Dear friends, The question is now all but settled, you will say. Hopefully, because, with politicians, one never knows. So, don't be surprised if he returns with the same old canard which has now been debunked for the nth time: "Dalgado Konknni Akademi (DKA) was established in 1989, in order to fight the injustice meted out to Konkani in Roman script." I am sure some of you will ask me: "How does it concern you? How are you (or we, for that matter) personally affected by the year of its establishment? Have we not expended enough time and band-width on this trivial matter, that you should be testing our patience further by wasting some more?" These are very valid questions. So I must attend to them. But, before that, here's a bombshell. Tomazinho Cardozo has done it again! In his letter appearing in V.IXTT dated 5/6/2010, he refuses to admit that the GKA was established (and existed) in 1988. And this is in spite of the fact that the evidence, that he has himself proffered in the form of Minutes of a meeting, is typed on a paper which has the name and address of the Akademi PRINTED thereon but also bears the RUBBER-STAMP "President, Dalgado Konknni Akademi" under the signature of Fr. Freddy J. Da Costa. This means that as on the day of the meeting, the Akademi had existed as an entity for a considerable period of time and this fact supports the history given by Fr. Pratap Naik in which he clearly says that the DKA was established on 28-08-1988 at Loyola High School, Margao. Moreover, the Minutes vouchsafe for the following: (a) A full-day meeting of the DKA was held on 8/11/2008 between 10 am and 5 pm at Instituto N. Sra. da Piedade, Panaji. (b) It was attended by over 75 members. (c) At least two meetings were held prior to this and the minutes of both were read at this very meeting by the General Secretary, hold your breath, Tomazinho Cardozo himself. (d) The Akademi had appointed a committee to frame orthographic rules and the same had already submitted its recommendations which would be published shortly thereafter. (We know that the booklet was published in 1988 itself and I have a copy. The members were: Dr. Mathew Almeida sj (Secretary), Felicio Cardoso, Fr. Moreno de Souza sj, Fr. Kyriel D'Souza sfx, Fr. Anastasio Gomes ocd and Fr. Freddy J. Da Costa.) (e) The Akademi had appointed a committee for framing its constitution; this constitution was deliberated upon and passed in this very meeting. (f) The Akademi was to bring out an annual during the ensuing Christmas-New Year. The publication (Goencho Pormoll 1989) was in fact brought out in January 1989 and the Editorial Board consisted of Prabhakar Tendulkar, Bonaventure D'Pietro, Felicio Cardoso, Thomas Fernandes, Agnel Pires and Irene Cardozo. (g) The Akademi was to hold an exhibition of books and periodicals on 2/2/2009. Now, would there be another person in the entire world that could still persist with a lie in the face of such overwhelming evidence? Please see the Minutes here: http://tinyurl.com/2vumz6j Truly, I am not in the least bit personally affected by the year of establishment of DKA. I do not stand to gain anything if it was established in 1988 nor do I lose anything if it was founded in 1989. But I am concerned with the truth. I apprehend the entanglement of time-lines if Tomazinho Cardozo's above-quoted statement is allowed to stand. Hence it is not a trivial matter. My apprehension has already come true. In Professor Olivinho Gomes' recent book it is stated erroneously that DKA was established in 1989 (see pg. 179). Now, imagine a not so implausible situation, some 40 or so years hence, when a budding researcher delves into the history of the Konkani Movement. Obviously, the history of DKA will form a part of the research. The researcher will come across the writings of Cardozo and also of Gomes. From these he will conclude that the DKA was established in 1989. This conclusion will be reinforced by the "Sthap 1989" in the logo of the Akademi. He may then stumble upon a booklet "Konkani Orthography in Roman Script" and find that it was compiled by a Committee appointed by the same Akademi and published in 1988. Obviously he will be in a dilemma: How could an Akademi established in 1989 come to publish a book in 1988, and, that too, a book which was compiled by its own committee? In order to solve the conundrum, he will look into the credentials of Gomes and Cardozo. He will find that Gomes was not only an esteemed Professor of Konkani but also an eminent researcher with several books and papers to his credit. He will also find that Cardozo was a Headmaster as well as a Speaker of Goa Legislative Assembly and author of several books. With such impeccable credentials of the authors, he will have no hesitation to conclude that the year 1988 on the booklet is a misprint. And THAT would be an erroneous conclusion; the booklet was indeed published in 1988. Many such events could be chronologically displaced from their correct relative time-slots. Here I am fretting over an apprehended gaffe by a budding researcher of the future. But, as stated above, this has already happened to one of our greatest researchers, right in front of our very own eyes. Was Gomes taken in so much by Cardozo's rhetoric? But that is not the only error in the book. On pg. 64, he refers to the now-defunct GOENCHO ULO as a colour illustrated Konkani monthly which was started in 2005 and folded up in 2007. Should this be true, and considering that it was launched in Nov. 2005, we should expect that at least 15 issues of the paper were published (2 in 2005, 12 in 2006 and at least one in 2007). Actually not even half this number came out. And nobody connected with it ever claimed it to be a monthly, during the period of its existence. To begin with it was brought out as (and declared to be) a fortnightly [inaugural issue published about 20/11/2005, the second about 5/12/2005 and the third about 20/12/2005]. Then it came out occasionally with the fourth issue (dated Feb-Mar 2006) appearing in March 2006. Even the reason given for folding up is ridiculous. The point to ponder here is: How could a researcher of Prof. Gomes' erudition and perspicacity commit such blunders with regard to events which occurred in his very presence and knowledge? Granted that, going by his own admission, much of the research for the book was done over the telephone does one need the help of this mode of communication to write about events which occurred in front of one's own eyes? I, for one, refuse to accept that a savant of Gomes' stature would commit such blunders in a book which eventually turned out to be his swan song. I think there is more here than meets the eye. Let us not forget that quite some time elapsed between Prof. Gomes' untimely and sudden demise and the publication of the book. And the manuscript was handed over to the DKA at least six months before he went to his Heavenly abode. Although the publishers claim that they have not made any changes in the manuscript except for the addition of the Index, in the light of the above mentioned frailties, we are constrained to doubt this. The book must have undergone some editing at the hands of presumptuous know-alls like the present Secretary of DKA who is quite adept at this. For example, he edited, and got published, a book of essays written by his 'Umanv'. In one of the essays there is a sentence which in the original (as published earlier on the internet) was, "… kazar zanvchea adim, tim dogaim ek-mekak koxim OLLKITALIM?" This know-all changed the final word to VOLLKHOTALIM. And, mind you, this is from a person who has done his M.A. in Konkani and who lectures to editors and publishers of Konkani periodicals on how they should conduct their activities. So, that is where my needle of suspicion points. But the damage done is much greater. In its present form, the book is a serious blot on the reputation of Professor Gomes. If he could make such blunders with regard to facts that occurred within his personal knowledge, how can we place any credence on those facts mentioned in the book which were certainly not within his acquaintance and were (in all probability) obtained telephonically? And what about those facts which are found in his other books, especially those that are disputed by other scholars, not as eminent as he? Are we to question his fidelity to truth and ascertain the veracity of each one of those? Prior to the publication of the book, this Secretary boasted that it would make his opponents cry in pain. But now it looks like it is going to make him bawl like a baby. And, more than that, one must regretfully aver that someone has rendered a great disservice to the memory of a towering scholar. (to be continued) Sotachench zoit zatolem.
Mog asum. Sebastian Borges
