The article below is one of the most useless piece of writing I have ever read. It does not tell me anything about the specifics of what Dr. Damodar Sardesai presented, and what was so egregious or untrue about what he said. All I learned from it is that using the word "brahmanical" has a some narrow political significance to its author, and that author believes that Portuguese colonialism was a good thing from his own political standpoint.
Cheers, Santosh --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Goanet Reader <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sneezing at > the Brahmanical: > Polemics at the > Global Goans > Convention > > By Jason Keith Fernandes > [email protected] > > Responding to earlier columns, a friend recently asked for > a > definition of the word 'brahmanical'. While perhaps a > definition of the term will not be forthcoming, at least > not > in this column, perhaps examples of brahmanical thought, > in > this case history-writing, could be provided. A rather > interesting example of the same was provided in the course > of > the first sessions of the Global Goans' Convention held in > London over July 22-24. > > The most striking example of brahmanical history-writing > was > provided by Dr. Damodar R. SarDesai, who is Professor > Emeritus at the University of California in Los Angeles. > That > he is a historian is a somewhat tragic indicator of the > manner in which brahmanical polemics, such as displayed in > his presentation, are so often accepted as the acceptable > basis of social science. Conversely however it is > precisely > because he is a historian, that we can see the manner in > which polemics is converted to history. > > For Dr. SarDessai, reflecting on 50 years of 'Liberation', > the period of Portuguese sovereignty in Goa was one long > and > dark period of trial, tribulation and lack of development. > He > was able to say this however because he was speaking from > the > position of the brahmanised dominant castes of Goa. > > He did not recognize the fact that the initial period of > Portuguese sovereignty allowed to the oppressed castes in > the > region, the possibility of conversion to Catholicism and > thus > social mobility. In later periods of Portuguese > sovereignty, > it allowed non-dominant Hindu caste groups similar options > of > social mobility, especially after the Novas Conquistas > were > added to the Catholic territories of the Velhas > Conquistas. > > This acquisition, > allowed for these caste groups, > to not only change > residence, and hence escape > persecution of their > 'upper' caste feudal > overlords, but it also > allowed them to represent > themselves in the > process of the shift, as a > different caste group > entirely, increasing in this > process their social > standing. Much later, the > Portuguese State offered > any options, especially to > the Gomantak Maratha > Samaj, for education and > social mobility. > > These facts are inconvenient to a brahmanical history, > that > because they see the pre-colonial period from the point of > view of the dominant castes, see this period as a happy > conflict-free time. The other side of this happy story > however is that this pre-colonial time was an unhappy time > for suppressed groups and for all its faults, colonialism > also provided space for the partial liberation of these > non-dominant groups. > > Brahmanical polemics do not necessarily see the > post-colonial > period as a necessarily happy one either. Until the post > colonial order works to the benefit of the dominant > castes, > the brahmanical will not be appeased. Thus in Dr. > SarDessai's > polemic, it was not sufficient that the Portuguese were > ejected from Goa, the first, and confirmedly > anti-brahmanical > Chief Minister of Goa, was mentioned but once, and in so > flippant a manner, it left the audience wondering as to > the > man's ultimate worth. > > A column of this length cannot do justice to the absolute > horror that was the presentation of Dr. SarDessai. What > should for the moment suffice to demonstrate its horror > was > the response of Dr. Teotónio R. De Souza. Dr. De Souza is > recognized within the field of Goan and 'Indo-Portuguese' > history as an authority. What is often not openly stated, > by > whispered and smiled at is the fact that Dr. De Souza does > not normally spare a kind word for the period of > Portuguese > sovereignty. Dr. De Souza was forced however, by Dr. > SarDessai's polemic, to abandon his (no-doubt carefully > crafted) text, and ad-lib a response to Dr. SarDessai. In > a > muted manner, perhaps owing to the presence of Indian > government officials and non-academics in the room, Dr. De > Souza sought to tone down Dr. SarDessai's assertions. > > Perhaps the rebuttal comes to late however, because Dr. De > Souza has himself many occasions built his version of > Indian > nationalist history of Goa on brahmanical lines. > > An example of this foundational presence of brahmanical > thinking was obvious when he argued that the specificity > of > Goa (as with any other place) was contributed to through > the > presence of the minorities in Goa. This assertion is > brahmanical because it accepts the brahmanical assertion > that > Hindus across the subcontinent are the same, they are one > single and indivisible community. Such assertions while > patently untrue, are necessary to ensure the domination of > the brahmanised groups (and the supremacy of brahmanical > thought) that control the destinies of post colonial > India. > > We should at the same time recognize however, that Dr. De > Souza seems to have been forced into this position of > speaking of the Catholic, because it was obvious in the > course of Dr. SarDessai's presentation, that his intense > disparaging (bordering on hatred even) of the Portuguese > formed an ideal basis on which to denigrate the cultural > condition of the Goan Catholic. > > It should be pointed out > simultaneously, that more > recently, especially > when he argues of the presence > of 'many liberations', > Dr. De Souza seems to be > moving toward a more > complex understanding of the > moment of the > integration of Goa into the Union of > India. In doing so he > seems to be recognizing the > limiting frames that > nationalism and especially > brahmanical nationalism > present to the study of > Goa, colonialism, and > the post-colonial. > > One suspects that it is the rise of right-wing Hindu > nationalism to this rethinking, that spurs Dr. De Souza > since > Dr. De Souza persists in (rightly) calling out instances > of > Portuguese superciliousness in the academy. Dr. De Souza > further betrayed the brahmanical influences on his thought > when he responded to Dr. SarDessai, that the success of > the > Portuguese lay in the fact that they also managed to > convert > one-third of the population to Catholicism. > > Dr. De Souza made another error here, where he clearly (if > unconsciously) buys into the generally accepted idea that > it > is only the Catholics that were 'tainted' by the > Portuguese, > while the 'Hindu' retain their cultural purity and > authenticity. Once more, nothing could be further away > from > the truth. In the course of their working with the > Portuguese > State, as well as in the course of everyday market > relations, > the brahmanised groups in Goa were, and are, also children > of > the Portuguese (and other Catholic and European) cultural > influences. This impress exists on their food, their > language, their dress and every other cultural institution > they may seek to present as authentic and untouched. Why > then, assume that the Goan Catholics alone are the mark of > Portuguese success? One does so, because of the > brahmanical > assertion that it not only in upper caste practice, but > more > specifically in Hindu practice that authentic > 'Indian-ness' > is captured > > What was perhaps most striking about Dr. SarDessai's > address however was the fact that he found it necessary to > humiliate and insult the Portuguese (and their lack of > effective colonization) in order to retrieve the honour > and > prestige of the brahmanised groups he spoke for. > > Those who have reflected on the workings of caste will > know > that humiliation -- whether verbal, when we point to > someone's birth in a 'lower' caste, invariably to 'put > them > in their place', or physical, through the practices of > untouchability -- is the most significant strategy of > casteist and hence the brahmanical order. > > Interestingly however, when one humiliates the Portuguese > for > ineffective colonization (or development), one is praising > the British style of colonization and development. This > move > then, demonstrates that close ties that the brahmanical > makes > with the colonial. > > In this move we realize > that brahmanical thinking, > is not necessarily an > ancient framework that > necessarily returns us > to a moment of pre-colonial > innocence, but in fact a > contemporary development > that gains its power > from colonial (and especially > British) intellectual > frameworks. Through this > lineage, the brahmanical > is connected to the racist > and other exploitative > frameworks that held sway in > the nineteenth century. > > What should be mentioned in conclusion, is that it isn't > poor > Dr. SarDessai alone who should be blamed. That he is the > carrier of an infectious brahmanical thought process is > true. > However, his pronouncements were by and large accepted > silently by the audience, because Dr. SarDessai was able > to > quote from a stock of knowledge that has gained > credibility > over time. Merely because it has gained credibility over > time > however does not make it right, it only makes the task of > dealing with it, and the sneaky manner in which it > secretes > itself into our work, that much more difficult. > > Jai Bhim! > > (A version of this post was first published in the > Gomantak Times 27 July 2011) > > http://dervishnotes.blogspot.com/ >
