Santosh seems to have hit the nail right on the head. The rambling essay is too shallow to merit the attention of scholars. Despite its sensational revelation, it has been rightly ignored by the press in Goa; however, a Konkani (Roman script) weekly has published a gist which is worse than the original. The absence of the word Hindu in Indo-Portuguese historiography has been cited to buttress the claim that followers of this religion did not exist in sixteenth century Goa. If this reasoning were to be accepted, one could also claim that there were no Konkani speakers in Goa, since this word too does not occur in that historiography; even its grammar printed in 1642 refers to it as Canarim. Apparently, both Dirks and Bhabha (not Baba) have been misreported. Neither is caste the product of British colonization nor is the caste system the fruit of British orientalism. The British certainly did not invent caste; even the word was adapted from casta (stock, breed) that the Portuguese had used for the phenomenon that they encountered upon their arrival here, the allusion, perhaps, being to the fact that marriage (hence breeding) was confined within these entities. The British (towards the end of the 19th century!) merely compiled exhaustive lists of castes and subcastes existing in the vast region under their rule, for the purpose of census enumeration, in pursuance of their own agenda. The fact that the water-tight (in the marriage market) castes and subcastes (zatis) have survived among Goan Catholics (converted in the 16th century!) should suffice to show that they antedate the arrival of the Portuguese. The caste names of Catholics are found only among the Hindus. Even untouchability of the Catholic Mhar, albeit in a milder form, survived until as late as the first half of the 20th century. Caste distinction also received ecclesiatic approval in Goa: membership of Church confrarias is caste-based, lower-caste boys were not ordained priests until very recently etc. The essay claims that the temples that were destroyed were not Hindu temples but of smaller, different and independent cults and religions which were often at war with each other. There are thousands of conflicting sects of Christian religion today, and many of these exist side-by-side in NE India. Assuming that a church is destroyed by ruffians in Nagaland, would it be correct to say that it was not a Christian place of worship but, say, a Pentecostal prayer-house? Claims about forced conversions and demolishing of the Hindu temples are ascribed to Hindu historians alone. Why? Has any Catholic historian debunked these claims? Are those atrocities (e.g. the desecration of the Cuncolim temple which led to the slaying of the perpetrators, later beatified as martyrs) not contained in the narratives of the missionaries themselves? "The Christians too having forgotten their own origins are wounded..." This is contrary to fact, at least to some extent. The upper castes, being literate, certainly know by name the patriarch who was obliged to embrace Christianity. A prominent Brahmin lady writer claims to be originally a Padiyar. The chardos of Cuncolim join their Hindu kinsmen from the respective vangodd during the Sotrio procession. The subalterns visit (now clandestinely) their family deities at least on aupicious occasions. In recent decades many of these have been deliberately made to forget their roots by overzealous padres. "In painting of the Pre-Portuguese Goa as Hindu, there is a direct attempt to turn the historical facts about conversion against the Church and the Christians of today." In fact, it is the Church (and some misguided lay Christians) that is inviting the opprobrium upon herself and the Goan Christians by defending, and somehow justifying, the excesses committed by the European missionaries. The easiest and rational solution would be to disown those unchristian atrocities since they were not committed by the ancestors of Goan Christians. The bone of contention then disappears in a jiffy. "There is an urgent imperative to generate a therapeutic dialogue (between Catholics and Hindus) that can respond to the wounded memories that disturb our society in Goa." And this essay is expected to provide the initial push in that direction. But can it achieve the desired purpose? By saying that his religion did not exist in the sixteenth century, when in fact his temples have been standing where they are for much longer, are you creating an atmosphere conducive to dialogue? Or are you hurting his ego and alienating him even more? This calls for a deeper cogitation. Sebastian Borges On 27 Jul 2013, Santosh Helekar <[email protected]> wrote:
George, The problem I have with some of this so-called "research" about Goan?history, whether it is church-related or otherwise, is that it is?merely the expression of somebody's subjective opinion pulled out of?thin air and dripping with either left-wing or right-wing ideology.?There is no indication of any effort made to dig into primary sources,?or to even make a comprehensive search of secondary and tertiary?sources. There is no dispassionate search for the truth - no?compulsion to uncover actual facts, and go wherever they lead you. It?is as if all that is needed for something to be called research is to?merely put down on paper whatever comes to mind in a convoluted?manner, punctuated by politically significant buzz words. In the past?I used to think that this was because of lack of funds, and?inaccessibility to libraries, databases and archival sources. But?after my recent visits to the new central library and the Xavier?Centre of Historical Research, combined with my knowledge of what can?be easily accessed freely on the internet, I do not think that there?is any excuse any more for not doing a proper search of the existing?literature before writing a research paper on history. For instance, if someone makes a statement that the temples that were?destroyed by the Portuguese were not Hindu temples, then the minimum?that is required of that person is the citation of actual facts and?sources that led him/her to draw that conclusion. ?One expects him/her?to make an exhaustive search of writings in which destruction of?temples has been documented, and ascertain the identity of the temple?deity in each recorded case. If he/she has not done this then his/her?work is not research. If his/her assertion is purely an opinion, a gut?feeling, a belief, a hunch, a hope or a wish then it is not an example?of scholarship or even an academic exercise. No intellectual effort is?required to hold such feelings or beliefs. It does not matter whether?they are held in the interest of communal harmony or in order to?pacify inflamed passions, and it certainly does not matter whether the?person holding them has an advanced degree or high position in?society. Cheers, Santosh Sebastian Borges
