APOLOGIES AND OUR PAST

Recently, Sudhin Dhavalikar of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) demanded an apology from the current Prime Minister of Portugal, Antonio Costa, who is of Goan origin, when the Goa Legislative Assembly moved a motion to felicitate him. Costa should apologize, said Dhavalikar, for colonial injustices. The RSS soon joined Dhavalikar and demanded an apology not only for colonialism, but also for conversions to Christianity. It would not be out of place to revisit past instances of demands for apologies due to the manner in which Portuguese colonialism is used as a stick with which to beat Christians in Goa.

In June 1980, the name of Camões was mired in controversy. This controversy erupted, it seems, for a number of reasons. These included the cultural programs organized to commemorate the Fourth Death Centenary of Camões, the installation of a marble medallion bearing the image of Camões on the Ashoka Pillar in the Municipal Garden in Panjim, and the invitation extended to the last Governor-General of Portuguese India, Manuel Antonio Vassalo e Silva to attend the celebrations. Owing to the fact that diplomatic relations were normalized between Lisbon and New Delhi in 1974, the decision to commemorate the Fourth Death Centenary of Camões and to invite Vassalo e Silva seems to have been approved at the highest governmental levels in Portugal and India.

The Nationalist Citizens Action Committee mobilized the protests against the celebration of a Portuguese literary and national icon. There are no prizes for guessing what these protests were against – Portuguese colonialism and the indignities, injustices, and oppression of four-and-a-half centuries. In the ensuing melee, the one event that actually grabbed headlines was the apology that Vassalo e Silva was made to offer, after a demonstration that stopped him from paying his respects at the Martyr’s Memorial in Panjim. As one of the newspapers at that time reported, “The former Governor General yielded to the demand for [an] apology when the demonstrators told him that they had no objection to his placing the wreath but only if he expressed regret for the indignities committed on Goan people including freedom fighters by the erstwhile Portuguese regime”.^§

Vassalo e Silva was forced to apologize despite the fact that he believed that “[t]he liberation of Goa was in the interest of Goans. Though Portugal ruled Goa for 450 years, this territory had always remained a part and parcel of India, irrespective of some people who might feel otherwise. It was also in the interest of Portugal that Goa should go back to the hands of Goans”. Similarly, George Vaz, a member of the Communist Party of India, made an important observation which can help us in understanding why Vassalo e Silva held such an opinion: “General Vassalo e Silva … when he was the Governor General of Goa, was secretly associated with the left movement in Portugal, which finally overthrew the Salazar dictatorship; a movement which ushered in the liberation of most of the African colonies of Portugal … General Vassalo e Silva represented that section in Portugal which had hailed the Liberation of Goa”.^§

In fact, during the days surrounding the controversy, the “humanitarian approach” of Vassalo e Silva and his love for Goa were highlighted. Writing to the editor of a newspaper in June 1980, D. W. Desai observed, “If there would have been any other representative [of] an imperialist country to govern Goa, Goans would have suffered horrible bloodshed. In spite of this fact, many Goans are kept [in the] blind to the good deeds of this good man.  [Goans] are prejudiced by his picture as is exhibited by some politicians who wanted only to create ill-feeling towards [the] Portuguese regime” [emphasis added].^§

From Navprabha (Marathi daily), dt: 5 June, 1980. Workers of the Panjim Municipality are pictured removing the marble medallion bearing Camoes' image. 

The 1980 demand could appear to be ‘secular’, with the protests against Vassalo e Silva led by the Nationalist Citizens Action Committee; and the Camões-medallion incident being condemned by the Bharatiya Depressed Classes League, Goa Unit, and the Congress-I.  Much like today, it would not be surprising if the protests in 1980 also had a subtext of hurt at the history of Christianization in Goa, as is today clearly expressed by the statements issued by the RSS. Thus, even though we might observe secular political outfits and Bahujan organizations leading the protests in 1980, the movement nevertheless was trapped within a nationalist understanding of Goa’s past, wherein Christianization and Portuguese colonialism are viewed to have caused the destruction of the culture of Goa.

The multi-faceted figure of Vassalo e Silva and the complex history in which he was situated, exposes the hollowness of demands for apologies. For surely, one apology tended by a former functionary of the colonial regime should have been enough, right? But apparently that is not so. The business of apologies has an insidious relationship with nationalism and how Bahujan identities are manipulated for devious gains. Given that Indian nationalism in Goa has always pitched itself against an enemy, first against Portuguese colonialism, and then against Goan Christians as continuing that ‘colonial’ legacy, it is by ignoring and/or distorting certain facts/events in history today that the Hindu Bahujan are perpetually pitched against their Christian counterparts, and as a substitute for Portuguese colonialism. This is perhaps how brahmanical power and communalization thrives in Goa.

 Due to his association with the Portuguese left, Vassalo e Silva may have believed that an apology may have been apt for past colonial rule. However, such apologies end up condemning Christians in Goa, marking them as enemies, and pitching Hindu Bahujans against them for crimes that are more ‘imagined’ than real. It is time to recognize this fact.    

^§ Quotations from The Navhind Times, dt: 10 & 11 June, 1980. 

(First published in O Heraldo, dt: 3 February, 2016)

INTOLERANCE AND THE MINORITIZED GROUPS

Goa’s Chief Minister, Laxmikant Parsekar, has been receiving flak ever since he took charge from November 2014. Not simply due to the faulty policies that his government seems eager to force down the throats of the Goan people, but also due to controversial and sometimes silly comments in the media.

However, over the last several months we have been witness to a modicum of clarity and good sense displayed by the same Parsekar on the issue of consumption of beef in Goa. In March this year, Parsekar issued a statement saying that there cannot be a beef-ban in Goa, as beef is part of the diet of a lot of people in the state. Since the issue of whether Muslims, Dalits, Christians, and Adivasis living in India should or should not consume beef is being raked up with alarming frequency, Parsekar did not shy away from issuing another statement earlier this month. Modifying his views a bit due to the existing political climate in North India and the debates surrounding the ‘rise of intolerance’ in India, Parsekar said, “I don’t feel the people of a community eat or use beef to hurt sentiments of others. It is part of their cuisine or preparation and we also accept the fact…” What one can also add to Parsekar’s statement is that rather than offending anybody, many Catholics (for example) feel quite awkward and embarrassed to serve pork and beef dishes at their own functions, thanks to a desire to accommodate the sentiments of their Muslim and Hindu friends. One can see that Parsekar is quite consistent in his views on beef-eating vis-à-vis the minoritized communities and to state something as plainly as he did is frankly quite remarkable.

But Parsekar did not stop at asserting that there was no intent for hurting sentiments by the consumption of beef. The problems in Parsekar’s comments arise when he tried to link the current situation of intolerance in rest of India to the tolerant ethos of Goa, which many believe existed for centuries. He said, “This maybe a tiny state, but our speciality is that Hindus, Catholics and Muslims can live together in harmony and peace. We know the importance of respecting each others’ feelings. Therefore, such issues are never blown out of proportion as in other state”. Reading such a view one should be ideally left with a few wrinkles on one’s forehead.

The question is how valid is the idea that Goa was always tolerant? While raising this question, allow me to also stress that Goa seems to witness a relatively ‘peaceful’ atmosphere as the ‘othering’ of minoritized groups like Christians and Muslims operate through means that appear as not overtly violent.

If we consider the politics of the Konkani language organized around the legitimization of the Nagri script as the official and de facto script of the culture and language of Goa, this vision of Goa having a long tradition of tolerance immediately fractures. By now it is common knowledge that a sizable population of the Catholic community has been excluded from the Goan public sphere. What’s more is that the people who asserted the right of Roman-scripted Konkani as legitimate in the Goan cultural and political sphere were (and are) frequently at the receiving end of vicious hate speech. Though I have said that this is common knowledge, yet it does not seem to have seeped into the common-sensical understanding of many prominent intellectuals and politicians in Goa. For why else would many in Goa celebrate the fact that many Nagri writers threatened to return their Sahitya Akademi awards, despite the fact that these very same people have presided over a regime that continues to marginalize and impose savarna hegemony over bahujan Hindus and various Catholic groups?

To further focus on the harmonious existence of various religious communities in Goa, one can ask about the extent to which Muslims are represented in Goan politics. Although there are many Goan Muslims, there is hardly any representation of that community in Goan politics from 1961. In a sense, one can observe the invisibilization of the Muslim population in Goa, as, right from 1961, the leadership of the community is solely in the hands of others. I think this is very serious as there is hardly anyone who will represent the needs and interests of the community, as for example in the fields of education, employment, and food habits. And since we are on the topic of political representation, I am reminded of the Pratap Singh Rane cabinet of 1980, wherein a sizable number of key posts were given to Christian MLAs, and apparently the mood prevailing then in Goa was that the government had turned into a Christian-controlled one (Kristanvancho sorkar). That a significant number of Goans at that time (which is not that long ago) felt uncomfortable with so many Christian MLAs in the Legislative Assembly, should ideally make us realize that the narrative about Goa’s harmony is a wee bit farcical. One would find many more such incidents.

So while Parsekar is absolutely right in asserting that consumption of beef is not linked to any desire to offend, the rising tide of ‘intolerance’ should not be viewed as an aberration to the normally tolerant and harmonious ethos, whether in Goa or India. In fact, if we think hard enough one will be confronted with a longer history of small and big incidents by which minoritized communities have been consistently and systematically subjected to discrimination. To not recognize this history is to miss a chance at furthering a truly egalitarian society. 

(First published in O Heraldo, dt: 11 November, 2015) 

Please also see a reaction to this article by Vikas Kamat and my rebuttal to it here.

‘OPINION POLL’ ANI GÕYCHE KRISTANV

Halinchea tempar ‘Father of the Opinion Poll’ hea Dotor Jack de Sequeira hankam dilolea ‘title’-acho kaim zonnamni khor nixedh kela. Ho nixedh thoddeach activists-ancho zaun asa. Hantuntlo mukhel veokti mhollear Uday Bhembre, zo fattle kaim mhoine khobram-potramni ani TV-cher aplo nixedh sobhemazar kollit korta. Hea oslea mota fattlean rajkaronn khoinchem ani koslem, hem somzun ghevpacho proyotn hanv korunk sodtam.

Bhembre-chea mota pormannem Dr. Sequeira ho ekloch ‘Opinion Poll’-acho fuddari naslo, punn tache barobor anik-ui zaite zonn asle. Oxem aslolean, Bhembre mhonntta, Dr. Sequeira-k ‘Opinion Poll’-acho Bapui mhonnop chukichem zaun asa. Tachea hea oslea motank zaitem ‘media attention’ mell’llem ani Bhembre-chea motancho virodh-ui zaitea zonnamni kelo. Bhembre-chem mot somzun gheunk ani tachi foddnnixi korunk ami tachea eka ‘interview’-acho ul’lekh korunk zai. Ho ‘interview’ O Herald disalleacher (polle Herald Review, 10 May, 2015) uzvaddak ailolo. Hie mulakhotint Bhembre-chim motam Radharao Gracias hanchea motam vangdda sador kelolim asat ani zaitem jem Bhembre mhonntta tem Radharao Gracias-achim motam vachtoch fals vo chukichim oxem disun yeta.

Bhembre-chea mota pormannem, itihas ho konnench bodlunk zainam, karonn to asa tosoch asta (“History is history, whether one likes it or not”). Hench dhoronn gheun to kaim lok ‘Opinion Poll’-acho itihas kiteak sarkho nokllo tem sangunk sodta. Khorem mhollear hem oslem dhoronn aiz sonvsarachea itihaskaramni soddun dilolem asa. Bhembre-chem hem dhoronn ‘positivist method and philosophy’ hacher adharun asa, oxem disun yeta. Hea ‘positivist method and philosophy’ khala oxem manun ghetat ki itihasantle ‘facts’ he apo-ap ulounk xoktat; tankam itihaskarachi vhoddli xi goroz nasta. Itihaskaramni he ‘facts’ fokot eka fatlean ek oxem korun manddunkuch zai, itlench. Punn oslem dhoronn aiz fottichem tharta, oxem zannkaramni dakhoun dilam. Tor Bhembre oslea dhoronnacho adhar gheun aplim motam kiteak manddtta? Amchea mota pormannem oxem kelolean Bhembre aple zaite ‘agendas’ fuddem vhoronk sodta. Tor te khoinche tem atam polleum-ia.

Bhembrecho poilo ‘agenda’ mhollear to apunnuch ‘Opinion Poll’-achea itihasacher ulounk xrextt oxem somzota. Hem to don toramni korta: Poilie suvater to soglea Kristanv lokank – chodd korun bahujan Kristanvank – je Dr. Sequeira-chea fattlean kal ani aizui ubhe asat tankam, to unnak lekhta ki tankam ‘Opinion Poll’-achea itihasachi sarki mahiti nam mhonnun. Oxem kortanam Bhembre zotnay gheta ani thoim Kristanv somazacho ul’lekh kori nam. Punn konnacher ani khoinchea somazacher to ttika korta  tem amkam sangonastanam kollun yeta.

Dusrie suvater, Bhembre amkam sangta ki apunn ek sakxidar vo ‘first-hand witness’ mhonnun ‘Opinyon Poll’-achea tempavelo. To mhonntta apnnem fokot ‘Opinion Poll’-acher prokaxit zalolem sahityuch nhoi punn te vixim aslolo itihas onnbhovlolo asa mhunn. Haka lagun to mhonntta ki taka hea ‘Opinion Poll’-achea itihasachi chodd bori zannvay asa mhunn. Dusre zonn je aiz Dr. Sequeira-cho zoi-zoikar kortat, te  Bhembre-chea mota pormannem, tea tempar chodd dhaktte asle vo zolmant legun yeunk nasle; haka lagun tankam ‘Opinion Poll’-achea itihasachi zannvay nam. Bhembre-chem hem dhoronn vichitr mhonnunk zai, karonn tachem dhoronn tor ami svikarlem zalear itihasachi likhnni ani xastr kabar zatolem, hantunt il’lo-i dubhav nam!

Bhembre-chem dhoronn vichitr ani fokannachem tharta karonn zaitea vorsam savn choltolea itihaskaram modem ani her somajik zannkaram modem jio ‘debates’ zaliat tancher hem dhoronn add veta. Dekhik ami E. H. Carr hachem What is History? hea pustokacho ul’lekh kelear puro zata. Hea pustokant Carr mhonntta ki ‘facts’ he aplea pãyar ubhe ravun svota ulounk xokonant; tankam ‘interpretation’  vo somzonni ani foddnnixi zai poddtta. Hakach lagun itihaskarachi goroz poddtta. Zalear hatunt itihaskar aple ‘biases’ bhitor haddunk xokta – ani zaite pavttim haddtai bi. Dekhun eka itihaskaran ‘facts’ topasunk zai ani te topasun ‘cross-check’-ui korunk zai. Ami oxem chintunk zainam ki zannim itihas khud onnbhovla tankam itihasachi bori vo sarki zannvay astoli mhunn. Oslea mon’xam lagim ghoddye kosli tori mahiti asot, punn tich  mahiti sarki vo  khori oxem ami manunk zainam. Oxem aslolean ami zonn eklean kholayen chinton korop gorjechem. Zonn eklean ap-apli bhumika zannun gheun proyotn korunk zai: itihasacho bhagidar (participant) toxench itihasacho sod ghevpi vo somzonni divpi (interpreter).

Bhembre-chim motam ani mud’de hankam kainch mol nam hachi govay amkam Radharao Gracias hanchea motantlean melltta. Gracias ek suchovnni korta ani ti mhollear Gõychea Kristanv lokanchem zalolem ‘marginalization’ ami hea ‘Opinion Poll’-achea itihasant somzun gheunk zai mhunn. Rajki mollar hem ‘marginalization’ chodd marekar zaun asa, oxem Gracias amkam sangta. Hakach lagun Gracias Romi-Nagricho mud’do hea ‘Opinion Poll’-achea mud’deak zoddtta ani sangta ki Romi lipik bhair dovorop hich ek vhoddantli-vhodd govay Gõychea Kristanv lokanchea ‘marginalization’-achi zaun asa mhunn. Gracias fuddem mhonntta ki je monis aiz Dr. Sequeira-k ho man dila tacher nixedh martat tech lok kal ani aizui Romi lipik bhair dovorunk vavurtat mhunn. Amkam hacher oxem disun yeta ki Gracias-a sarko monis Gõychea Kristanv lokanchea ‘marginalization’-acher amchem lokx thir korta, zalear Bhembre sarko monis – tache ‘historical facts’ ani apunn ‘first-hand witness’ oxem sangun – heach ‘marginalization’-acho onnbhov zo Gõychea Kristanvamni onnbhovla to nakarta vo nhoikarta. Heach ‘marginalization’-acho onnbhov zor ami monant dovorlo zalear ‘Opinion Poll’-acho itihas zanna zaun ghetanam ho itihas koxe bhoxen bodoltolo?

Gracias-achem jem mot ami voir vachlam tacher anikui kitem sangchem asa.

Romi lipi ani Nagri lipicho vad gheun amcheamni Bhembre sarkea kar’yakorteamni Romi lipik koxi koddek dovorli hem polleunk zata. Zori tor hanv Bhembre-chem kar’ya ani motam hanga somzun gheunk sodtam, torui amkam oxem mhonnunk zai ki oslim motam apnnavpi Bhembre ho ekloch nhoi. Gõyant him motam sabar her dusre lok manun ghetat ani osle lok chodd korun unch zuttiyechim podam aplea tabeant gheun bosleat.

Tor Nagrivadiancho Romi lipik mukhel nixedh  khoincho? To mhollear Romi lipi Purtugez vosnnukponnantlean Gõyant aili, dekhun ti bhaili ani oddechi lipi zaun asa. Haka lagun Romi lipi Gõychi ani Konknnichi nizachi lipi nhoi, oxem Nagrivadiank dista. Romi lipiche add anikui zaitim dhoronnam Nagrivadi mukhar ghaltat – ki Romi lipichea sahityak dorzo nam; ki Nagri lipi chodd bori Konknni bhaxek karonn ti Bharoti lipi; ki Romi lipichi magnni mhollear ‘anti-national’ tharta karonn tantuntlean Gõykaranchem des-bhoxtteponn zata.

Fattlea sabar doxokamni zo tamaxa zala, tantunt ek khobor titli zoran konnuch korinaslo. Ani ti mhollear, jednam Romi lipichi hinnsavnni zata – tie hinnsavnnient Gõychea Kristanv lokanchem-i hinnsavop zata. Oslem hinnsavop choddxem Gõychea bahujan Kristanv lokanchem zata. Hem bahujan Kristanvank chodd lagta karonn zo unch-zaticho Kristanv asa to aplea unch-zatichea zolmak lagon hea oslea ‘attacks’-am pasun pois ravunk vo vochunk xokta. Dekhun amcheamni mhonnunk zata ki Romi lipik man’yatay nam divop mhonnche akkhea Gõychea Kristanv lokanchea sonvskrutayek man’yatay nam divop mhonnun.

Halinchea tempar, Bhembre sarko kar’yakorto hie Romi lipik pois dovorpachea prokoronnant mukhel fuddari asa oxem amcheamni mhonnunk zata. Bhembre-n 2006 vorsa ek chitt sogllea Gõychea ‘Cabinet’ montriank boroiloli tacho ul’lekh korunk zai. Hie chittintlean (Goanet thollacher ti sambhallun asa ani vachunk mellta) amkam disun yeta ki 2006 vorsa tednancho sorkar Official Language Act, 1987 hea Bill-ant bodol haddunk sodtalo mhunn. Bhembre tea kallar Congress pokxacho ‘think-tank’ Vichear Vibhag – hacho Chairman aslolo, ani he vorvim tannem Official Language Act, 1987 hea Bill-ant kosloch bodol zaunk zainam vo korop sarkhem nhoi oxem soglea tednanchea Gõychea montriank potr boroun sanglolem.

Toxench, ek voros poilim – mhollear 2005 vorsa – Bhembre-k Xavier Centre for Historical Research he sonsthen ulovop korunk apoilolo. Tannem ‘Road Map for the Standardisation and Development of the Konkani Language’ he mathallea khal aplem ulovop kel’lem. Bhembrechem mukhel dhoronn hea ulovpant aslem tem mhollear Konknni lokamni Nagri lipi khal ektthaim vo ekvottit zavpachem. Dusrie bhaxen sangchem zalear je konn Romi, Kon’nodd, Malayalam ani Perso-Arbi lipint aplem borovop kortat ani apli khaxeli sonskrutay sambhallun dovortat tannim tem sogllem soddun diun atam fokot Nagri lipicho vapor korcho. Atam amkam ho ‘link’ disun yeta: koxe bhoxen Bhembre eke bazuk ‘standardization’-acho ulo marta ani dusrie bazun Romi lipik man’yatay nam divpant vavurta.

Hantuntlean ek ami ghott monant dovrunk zai. Osle proyotn je zatat te sabar somudayank koddek ani bhair dovorunk zatat mhunn. Hem ‘exclusion’ fokot Gõychea Kristanv lokam purtench nhoi punn Hindu bahujan somazachea lokank legun lagu zata. Hindu bahujan somazantle fuddari Nagri lipichem ani Ontruzi Konknnichem ‘imposition’ tancher unch-zatinchea lokancho aple mutthint dovorpacho yotn oxem te manun ghetat. Dekhun te Moratthi bhaxe khala ektthaim zaunk sodtat. Punn Romi lipintli Konknni hich nizachi Konknni oxem he Moratthivadi fuddari manun ghetat.

Hanvem voir ul’lekh kelolo asa ki Bhembre jem kitem mhonntta ani tachim motam asat tim tachinch nhoi punn Gõyant aslolea sabar lokanchim mhunn. He lok unch zuttiyer ason Gõycher ani Gõychea sonskrutik mollacher aplem raj choloitat ani aplo tabo ghott dovrun asat. Hanga amcheamni Medium of Instruction (MoI) vadacho adhar gheunk zata. Inglez bhas MoI zaunchi oxi mangnni tednam fokot Kristanv lok kortale oso goir-somoz kaim zonnamni kelolo. Haka lagun, sodanchie bhoxen Kristanv lokank ‘anti-national’ mhonnun thomnne marunk laglole. Je konn Inglez bhaxek MoI nam korchi oxi magnni kortale tech lok Romi lipik-ui man’yatay nam divpant vavurpi asle. Hantunt vhoddlem xem kainch ek ojap nam. MoI vadachea vellar je kar’yakorte Bharoti Bhasha Suraksha Manch hache khal ektthaim zalole tankam Hindu bahujan somazantui je Moratthivadi asle, tancho zaito tenko mell’llolo.

Hindu bahujan zome bamonnvadi ‘interests’-ank tenko diit vo nam diit, sodanch oxem zata ki Gõychea Kristanv lokanchio magnnio ani hokk asat tancher khor nixedh ani hinnsavnni zata. Hem chodd korun bahujan Kristanvancher odhik promannan zata. Ti magir magnni kosli-i zaum: Romi lipik man’yatay – zantunt Kristanv lok okosmat Purtugezanche ‘agents’ zatat; magir ti magnni Inglez bhas MoI korchi oxi zaum – zantunt Kristanv lok Bharoti sonskrutaye add vetat mhunn arop zatat; nam zalear halinchea tempar Kristanv lok ‘Opinion Poll’-acho itihas sarke somzun ghenant ani to itihas kaichea-kai bodolpak sodtat, oxem mhunnon. Hie toren Kristanv lokank hinnsaun, ani tancher thomnne marun, tanchi rajki mollar asloli ‘legitimacy’ kaddun ghevpacho proyotn zata – ani khub koddem he proyotn yexosvi zalole amkam disun yetat. Tech bhoxen, ‘Opinion Poll’-achea vellar je Kristanv ‘anti-mergerists’ asle te ‘anti-national’ ani ‘fifth-columnist tendencies’ toyar korpi oso arop kortale – chodd korun tednancho Rakhonn Montri Y. B. Chavan (polle Rajan Narayan ani Sharon D’Cruz, Triumph of Secularism: Battle of the Opinion Poll in Goa, 2011).

Aiz amkam Dr. Sequeira-k konnem ‘Father of the Opinion Poll’ hem nanv dilem tem sarkem khobor nam. Ani hem ami khalteponnan man’ya korunk zai. Punn hem man’ya korun ghetananch ami hem-ui monant dovorunk zai ki Dr. Sequeira bahujan Kristanvank ek ‘icon’ zaun asa. ‘Opinion Poll’-achea itihasant Dr. Sequeira-chi bhumika kosli ani kitli vhodd asli, he prosn vicharop gorjechem. Punn osle prosn Bhembre sarkea Nagrivadianchea hatantlean suttave zaunk xokonant karonn tacho ‘agenda’ veglloch asa. Tacho ‘agenda’ kaim lokam purtoch moryadit asa – je lok Gõychea sonskrutik ani rajki mollar aplo xek choloitat. ‘Opinion Poll’-acho itihas itihaskaramni borouncho – zannim hea xetrant aplem xikxonn ani sod-vavr kela tannim – ani nhoi Bhembre sarkea kar’yakorteamni!

Xevottak, ami zor Gracias-achi suchovnni manun ghetli zalear amkam disun yetolem ki halinchea tempar Gõychea Kristanv lokank rajki mollavoilean pois dovorleat mhunnon. Hi onit zalia ti ami koxi sudhraunchi hacher poilim vichear korunk zai. Gõychie osmitayecho bhar magir amcheamni mathear gheunk zata.

(Ho lekh Gulab, Julay 2015 hea ankant uzvaddak aila)