Charudatta writes: "This constant harping against the Portuguese", seems to be post-liberation sentiment of Goans(for this "harping" was possible only after the liberation of Goa!)against the Chauvinistic, hopelessly open hankerings of a minority for the erstwhile & undemocratic foreign rule. The reason why it still hankers after the evil Portuguese rule is obvious.
In democratic India it is not possible for the Feudal elite to satisfy their Feudal tendencies. --------------------------- RESPONSE: Dear Charu, In that case, it is not a "harping against", it is a hankering for. I don't think your assessment that it is just a few "elite families" in Goa that are sympathetic to the Portuguese is correct. These few mythological "elite" families in Goa have been blamed for everything from pro-Portuguese, anti-nationalist sentiments, to subjugating the masses, usurping their land, possibly being responsible somehow for World War II and currently responsible for global warming with their indiscriminate, middle-class (now reduced) lives. This makes some broad sweeping assumptions, which I have always contested. One it assumes that other "classes" in Goa lived in a sort of social and economic stupor. That they existed in absolute apathy to what was going on in Goa, and remained culturally unchanged, their entire consciousness unaffected and virgin to the extent that it recognised nothing beyond the Bijapur dynasty. I largely maintain that the changes taking place at the top were permeating to the bottom and that Goan society was far more homogenised and egalitarian than it is given credit for, and definitely far ahead of its times in this respect when compared with the rest of the Indian sub-continent. Ergo, I also make the assumption that the sympathy for things Portuguese is much more wide-spread than just these "few elite families." It has become politically incorrect in our times, to credit any foreign society with having influenced us positively. Neo-colonialism is a dirty word ofcourse and so is Orientalism. But leaving aside isms and schisms, the fact is the relationship between the captured and capturer doesn't always remain stagnant in human societies. (I can quote here in great detail the relationship between West Indians and the British). The latter becomes more humane and recognises his moral responsibilities and the former becomes more dominant as he gains access and maneuvering within his captivity. The interaction between the two changes and what emerges may be an entirely different relationship which is much more complex. Just wanting to negate this relationship, to be politically correct is not going to diminish either its intensity or its complexity. Best, Selma
