I have not fully understood the meaning and the trust of Fred Noronha's article in the Herald. I don't think Fred himself understand the meaning of pecking order. In the context of the article, I fail to learn who is "pecking" whom. Fred is saying that Catholic or Christian Goans are like chickens and some of these chickens who are higher up are engaged. in pecking the Goans who are lower down. And we Goans in USA and Canada are up there and Goans in Goa are at the bottom. Fred is unsure if Goa-based Goans are indeed at the bottom of the ladder as he uses the word "probably." I will bypass my views on Fred's take on communalism, Hinduvta and "affirmative action, but delve on Goans on "top of the pile" by virtue of their birth, position or wealth who probably, to use Fred's word, treating their lower-raned Goans with less respect or with no respect. I haven't seen that happen in Toronto though, admittedly, the African Goans carried an air of superiority when they began landing here in the late '60s and '70s. True, they were a class apart because they came with wealth and a chip on their shoulder of having lived in British Africa. Now have come the Gulf Goans with perhaps more wealth than the African Goans but not with an attitude. Most of them are common folk, Goans to their toe-nails. Anyway, why should all Catholics be in a common playpen? There is something called Christian egalitarianism and, as the Bible teaches us, all humans are created equal. It is moral philosophy to live by but unpractical. I don't know what Fred means by "greater egalitarianism". Perhaps something on the lines of Vishal Gomantak or Greater Karnataka? As humans we can work towards egalitarianism, but we can be unsure whether we will achieve it. As Fred remarks, we have our divides on social or rather caste lines and economic or class lines. Humankind is divided on many lines, including geography and colour. It is fact of life and we got to live with it. Yes, Goans did engage in Apartheid of some kind, though I would like to call it subtle racism. Goans who engaged native Africans as domestic helpers often abused them or maltreated them. Don't Goa-based Goans often mistreat domestic helpers, such as ayahs, cooks, farm hands, etc, who come to Goa to earn their daily bread. It is a vicious circle that's hard to break. I am surprised that Fred takes an escapist route when he does not categorically say that Goa was "liberated" or "annexed" but calls it "changed dispensation." Well, Goa's coming into its own as a separate entity though part of the Indian federation can perhaps be said to be God's dispensation. Changed followed, as say Fred mentions, it may have been bad for the Portugal-loving Goans and good for India-loving Goans. In other words, those who wanted Portuguese rule to continue felt the loss of Goa to India and those who wanted Goa to be part of India felt that Goa is at last in her mother's embrace. Like all colonies, Goa was not an exception to the battle-cries for freedom. Freedom had to come some day whether some of us wished it or not. Depending on one's perspective, it was either an historical incident or an accident. Goa has seen the rise of many different Christian sects or groups. The Catholic character of Goa's minority community is fading. Each group has its own agenda or goal. The reason for Christianity to break up into many denominations is because the leaders or people who created them did not agree with key issues in Christianity. Christians could support any political groups and there is no reason why they should support just one party. Some Christian groups may support BJP in order to achieve their own goals, though these groups or individuals may not subscribe totally to BJP's religious agenda. We see politicians change parties. Yesterday's Congressman is today's BJPwallah, and vice-versa. Political gamemanship is not same as religious alignment. In many cases they could converge or clash. Lastly, why did Fred use the Portuguese word, Christao?
Eugene Correia
