Thanks FN. This truly is not my field of expertise but the factors that have determined conquests throughout history have always been mired in money, power, land and religion. That's pretty basic stuff. I am sure there are many scholars of the great Albuquerque around, but undeniably he was a man who had a great lust for power. He was Portugal's most accomplished imperialist ever, the man who slaughtered muslim opposition in the Gulf and was therefore invited by the Vijayanagara authorities to help them overthrow the muslims nearer home. This is classical miltary chess : my opponent's enemy is my friend. Dont misunderstand such alliances of convenience, for love or respect. There was no love lost between the trio. In fact, Albuquerque, like all conquerors, despised his captors, muslim and hindu alike. Of course he cultivated opportunistic friendship wih the hindus when convenient but he was the complete arrogant imperialist who despised all 'natives'.
>From his biography*: "In 1510 he captured Goa, which he fortified and made the >chief trading post and permanent naval base in India. To give it a stable character, he offered lands and subsidies to Portuguese men who would marry native women.'' Consider that! He was distributing our land and our women to his countrymen in 1510! I dont expect the weddings were Hindu! Again FN, this not my field but the problem with this period of our history is that it has been written by the Portugese. Quote*: "The best source for material on Albuquerque is by his son, Afonso de Albuquerque, The Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque (1774; trans. with an introduction by W. de Gray Birch, 4 vols., 1875-1884). Edgar Prestage, Afonso de Albuquerque, Governor of India (1929), is a brief account. Elaine Sanceau, Indies Adventure: The Amazing Career of Afonso de Albuquerque (1936), is a pro-Portuguese treatment that makes extensive use of the sources. Richard Stephen Whiteway, The Rise of Portuguese Power in India, 1497-1550 (1899; 2d ed. 1967), and Charles R. Boxer's scholarly The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, 1415-1825 (1969) are excellent background works that rely on the writings of 16th century Portuguese historians for source material. See also K. G. Jayne, Vasco da Gama and His Successors (1910)". If one is making the case for 'imperial benevelonce', one had better make it strong because it is an oxymoron that occured nowhere in the world - not in Africa, australia, the Americas, Europe, the far East or, indeed, India. Bias? What bias? ;) Ref *Encyclopaedia of world biography [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:35:34 +0530 > Subject: Re: [SALIGAONET] Comunidades de Goa > http://www.saligaoserenade.com/2010/04/25/comunidades-de-goa/ > To: [email protected] > > On 16 October 2010 04:05, dilip dacruz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > One has to be careful with articles such as these. I cannot, for instance > > believe that 'When Afonso de Albuquerque conquered Goa (1510) he respected > > the religious norms, which were administered through effective laws. He > > allowed the customs and traditions to continue, and did not increase the > > taxes already existent.' > > Dear Dilip, History is stranger than fiction, and it might not always > fit into our patterns and biases. > > Reading of almost any history text on Goa confirms the following fact: > > (i) The Portuguese -- who went on to stay in parts of Goa for 451 > years -- were invited by local collaborators who saw them as the best > bet to get rid of the Islamic rulers who then held sway in Goa. > > (ii) In the initial stages of colonialism -- for at least a few > decades after 1510 -- the Portuguese were rather tolerant of local > traiditions and religions. This was obviously needed to build > acceptance here, if you wish. Their initial ire was targeted against > the Muslims -- recall the contemporary of 6000 Muslims being killed in > the old city and rivers of blood flowing, etc > > (iii) Portuguese religious intolerance came up much later, in the > latter part of the 16th century > > (iv) Throughout colonial rule, the bias and bigotry and intolerance > was not uniform. It was a Portuguese secretary-general, Cunha-Rivara, > who promoted an interest in the Konkani language (while his countrymen > of another generation sought to implement Portuguese instead of > Konkani). The Portuguese Republican Revolution of 1910, whose century > is now being observed, benefitted the Hindu population vastly, and > Hindus are also believed to have controlled a significant section of > the economy during colonial times. While the latter 20th century > Salazar rule was overtly and covertly theocratic, others like the > Marquis de Pombal were staunchly anti-Jesuit, and anti the religious > orders. > > In a word, the reality of colonialism does not fit into any neat > pattern. To me, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what Fr > Nascimento is writing here. You are referring to another period. > Please see the Foral of the early 16th century, and the reasons why > the gaunkaria (comunidades) of Goa were preserved, while those in the > rest of British India simply withered away. FN > > Frederick Noronha :: +91-9822122436 :: +91-832-2409490 > > -- > This message comes via the Google Groups "Saligao-Net" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/saligao-net?hl=en > Please post regularly to keep the e-village active! -- This message comes via the Google Groups "Saligao-Net" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/saligao-net?hl=en Please post regularly to keep the e-village active!
