A few weeks ago, while reviewing Suresh Kanekar’s autobiography (a large part of which dealt with the author’s
experience during Goa’s freedom struggle) I had claimed that accounts and
histories regarding Goa’s decolonization were viewed through a sacral veneer of
nationalism and were hagiographical in the presentation of their narratives. However,
I had also pointed out that Kanekar’s memoir could be used to think afresh about Goa’s
decolonization. I shall continue to grapple with this theme in reviewing
Shrikant Y. Ramani’s Operation Vijay: The
Ultimate Solution.
Ramani
has attempted to give a blow-by-blow account of the Indian army’s action in
Goa. He says that he has used both Indian and Portuguese sources. Using such
multilingual sources is a requirement of methodology but the problem here is
that Ramani is not critical of his sources. In many places he has, as admitted
in the preface, “literally” reproduced entire documents or primary sources; one
sometimes has no clue where Ramani is presenting/discussing his arguments and
where he is reproducing his documentary source. The use of source material from
the Indian and Portuguese sides, it must be mentioned, does help the reader in
the corroboration of the events/incidents.
19
December, 1961 was a momentous event not only for Goans but also for the
international community led by the United Nations. A brief survey of the
academic writings that were produced before and after 1961 (including an interesting essay by Oliveira Salazar, the dictator of Portugal) suggests that
the debate has been either condemning/delegitimizing India’s claims or
justifying them. But a critical engagement with these ideas and arguments is
missing in the book. What we get is a rather simplistic, nationalist
understanding from the perspective of the Indian nation-state. 50 years later,
we need much more critical and probing reflection where, apart from the great
leaders, statesmen, gallant soldiers and international politics, ordinary men
and women – people who had/have diverse responses and experiences to the armed
action of the Indian troops also find place in our histories. Ramani in his
entire 420 pages does not even consider the insecurities and uncertainties felt
by the population, but everywhere we are told that the “civilian population”
gave a “welcome [to] the Indian troops…”
Another
reason why Ramani’s leaning towards a nationalist paradigm of history is
inadequate is how he understands and perceives the history of Goa. Firstly,
Ramani glosses over the native contribution in the establishment of Portuguese
rule in Goa, such as the help rendered by a certain Mhall Pai Vernekar. The Estado sustained for so long only
because it was propped up time and again by native elites as well as the once
wealthy casado (married Portuguese
settlers) population. Thus, to trace a long, linear, monolithic trajectory
wherein “…Albuquerque reconquered it [Goa from Adil Shah] on 25th
November 1510 where they remained till the time of Independence of India and
thereafter upto 19th December 1961when they were…forced to leave
Indian soil forever” is found to be problematic. We also need to recognize that
the New Conquests were incorporated in the Estado
between 1763 and 1819. “Old Goa,” he says, “is a city of ruins but some
relics of Portuguese architecture dating back to 16-17th centuries
still survive.” A simple trip to Old Goa would prove otherwise.
Ramani recognizes that “[t]oday India
and Portugal…are trying to forget the dark pages in their historical past and
learn lessons from history.” But relying entirely on statist sources and
histories and not engaging critically with them, Ramani himself has,
unwittingly or not, fallen into the trap of ‘forgetting history’. What on the
other hand he ‘remembers’ is the same old textbook-narratives that we are all
familiar with and thus, nothing new is contributed by the book.
Ramani
asserts that “this is not a book of historical fiction”; yet the footnotes,
citations and bibliography do not conform to scholarly conventions which would
make one question the veracity of what is written and the scholarly rigor put
into the writing of the book.
By
trying to demonstrate that a nationalist paradigm of history is inadequate, my
aim is not to delegitimize the sacrifices that many made for decolonization. On
the contrary, what I am trying to put across is that to reduce the history of
Goa’s decolonization solely to an episode of the action of the Indian army is a
great disservice to the people of Goa and even Portugal, who at that time,
let’s not forget, were under Salazar’s dictatorship. We need to recognize that
although colonial relations have ended (with India’s armed action); the
coloniality of relations still exists, as Fr. Victor Ferrao has demonstrated in
his Being a Goan Christian.
Ramani’s book moves
between the narratives of two nationalisms: Indian on one side and Portuguese
on the other. But between these nationalisms, it appears that a lot of
questions and stories have been glossed over. Rather than a history that is
repetitive and cliché-ridden, we need to seriously think about bringing in
fresh questions and perspectives.
Operation
Vijay: The Ultimate Solution by Shrikant Y. Ramani,
2nd Edn. (Panjim: Broadway Publishing House), 2012; pp. xviii+422,
Rs. 495/- [ISBN: 9789380837376]
(A version of this article appeared on Gomantak Times, dt: June 18, 2013).