If
there is one Goan, writing in Portuguese, who has enjoyed a decent literary corpus
of translation into English and a steady stream of media and academic
attention, it has to be José Inácio Candido de Loyola, more popularly known as
Fanchu Loyola. In 2007, the journalist Alexandre Moniz Barbosa had translated and
compiled a series of Fanchu Loyola’s essays titled Passionate and Unrestrained (See my review on GT: 21 July, 2010 ). Earlier,
in 2000, another collection of his essays was also published. This collection,
which is presently under review, is edited by the Jesuit Charles J. Borges and
translated by Lino Leitão. This review will try to focus on the many
introductory essays at the beginning of the book and also try to pose a few new
questions vis-à-vis the writings of
Fanchu Loyola.
Besides the editor and the
translator of the book, essays of Carmo D’Souza, Yona Loyola-Nazareth, Fanchu
Loyola’s octogenarian daughter now based in Canada and Joseph Barros are also included.
They familiarize us with the book as well as try to give an insight into the
life and times of Fanchu Loyola. These introductory essays or notes are not
critical of Loyola’s writings and his political ideologies; they do not go any
deeper than providing a brief biographic sketch, thereby giving the impression
that they are more like secular hagiographies. However, the short essay that
the daughter of Fanchu Loyola wrote is remarkable.
Returning
after an unsuccessful meeting with Nehru where Loyola tried to convince the
Prime Minister to have a plebiscite in Goa, Yona Loyola-Nazareth recalls, “I
never comprehended the depth of his love for Goa till he returned to Bombay in
1958. He returned from a visit to Jawaharlal Nehru in Delhi quite defeated and
disconsolate. I could not fathom his distress. He paced restlessly up and down
the hallway, sighing until I could not bear it any longer. I questioned him.
His answer puzzled me at that time, ‘My child, we have lost Goa. You and I have
lost Goa.’ Lost Goa? In 1958? He then proceeded to tell me that although he had
done his utmost to persuade Nehru to conduct a plebiscite in Goa, he was
convinced that with Krishna Menon at the helm, a ‘military take-over’ of Goa
was imminent.”
Fanchu
Loyola was a nationalist, but not like the ones who were fighting for the
inclusion of Goa into the Indian Union. He was opposed more to the dictatorial
reign of Salazar and, as this book makes it amply clear; he never challenged
the sovereignty of the Portuguese over its colonies in India.
 |
| Krishna Menon |
Loyola
constantly uses terms like “public” or “people” in this collection to indicate
popular support to his views and policies and that his views and policies are
in conjunction with the larger public. At this point we cannot forget that most
of Loyola’s writings were published in the journal of his own party (India Portuguesa) as well as other
journals he established and edited. As of now all we can say is that Loyola’s
views were at best claims that need to be rigorously interrogated or tested. The
question as to which class of people Fanchu Loyola and his party men were
trying to woo, can shed new light on the dynamics of politics of those times.
Though
a lawyer himself, it is interesting to note that Loyola never used the law or
his legal acumen to discuss remedial measures for the social problems he was
discussing. He would stress that the people had degraded morally and had become
cowards and it stopped at that. Rather he waxed eloquent on the economic
questions and ills of the state, like an economist using tabular data and
statistics to argue his case. However, it must be said that he was an avid
supporter of enacting and amending legislation to increase the economic
productivity of the land. A case in point can be his advocacy of legislative
measures to increase agricultural productivity rather than fertilizers and
improved irrigation!
 |
| Charles Borges |
In
a telling quote, Fanchu Loyola expounds why he did not believe in big factories
and industrialization, “I want to propose a question. Why do we not process our
coconuts, and start an industry of that nature? Let us not dream big dreams.
Big dreams mean big factories, large capital, high technology, expert directors
and a skilled working force. Given our modest means, my dear Luis Maria, we
cannot afford to lay the foundation of big undertakings. But we can establish
small-scale industries, and set them up in our villages. They do not require
machinery, nor graduate technicians, nor capital that runs into five figures.”
There
is no point in commenting on whether Fanchu Loyola could have written his
essays in a better way or could have produced better nuanced arguments. The
fact is that his writings can only be put to greater and deeper scrutiny.
Excluding the essay that Yona Loyola-Nazareth wrote, the editor, translator and
other contributors could have done a much more researched and informed job in
evaluating the life and writings of Fanchu Loyola.
Goa’s Foremost Nationalist José Inácio Candido de Loyola: The Man and his Writings edited
by Charles Borges, Trans. By Lino Leitão (New Delhi: Concept Publishing), 2000;
pp. xlv+218, Rs. 400/- [ISBN: 81-7022-868-9]
(A version of this article appeared on Gomantak Times (Weekender), dt: June 17, 2012)
(A version of this article appeared on Gomantak Times (Weekender), dt: June 17, 2012)
