Dear Prof Borges, (1) I appreciated your long post to Goanet, because it gives an insight into aboriginal Goa, one which we in our parts of Bardez probably do not encounter in much intensity as elsewhere in Goa. Though we here do have our own bias and bigotedness in other ways, as for instance, the apartheid of having the Christian Mahar population live at one extreme end of the village! We're not more enlightened, but just have differing kinds of injustices.
However I had a few reservations with your post, on matters of detail, argument or perspective. (2) You comment: >> All the Goan bishops, without exception, were bamons. A good rhetorical argument. But I think that there were just three Goan bishops/archbishops/auxiliary bishops. All the rest were Portuguese. (Correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be.) And I don't think it is also factual that all "were bamons". Also, more important than judging them by their own caste-backgrounds, I would think, is what role they play in creating a level playing field and fighting discrimination within the institution. (3) One of the arguments you make is: > The first Indian cardinal, though of Goan stock (Navelim), happened to be neither a Bamon > nor a Chardo descendant; this was because he was born and educated in Karachi, > outside Padroado influence. Had he studied in Goa, it would have been very > difficult if not impossible for Valerian Gracias to be ordained priest! This doesn't sound as a very strong argument to me. Here, you have a Cardinal, one of the princes of the Church, who comes from a Sudir background. An amazing achievement indeed; which should be a matter of great pride for anyone wanting to move towards equal access and ending a system of 'reservations-from-the-top'. Yet, you choose to see the glass as half-full (or less than that), by arguing that if he was born in Goa he would not have been "ordained priest". Agreed that Goa has had the stagnancy of a non-metropolitan backwater. It was not a Bombay or Karachi, at least not in the 18th and 19th centuries. It may have been a land of opportunity in the 16th century and earlier; then too, not for all. But then, if viewed positively, Goa did give opportunity to (or unwittingly created necessity for) its people to migrate, who had access to top quality educational institutions. Migration + education created opportunities and a level playing field in many ways. This we have to be grateful for, in my view, not see the negatives only. (4) You also make the point about non-Bamons/Chardos not getting access to the priesthood. For argument sake, this is a valid point. It was also true, for quite some time in Goan history. (Though, to be fair, at an even earlier point in Goan history, even Bamons/Chardos did not get access to the priesthood! So why be silent about that?) Let's leave history aside for the moment. What is the reality today? As you know, the so-called "elite" kids (and their parents) seem to have got access to other levers to access and control power in society. Very few are joining the priesthood. Today, it is mostly the boys from the peasant and toiling castes that are entering seminaries. In my view, we will see a dramatic change in the priesthood, in say 10 to 15 years time. If we really support the change we are talking about, then such a development is to be strongly welcomed. I do hope that a Church led by the formerly disempowered will be one which places social justice, equality and fairness high on its agenda, in a place like Goa specially. (5) A more fundamental question is -- has the Church being encouraging casteism, or turning a blind eye to it? Or have its devotees and some of its priests done so? If it's the first case, what is the period being referred to? There are records of attempts to end caste-based confraria distinctions going back to at least the 1940s, as you yourself have noted. It is quite possible though that such issues are not taken up seriously and consistently enough by Church and State, because those in positions of power or decision-making are usually not afflicted by it. Yet, thing have and continue to change. While there indeed are priests going against the interests of the subaltern, and callously damaging their cultural traditions, there are others who have a far better understanding of the issue. I've personally seen the late Danzil Dias (who was then a priest) empower the Gawada community around Manora, Raia, while they sought to access their share of political power. The lawyer-priest-activist Micael Fernandes has also co-authored a book on caste in Christianity (and the Church) with Danzil, if I'm not wrong. Liberation Theology-influenced priests have taken up the issue of caste among Catholics in places like Nuvem, though admittedly in small numbers. I've met fiery young priests in places like Cuncolim, also struggling to cope with how caste can co-exist with a supposedly egalitarian religion (at least theologically). Then, youngsters who were part of Church-led groups in their time have grown into campaigners against casteism or sociologists! Of course, whatever is done is simply too inadequate. Besides, this issue is one most will talk about with embarassment (meaning, nothing gets done), probably because we have yet to learn to deal with such concerns with openness. FN FN +91-832-2409490 or +91-9822122436 [email protected]
