03-21-2005, 10:29 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->March 12, 2005, EPW
<b>Twisting the Tale
Goa's Anti-Colonial Stir Retold</b>
The BJP in Goa is sponsoring and circulating VCDs of a film purporting to tell the story of the territory's liberation from Portuguese colonial rule. But there is a clear anti-Christian agenda behind the film and the effort to promote it, with the intention of appealing to the Hindutva vote bank.
Frederick Noronha
Just before December 19, 2004 the anniversary of the end of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa an unusual controversy erupted in the state of Goa. The state's government, then run by the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, had inspired, sponsored and circulated a film which it wanted to be shown in schools across the small region of 1.4 million people.
(The BJP has since been ousted from power and the state is currently under president's rule.)
This video compact disc (VCD) was created in 2002, and is only now being widely circulated and adequately noticed. Purported to be a 'documentary' on Goa's liberation struggle as the anti-colonial drive against the Portuguese is known here this movie claims to convey a patriotic message.
While it does offer a narration of the campaign against colonialism, it also promotes a bigoted view of the past, stokes some hardly subtle ideas of religious hatred, and could only end up creating further suspicion in a state whose communities are otherwise known for living in relative peace and amity.
To be fair, Goa's history has been rife with religious, caste-based and ethnic intolerance. Early Portuguese rule not its entire duration was a phase of intense intolerance. But should history be raked up selectively, with dubious intent? What is the political goal of highlighting a slice of the past? Should taxpayers' money go to interpret history only through the lenses of religious hate and conflict? Above all, were the battles of the past only or primarily about religion, as India's contemporary religious right is trying to project?
Subliminal messages come across through the screening. It depends what one wants to see in it. Setting an 'innocent' film against its wider setting might make sense here.
Can we believe that all this is just a coincidence, and not the obvious game plan of the ideology of hate and conflict that has come to rule Goa by a mix of intrigue and deceit? That too, in a state which never gave the BJP a mandate or majority to rule, but where a mandate is being manufactured through every trick in the book.
Selective Narration
Against the backdrop of violence and screams, silhouettes of Portuguese soldiers are shown damaging Hindu religious icons. Guns tangle with temples in the fast-changing visuals. We are told: 'hazaron mandir' (thousands of temples) were broken, and 'bhajans' and 'kirtans' were stopped in colonial times. Like any stereotype, this is based in truth, but not the whole truth and with just one side of the picture being selectively narrated. Conversions to Christianity in Goa are shown as arising entirely to violence, trickery and fraud.
It is the first one-third of the 'documentary', supposedly about Goa's liberation struggle, which needs to be closely studied by those concerned about the dangers of communalism spread by the state. Hindus in religious garb are being shown as attacked while at prayer, and women are shown as being sexually assaulted and abused. The symbol of the cross is shown repeatedly, in a manner that not only projects it as evil but also reduces colonialism to the level of a religious war.
In its defence, the ideology behind this VCD has argued that it has depicted reality, that colonial rule was indeed harsh and often violent in Goa, and that many of these 'facts' have already been documented. While all this may well be true, and religion and colonialism was combined into a lethal mix in the past, should the government of a secular state continue with such trends? Is this not an attempt at preying on the realities of the past with a dubious political agenda for the present?
One can count the cross depicted some 34 times. Portugal's undeniable misuse of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries is no excuse whatsoever for its continued misuse in the 21st century. As the BJP struggles so far unsuccessfully ââ¬â to build up a winning Hindutva 'vote bank' in Goa, targeting a contemporary religious symbol is a game worth risking. Can one overlook the fact that the Portuguese took over large parts of current-day Goa simply through treaties with neighbouring rulers? Or that they worked out a successful modus vivendi with local elites (of all religious groups), more so in the latter part of their reign? And that critical segments of the Goan economy were in Hindu hands for significant parts of the colonial period ('native' merchants and also village officials like the 'sinay', 'kulkarni' and 'potekar' or tax collector)?
Portuguese soldiers are depicted laughing sadistically while locals are tortured. Shivaji and Sambhaji are shown as fighting the 'atrocities' on the people in Goa; never mind that neighbouring rulers like them did have pacts with the Portuguese along the way.
Provocative Depiction
In scenes depicting the Portuguese rulers' political misuse of religion, the camera focuses on the statues of the Infant Jesus and Ignatius Loyola in the Bom Jesu Basilica in Old Goa places of worship still for a significant number in today's Goa. What exactly is the message being sent out?
All this fits in with the stated historical position of the RSS and the Hindutva movement that 'Hindus' have been oppressed in their 'own homeland' of India for many years. Or that the RSS 'is only asserting the natural rights of Hindus and correcting historical wrongs'. In both Gujarat 2002 and Mumbai 1993, history has shown that people need to be made to feel insecure and threatened before being provoked into violence.
For the BJP-inspired film, Goa's history was interpreted as driven mainly by religious conflict. It does the same in interpreting the case of Cuncolim, a south Goa village which was caught up in a bitter battle with the colonial Portuguese.
Writing in another context, the noted Indo-Portuguese historian from Goa Teotonio R de Souza says the battle at Cuncolim in 1583 wasn't primarily about religion. He writes: "My analysis suggests that both the Portuguese rulers and the native dominant class of Cuncolim were using religion for their own vested interests. Religious beliefs were not the main issue, but the economic and political implications of conversion were seen as a threat." (See http://www.goacom.com/culture/history/cuncolim.html)
Souza explains how the Portuguese found collaborators in Goa: "It was so in Goa at the time of its conquest by Afonso de Albuquerque. The Hindu population seems to have been unhappy with the Muslim overlords, and the representatives of the dominant Hindu class thought that they could use the Portuguese to regain its earlier dominance."
Undeniably, Goa's past was one of religious conflict and strife. But this needs to be projected in context. The Portuguese came here much earlier than the British, French or Dutch, in times when religious intolerance was a little more acceptable to the ruler. Their bigotry lasted for the first part of their rule here; while in the 18th century, they were about as religiously bigoted (or not) as the British were in the rest of India. The inquisition wasn't targeted at the Hindus, but primarily against those Catholics (or neo-Catholics) who weren't seen as Catholic enough.
Much of the rest of the VCD, apart from the 'religious conflict' based part, is a glorified depiction of the anti-colonial struggle. By reducing this narration to crude simplifications, it obviously doesn't do much justice to a complex story one that was a key part of global history and the history of colonialism in Asia. (Portugal was the first European colonial power of its times to set foot in Asia, and the last to leave.)
Some freedom fighters have protested, but only over the relative emphasis given to the role played by different groups in the campaign. In a nutshell, this is a film which needs to be seen by everyone concerned about the state of secularism in India today, just so as to realise the damage that can be caused by politicians in power who believe in blatantly taking sides.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Twisting the Tale
Goa's Anti-Colonial Stir Retold</b>
The BJP in Goa is sponsoring and circulating VCDs of a film purporting to tell the story of the territory's liberation from Portuguese colonial rule. But there is a clear anti-Christian agenda behind the film and the effort to promote it, with the intention of appealing to the Hindutva vote bank.
Frederick Noronha
Just before December 19, 2004 the anniversary of the end of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa an unusual controversy erupted in the state of Goa. The state's government, then run by the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, had inspired, sponsored and circulated a film which it wanted to be shown in schools across the small region of 1.4 million people.
(The BJP has since been ousted from power and the state is currently under president's rule.)
This video compact disc (VCD) was created in 2002, and is only now being widely circulated and adequately noticed. Purported to be a 'documentary' on Goa's liberation struggle as the anti-colonial drive against the Portuguese is known here this movie claims to convey a patriotic message.
While it does offer a narration of the campaign against colonialism, it also promotes a bigoted view of the past, stokes some hardly subtle ideas of religious hatred, and could only end up creating further suspicion in a state whose communities are otherwise known for living in relative peace and amity.
To be fair, Goa's history has been rife with religious, caste-based and ethnic intolerance. Early Portuguese rule not its entire duration was a phase of intense intolerance. But should history be raked up selectively, with dubious intent? What is the political goal of highlighting a slice of the past? Should taxpayers' money go to interpret history only through the lenses of religious hate and conflict? Above all, were the battles of the past only or primarily about religion, as India's contemporary religious right is trying to project?
Subliminal messages come across through the screening. It depends what one wants to see in it. Setting an 'innocent' film against its wider setting might make sense here.
Can we believe that all this is just a coincidence, and not the obvious game plan of the ideology of hate and conflict that has come to rule Goa by a mix of intrigue and deceit? That too, in a state which never gave the BJP a mandate or majority to rule, but where a mandate is being manufactured through every trick in the book.
Selective Narration
Against the backdrop of violence and screams, silhouettes of Portuguese soldiers are shown damaging Hindu religious icons. Guns tangle with temples in the fast-changing visuals. We are told: 'hazaron mandir' (thousands of temples) were broken, and 'bhajans' and 'kirtans' were stopped in colonial times. Like any stereotype, this is based in truth, but not the whole truth and with just one side of the picture being selectively narrated. Conversions to Christianity in Goa are shown as arising entirely to violence, trickery and fraud.
It is the first one-third of the 'documentary', supposedly about Goa's liberation struggle, which needs to be closely studied by those concerned about the dangers of communalism spread by the state. Hindus in religious garb are being shown as attacked while at prayer, and women are shown as being sexually assaulted and abused. The symbol of the cross is shown repeatedly, in a manner that not only projects it as evil but also reduces colonialism to the level of a religious war.
In its defence, the ideology behind this VCD has argued that it has depicted reality, that colonial rule was indeed harsh and often violent in Goa, and that many of these 'facts' have already been documented. While all this may well be true, and religion and colonialism was combined into a lethal mix in the past, should the government of a secular state continue with such trends? Is this not an attempt at preying on the realities of the past with a dubious political agenda for the present?
One can count the cross depicted some 34 times. Portugal's undeniable misuse of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries is no excuse whatsoever for its continued misuse in the 21st century. As the BJP struggles so far unsuccessfully ââ¬â to build up a winning Hindutva 'vote bank' in Goa, targeting a contemporary religious symbol is a game worth risking. Can one overlook the fact that the Portuguese took over large parts of current-day Goa simply through treaties with neighbouring rulers? Or that they worked out a successful modus vivendi with local elites (of all religious groups), more so in the latter part of their reign? And that critical segments of the Goan economy were in Hindu hands for significant parts of the colonial period ('native' merchants and also village officials like the 'sinay', 'kulkarni' and 'potekar' or tax collector)?
Portuguese soldiers are depicted laughing sadistically while locals are tortured. Shivaji and Sambhaji are shown as fighting the 'atrocities' on the people in Goa; never mind that neighbouring rulers like them did have pacts with the Portuguese along the way.
Provocative Depiction
In scenes depicting the Portuguese rulers' political misuse of religion, the camera focuses on the statues of the Infant Jesus and Ignatius Loyola in the Bom Jesu Basilica in Old Goa places of worship still for a significant number in today's Goa. What exactly is the message being sent out?
All this fits in with the stated historical position of the RSS and the Hindutva movement that 'Hindus' have been oppressed in their 'own homeland' of India for many years. Or that the RSS 'is only asserting the natural rights of Hindus and correcting historical wrongs'. In both Gujarat 2002 and Mumbai 1993, history has shown that people need to be made to feel insecure and threatened before being provoked into violence.
For the BJP-inspired film, Goa's history was interpreted as driven mainly by religious conflict. It does the same in interpreting the case of Cuncolim, a south Goa village which was caught up in a bitter battle with the colonial Portuguese.
Writing in another context, the noted Indo-Portuguese historian from Goa Teotonio R de Souza says the battle at Cuncolim in 1583 wasn't primarily about religion. He writes: "My analysis suggests that both the Portuguese rulers and the native dominant class of Cuncolim were using religion for their own vested interests. Religious beliefs were not the main issue, but the economic and political implications of conversion were seen as a threat." (See http://www.goacom.com/culture/history/cuncolim.html)
Souza explains how the Portuguese found collaborators in Goa: "It was so in Goa at the time of its conquest by Afonso de Albuquerque. The Hindu population seems to have been unhappy with the Muslim overlords, and the representatives of the dominant Hindu class thought that they could use the Portuguese to regain its earlier dominance."
Undeniably, Goa's past was one of religious conflict and strife. But this needs to be projected in context. The Portuguese came here much earlier than the British, French or Dutch, in times when religious intolerance was a little more acceptable to the ruler. Their bigotry lasted for the first part of their rule here; while in the 18th century, they were about as religiously bigoted (or not) as the British were in the rest of India. The inquisition wasn't targeted at the Hindus, but primarily against those Catholics (or neo-Catholics) who weren't seen as Catholic enough.
Much of the rest of the VCD, apart from the 'religious conflict' based part, is a glorified depiction of the anti-colonial struggle. By reducing this narration to crude simplifications, it obviously doesn't do much justice to a complex story one that was a key part of global history and the history of colonialism in Asia. (Portugal was the first European colonial power of its times to set foot in Asia, and the last to leave.)
Some freedom fighters have protested, but only over the relative emphasis given to the role played by different groups in the campaign. In a nutshell, this is a film which needs to be seen by everyone concerned about the state of secularism in India today, just so as to realise the damage that can be caused by politicians in power who believe in blatantly taking sides.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->