The recent vituperative comments made by certain
writers and ‘freedom-fighters’, reported in the press in the context of the
demand for state support for English as Medium of Instruction (MoI) forces us
to search for a deeper understanding of the issue of language politics. Given
that the problem identified by such statements is about doing something that is
antithetical to the national ways of life, one need to ask how we have reached
this moment. One of the ways that we can understand the issue is by focusing on
the operation of Indian nationalism in Goa.
Reference to T. B. Cunha’s pamphlet Denationalisation of Goans, (1944) is
critical to the task at hand as many of these offensive comments either make a
direct reference to Cunha and/or base their arguments on his
‘denationalisation’ thesis. Cunha wrote this pamphlet at a time when Indian
nationalism was growing powerfully and anti-imperialist nationalist movements
were emerging around the globe. While it is clear that Cunha went hammer and
tongs against the propaganda of the Portuguese state, one would also be struck
with the contradictory nature of his ideological claims. Cunha’s basic thesis
was that Portuguese colonialism had “enslaved” the Goan – particularly the monolithically
constructed Goan Catholic, thus preventing a national feeling or pride from
emerging in their hearts. According to Cunha, a long history of the Portuguese
presence in Goa and a long and complex history
of Christianization had produced a Goan “essentially [of] a slavish character”,
who was happy to ape Western manners and customs on his own volition.
The most glaring contradiction in Cunha’s pamphlet
was his attempt at creating a single enemy against which Indian nationalism
could be positioned. In this scheme of things, Cunha not only identified the Portuguese
rule as the enemy, but also ended up portraying all Goan Christians as a
comprador class. Reading Cunha’s pamphlet carefully one realizes that to
delegitimize the Portuguese state he portrayed Goan people as being denied
agency and being oppressed. However, he also claimed that Goans – particularly
the Christians – were happy in their enslavement by the Portuguese and thereby
furthering the interests of the Portuguese state against Indian interests. What
was never explained was how a people who had been enslaved by a system,
ideology, or culture had, simultaneously, the agency to further the interests
of the same system, ideology, or culture. Even if we assume that some Goans
were enslaved, how could slaves be the bad guys or the compradors?
In his haste to make Goa Indian and evoke feelings
of Indian-ness in Goans, Cunha left Goan Catholics no choice – either you had
to be Indian or you were nothing. Such an attitude is reflected in his rather
bizarre assertion: “Even in her present return to saree, the Catholic Goan woman is not guided by any national
feeling since she still prefers foreign material to Indian for her new dress.
It would be a better proof of her patriotic spirit to continue to dress in
European attire but give preference to Indian cloth” (p. 30).
This skewed logic of the oppressed simultaneously
furthering their own oppression is also seen when Cunha discusses the state of
language and literature in Goa, as part of ‘denationalisation’
thesis. Critical to the current politics in linguistic and pedagogic policies, it
needs to be quoted at length. Cunha says, “The obstacles set up to the
cultivation of their mother-tongue [by the Portuguese] deprived Goans of their
most natural instrument for the expression of their highest thoughts and
deepest feelings, checked all spontaneity and deprived them of a literature
worthy of the name. Ashamed of their uncultivated language, the educated class
professes to despise it. Forced to write in a foreign language, they are bound
to produce merely imitations lacking in the creative spirit and originality
which are the privilege of those who are inspired by the deep consciousness of
the race. Their thoughts are borrowed from the distant West…” (p. 25).
Following the ‘denationalisation’ thesis wherein the
church, the Portuguese state, and all
Christians were claimed to be working to enslave all Goans, it becomes
immediately clear why the demand of English as MoI was initially (and still
seen) as a conspiracy hatched by Christians and supported by the Church. Apart
from the bizarre accusation
made by Naguesh Karmali against the church, Raju Nayak, the editor of a
prominent Marathi daily recently berated
the Church for its lack of Indian-ness. Further the editor in question said
that the church was responsible for Goans opting for Portuguese citizenship,
and concluded that “English education is not only inadequate to create ideal
citizens and skilled service class, but also responsible for the sin (sic) of creating a generation of
selfish, narrow-minded individuals who have no sense of belonging towards the
nation. Cunha referred to this attitude as ‘denationalisation’ because the
Church strengthened the colonial power in Goa
and continued a colonial legacy after that”.
In other words, the nationalism espoused by Cunha
and blindly reproduced by his followers continues to create problems – like a
ghost that haunts frequently. What the followers of the ‘denationalisation’
thesis do not understand is that it is an inadequate framework to deal with the
problems of Goa. In fact, it is such offensive
views that push people to a corner, and not the other way round.
Cunha’s thesis fails to recognize that rather than
being enslaved Goans were using a variety of strategies to better their lives,
the most famous amongst them was to educate their children in Portuguese,
English, and Marathi (at least from the nineteenth-century). Writings were
produced in Romi Konkani, Portuguese, Marathi, and perhaps even French in Goa. Rather than recognize and encourage diversity and
choice, Cunha’s thesis restricts them. This is exactly how linguistic
chauvinists think and act in Goa today.
The ideology of ‘denationalisation’ thrives because
it is positioned against an enemy: it was Portuguese colonialism and the
‘denationalised’ Goan before, now only the ‘denationalised’ Christian remains.
(All quotes from Denationalisation
are from the edition published by the Goa Government, no date)
(A slightly modified version was first published in O Heraldo, dt: 20 January, 2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment