‘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)

USUAL SUSPECTS: GOAN CATHOLICS AND THEIR MARGINALIZATION

As in my previous column, this column too is a reference to the Uday Bhembre-Radharao Gracias debate that was carried in the pages of O Herald, about a month ago. While the previous column focused largely on the comments that Bhembre had made, this column would like to explore Gracias’ suggestion – that of the marginalization of Catholics in the public sphere of Goa. Gracias had suggested that this marginalization was acutely visible if one focused on the manner in which the nagri scripted Konkani held hegemony in Goa.

Focusing on the issue of the Roman-nagri script, one can also look at the role that an activist like Bhembre played in denying due recognition to the Roman script. Although, this column would focus on the views of Bhembre on Roman script, it must be noted that he is not the only person to hold such views. Indeed, such views are representative of a group of people holding power and hegemony in Goa. On a broad level, what is one of the most fundamental objections to the Roman script by the nagri lobby? It is this that the Roman script came in the wake of Portuguese colonialism; ergo it is a foreign script. As such it is not good enough to represent the ‘authentic’ culture of Goa. There were several other arguments that were made against the Roman script – that the literary productions in the Roman script lacked standard; that nagri script is better suited for Konkani as it is an Indian script; and also that the demand for the recognition of the Roman script is downright anti-national.

In all of this tamasha, over a number of years what was not said out loud was how in the denigration of the Roman script, the Catholics in Goa were denigrated as well. The people against whom this vitriol was directed were largely confined to the working-class, bahujan Catholic masses. This affects the bahujan Catholics more than anyone else for the reason that upper-caste Catholics can assert their brahmin privilege against the vitriolic attacks. The denial of the recognition of the Roman script therefore means the denial of recognition of the culture of the Catholic masses in Goa.

In recent years, an activist like Bhembre can be said to be the main protagonist arguing for the denial of the recognition of the Roman script. Reference can be made to a letter that Bhembre addressed to all Cabinet Ministers back in 2006. Through the text of this letter (archived on Goanet), we learn that the Cabinet was considering a change in the Official Language Act, 1987. In his capacity as the chairman of Vichar Vibhag, a think tank of the Congress in Goa, Bhembre was clear that the Official Language Act need not be changed to include the Roman script.

A year earlier, in October 2005, Bhembre was invited to speak at the Xavier Centre for Historical Research. He spoke on the topic ‘Road Map for the Standardisation and Development of the Konknni Language’. The main argument he made was that all Konkani speakers should unite under the nagri script. In other words, one had to give up producing in the Roman, Kannada, Malayalam, and Perso-Arabic scripts solely in favor of the nagri script. One can see the connection between Bhembre’s call for a standardization of Konkani under the nagri script, and his initiative as chairman of the Vichar Vibhag to exclude the Roman script from the Official Language Act, 1987. What should be stated clearly is that such efforts and attempts by activists like Bhembre are designed to exclude communities from political power and influence. In this case this exclusion is not simply faced by the bahujan Catholics alone, but also by the Hindu bahujan samaj. Many activists of the Hindu bahujan samaj view the imposition of the nagri script – and the unity that is sought under the umbrella of Konkani – as an attempt by the dominant castes in Goa to assert control over the rest. Thus, they see Marathi as the language around which they should mobilize against brahmanical hegemony, while also recognizing the validity of Konkani in the Roman script.

Uday Bhembre seen with Pundalik Naik and Shashikala Kakodkar

As stated earlier, Bhembre’s views are representative of many people that occupy positions of power and privilege, and those who try their best to influence cultural, linguistic and educational policies in Goa. We can also use the example of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) controversy in recent years. The demand for English as a MoI was erroneously seen as a demand solely of the Catholics of Goa. The familiar accusations of being disloyal and anti-national were hurled at the Goan Catholics. Not surprisingly, the group that was vociferously opposing this demand were the same people who refused to grant parity to the Roman script with the nagri one. But during the time of the MoI controversy, the activists who came under the banner of the Bharati Bhaso Suraksha Manch, had a decent support from a section of the Hindu bahujan samaj and those who were espousing the cause of the Marathi language in Goa.

Irrespective of whether the Hindu bahujan groups align or not with upper-caste interests in Goa, Catholic assertion – particularly the bahujan Catholic assertion – in the public sphere is always met with vitriolic opposition. Be it the demand for the recognition of the Roman script when Catholics were represented as agents of the Portuguese; or when the demand for English as MoI was seen as a conspiracy hatched by disloyal Catholics against Indian culture; or the more recent suggestion that Catholics are responsible for the misrepresentation and distortion of historical facts regarding the Opinion Poll. Through this vitriolic opposition and violent labeling of the Catholic assertion, any legitimacy that Catholics can claim in the Goan public sphere gets taken away from them. Also important to note here is how the Catholics who were supporting anti-merger in the run up to the Opinion Poll in 1967 were considered to be breeding anti-national and fifth-columnist tendencies, chiefly by the then Defense Minister, Y. B. Chavan (see Rajan Narayan and Sharon D’Cruz, Triumph of Secularism: Battle of the Opinion Poll in Goa).

Thus, one can see that if we take seriously the claim that Catholics have been marginalized in the Goan public sphere, one can see that in the most recent history Catholics have experienced a series of denials of their legitimate place in the public sphere. Rather than worrying much about the Goan identity, one needs to first come to terms with the history of denials and think of ways to undo them.

(First published in  O Heraldo, dt: 10 June, 2015)

CASE DISMISSED! LAWYERS AND GOAN HISTORY

It appears that the ‘acclamation’ by the Goan masses of Dr. Jack de Sequeira as ‘Father of the Opinion Poll’ has encountered opposition. This opposition comes from a few activists, chief amongst them the lawyer, Uday Bhembre. Bhembre has been furiously issuing statements and giving interviews for the last month or so in order to make his arguments clear on his opposition of this sobriquet.

Bhembre argues that Dr. de Sequeira was but one of the many leaders of the Opinion Poll and as such cannot be solely credited for achievements of the movement that culminated in the victory of the anti-mergerists. Needless to say, Bhembre’s assertion received media attention and also vociferous opposition. In one of these debates, Bhembre’s views were pitted against those of Radharao Gracias (see Herald Review, May 10, 2015), where much of Bhembre’s claims get exposed as shallow and naïve.

In the interview Bhembre boldly makes a foolish claim, “History is history whether one likes it or not”. It appears that he largely relies on the now discredited tenets of the positivist method of doing history. Briefly, within a positivist method and philosophy historical facts are believed to be able to speak for themselves, without the mediating agency of the historian. The critique of positivist history focused on the fallacy that the historian could never be biased for it was assumed that the historian dealt with objective facts. Bhembre’s preference for such frameworks that have been discredited in the discipline of history furthers his agenda in multiple ways.

I argue that Bhembre is attempting to appropriate a position of authority to speak exclusively on the history of the Opinion Poll. He does this in two ways. In the first, he completely tries to delegitimize the Catholics of Goa – especially the bahujan Catholics – who have been rallying around the icon and symbol of Dr. de Sequeira by claiming that such people are “ignorant” of the “real” history. According to Bhembre this results in a “distortion” of the history of the Opinion Poll. Bhembre is careful not to mention the Catholic community, but the target of his vitriol is obvious.

The other device that Bhembre employs is to claim for himself a first-hand witness position. He asserts not only that he has read the available literature on the history of the Opinion Poll, unlike those who acclaim Dr. de Sequeira, but has also witnessed it first-hand. As such, his logic is that he has a better sense of this history. Bhembre dismisses contemporary leaders who acclaim Dr. de Sequeira by suggesting that they were either too young or not born at all, when the Opinion Poll movement was gaining momentum and hence are not located appropriately to understand the history of the Opinion Poll. So as per Bhembre, anyone who was too young or not as yet born during the Opinion Poll has no right to talk about the history of the Opinion Poll, for they are naturally misinformed. This is a bizarre position, for if we are to take him seriously, it would spell the end of history writing entirely.

Bhembre’s position is fallacious because it completely disregards decades of debates that have taken place between historians and practitioners of other social sciences on the nature of history, on facts in historical knowledge, and on the interpretation of facts.  E. H. Carr’s What is History? is a basic text on the nature of history, and is compulsory reading for almost all under-graduate students of history. Carr’s reflection, considered seminal, suggests that facts do not exist as independent entities in history. Facts need interpretation. He argues, “The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which is very hard to eradicate”. In other words, the job of a historian is to continuously cross-check facts and arguments, trying to take into consideration all sorts of evidence and voices. It would be quite misguided on our part to believe that participants in history have the most accurate version of history. They have a valid version of history, but because they were involved in the events do not necessarily have an unbiased opinion. One needs a critical distance, and intellectual honesty, to evaluate one’s own role as a participant and interpreter of history.

That Bhembre’s views did not constitute objective historical facts was itself evident in the manner in which Gracias countered Bhembre’s claims. Gracias quite rightly tries to suggest, that one should factor in the marginalization that the Catholics in Goa have faced in the post-Liberation era within the history of the Opinion Poll. Gracias suggests that it is largely in the realm of the political sphere that this marginalization is the most acute. He very perceptively links the issue of the hegemony of the nagri script to the ongoing controversy and the importance of the legacy of Dr. de Sequeira. Gracias’ contention is that the same cabal of people who opposed, and continue to oppose, the rightful recognition of the Roman script, are also the ones who are trying to undermine the legacy of Dr. de Sequeira. Such a suggestion opens up the interpretation of the history of the Opinion Poll in a different light. One can observe that Gracias is trying to shift the focus by including the marginalization experience of Catholics in Goa, whereas Bhembre’s “historical facts” and the arrogation of the authorial position for himself, tries to deny exactly this possibility. How different would this history appear if we view the Opinion Poll from the perspective of the marginalization of the Catholics in the Goan public sphere?

While it is not certain how and when the sobriquet was bestowed on Dr. de Sequeira, it is very obvious that the symbol and icon of Dr. de Sequeira has grown in importance to the bahujan Catholics of Goa. Whether Dr. de Sequeira was the undisputed leader of the masses, or whether he was the only one responsible for saving the Goan identity are valid questions. However, they cannot be settled solely by activists like Bhembre who are trying to further their class and caste interests. Doing so would only mean that a host of voices in Goan history would not find their rightful place. These questions need to be debated within a dispassionate historiography of the Opinion Poll and not through the help of arbitrarily defined and self-serving ‘historical facts’.

(First published in  O Heraldo, dt: 27 May, 2015)