes, which President or member of Devanagori lobby stalled
its publication? If not, what is the reason for the writer who undertook that
project to sleep on it for nearly two decades? The answers to these questions
will help us to understand why some more books did not see the light of the
day. So, I request Tomazinho to favour me with his replies.
He states another untruth by saying that upto 2005 "manuscripts in Roman script
were not even considered pointing to the fact that OLA defines Konkani as
Konkani written in Devnagori script. " Were any manuscripts actually
submitted? If none reached the Akademi where does the question of
"considering" them arise? Did the GKA ever announce that "manuscripts in
Roman script need not be submitted" (or words to that effect) under any of its
schemes? If no, what prevented authors from submitting their Konkani
manuscripts in Roman script? Did Tomazinho himself (especially since he was a
member of GKA councils at various times) make any efforts to persuade such
authors to submit their manuscripts? Or, did he expect that only 'supporters
of Konkani in Devanagari script' should perform this 'duty'? In this respect,
I remember that some time in 2004, Tomazinho had made an appeal to readers of
GULAB to submit their Roman script works for the Akademi’s
"Poilo Chonvor" scheme. What was the response? Nobody bothered!
He says that "GKA promotes Konkani in Roman script too since 2005." During
this period, how many manuscripts have been assisted / promoted by GKA? In the
first year, how many manuscripts were of (a) poetry, (b) stories, (c) essays,
(d) novels, (e) tiatr, (f) one-act plays, (g) others? In the second year? In
the third year?....... Were all these submitted spontaneously by their
authors, or were they canvassed, collected and submitted by activists? Let me
give an instance. On the occasion of the first anniversary of the Konkani
monthly JIVIT, its Publisher (now Chief Editor too) vehemently denounced the
GKA for suggesting alterations and additions in his biography of M. Boyer so as
to conform to the format and standard of a monograph. [The GKA had actually
accepted his proposal to write a MONOGRAPH on M. Boyer and had even shown him
the other monographs it had published, as specimens.] The suggestions were made
by the Editorial Committee of which
Tomazinho was a member. The accusations were repeated in an interview to GT
two months later, and also at a publication function at Kala Akademi. Although
Tomazinho was present on the dais on both the occasions, he did not bother to
clarify. After all, it was no skin off his back; it was GKA that was being
sullied, and it suited him fine! At the anniversary function, the publisher
vowed never to approach GKA for any assistance in the publication of the 18
manuscripts which he would be bringing out during the subsequent 18 months (one
per month). But the very next day he PERSONALLY, as publisher, submitted five
manuscripts to GKA under the "Poilo Chonvor" scheme (the letter also bears his
signature); one of these was a book of One-Act plays written by a tiatrist
priest. The publisher was told that the scheme is for writers and so could he
please get letters from the individuals? Which organization extends such
courtesies to such
snakes-in-the-grass? He did submit the individual applications, the
assistance was sanctioned, and the books published. The priest’s book was
published on the occasion of the second anniversary of JIVIT, with the
assistance from GKA.
How many manuscripts have been rejected in each of the above three years?
Coming to a specific instance, during the first seminar of the Romi Konknni
Sammelan on 21/12/2008, tiatrist Mario Menezes complained that "his manuscript
was rejected by the GKA because it was not grammatically correct. " Now,
rejection of a manuscript could be done only by the Editorial Committee of
which Tomazinho was a member. Therefore, he must have necessarily had a hand
in the rejection. Tomazinho, who chaired that session did not issue any
denial; this means that Mario's statement is true. Let Tomazinho now state
the reasons why his Committee rejected Mario's manuscript, and also explain why
he did not clarify the position to the audience at Pai Tiatrist Hall.
A year ago, another tiatrist (C. D'Silva) was going about complaining that
"someone at the GKA was sitting " on a manuscript he had submitted to it. It
so happens that it was Tomazinho who was doing the 'sitting'. In the
meanwhile, it was the name of GKA office-bearers that was being sullied.
Tomazinho could please clarify this episode too.
In 2005, the self-styled protagonists of Roman script raised a ruckus when
Pundalik Naik was reappointed as the President of Goa Konkani Akademi. Taking
advantage of the situation, the then Secretary of Dalgado Konknni Akademi (in
his personal capacity) submitted a project worth Rs. 60K to prepare a monograph
and documentation on mando. A former (and also later) President of DKA
persuaded (stampeded would be a more apt term) the President of GKA to dispense
with the usual procedure of scrutinizing the credentials and aptitude of the
aplicant. Rs. 30K was taken as advance with the undertaking to complete and
submit the work in four months; this undertaking was of the applicant's own
volition and not imposed by the Akademi. Today, more than three years later
and in spite of several remainders, all that has been submitted to GKA is a CD
containing 3 pages of text! The CD was just left on the GKA President's
table, without even a covering letter! Does
Tomazinho know about this incident? Could he throw some light on it? Is this
how Konkani in Roman script is being promoted?
He says that "except the term 2005 - 2008, all previous General Councils of GKA
had one or two followers of Konkani in Roman script. Remaining ten to eleven
were all from Devnagori lobby. " Let us assume that this statement is true.
What efforts have these 'one or two' made for the promotion of Konkani in Roman
script by the GKA? Were any schemes, which they suggested in this regard,
rejected by the remaining 'ten to eleven'? If these 'one or two' themselves
did not make any efforts, how can you blame the remaining 'ten to eleven'?
He observes, "In order to run the administration of GKA, it has appointed
accountants, clerks, drivers, peons and other staff. Among them there is not
even one who can write few sentences in Roman script. They all are the
supporters of Devnagori lobby. " Has he interviewed these employees?
Administered them a written test? Can ALL of them write a few Konkani
sentences in Devanagari script, at least? When many of our regular and veteran
Roman script writers fumble while doubling their D's and T's and using H, is
it fair to expect such expertise in employees like accountants and clerks let
alone peons and drivers?
He asserts, "Hundreds of jobs were created and staff appointed. Not even 10%
are protagonists of Konkani in Roman script. " Did Tomazinho interview all the
hundreds of Government employees? If not, how did he arrive at this figure?
He avers, "There are various schemes of the government. If one analyzes the
list of beneficiaries, one come across the same formula - over 90% are
supporters of either Konkani in Devnagori script or Marathi. " Tomazinho must
be a genius statistician, one in a million. The list obviously would contain
names (and, perhaps, addresses) of the beneficiaries. Is it possible to judge
from the names as to who among these is a supporter of Marathi / Konkani in
Devanagori / Konkani in Romi? Assuming that the following 30 NAMES are found
on one such list, can he tell us the percentage therein of each of the above
three categories? 1. Shivdas Naik, 2. Pratap Naik, 3. Lamberto Cardozo, 4.
Guadalupe Dias, 5. Tarkeshwar Naik, 6. Nakesh Borkar, 7. Dilip Borcar, 8.
Bertha Menezes, 9. Jorge Menezes, 10. Hema Nayak, 11. Jaywant Sardessai,
12. Martin Fernandes, 13. Fernando do Rego, 14. Romeo Almeida, 15.
Prabhakar Tendulker, 16. Bhikaji Ghanekar,
17. Ramakrishna Zuwarkar, 18. Prita Naik, 19. Maria Couto, 20. Chandralekha
D'Souza, 21. Yusuf Xek, 22. Daniel D'Sousa, 23. Premanand Lotliker, 24.
Agnelo Fernandes, 25. Teotonio Costa, 26. Caetano D'Silva, 27. Fatima
Mascarenhas, 28. Digambar Kamat, 29. Ramnath Naik, 30. Ashok Chodankar.
In his first reply, he had accused me of making personal attack on him. I did
no such thing, because I believe that personal attacks, especially when
irrelevant to the issue under discussion, are counter-productive. All I did
was to present instances to illustrate my point. It just happened that I could
not just make reference to some Mr X or Y. That would appear phony and would
not carry any conviction. But his stance is just the practiced ploy that
politicians employ when trying to wriggle out of a tight corner. All the same,
in the present piece, I have tried to avoid naming him to the extent possible.
You will know this when he replies, if he does.
He claims that he is not an enemy of Konkani in Devanagari. But his writings
over the last five years give the lie to this statement. However, he does not
hesitate to call me an antagonist of Konkani in Roman script, for which I have
been doing my little bit. But his reason for this appellation is that I oppose
his stupid demand to amend the OLA to include Roman script. The demand is
stupid because the only way it can be accomplished is by making Marathi also
the Official language of Goa; the arithmetic of the Legislative Assembly just
does not permit otherwise. I have requested Tomazinho and his lobby to declare
in no uncertain terms that they would welcome Marathi also as the Official
Language of Goa. But on this they are hedging; the agitation carries on
regardless, since there are goodies in it. I have said the demand is stupid;
but this does not apply to Tomazinho. He knows which side of his bread is
buttered.
Sotachench zoit zatolem.
Mog asum.
Sebastian Borges
Get perfect Email ID for your Resume. Grab now
http://in.promos.yahoo.com/address
