COMMUNAL GOENKARS? A RESPONSE TO VIKAS KAMAT

The following is a response by Vikas Kamat to my op-ed in O Heraldo, “Intolerance and the Minorotized Groups”, dt: 11 November, 2015:

All Goemkars Not Communal

By Vikas Kamat (12 Nov, 2015)

I read Dale Menezes’ article, “Intolerance and the minoritized groups”, in the Herald, dt. 11 Nov. 2015. I however, have to make a few observations regarding his opinion: As regards the Konkani language and the script issue, the Sahitya Akademi as well as the Government recognizes Konkani in Devanagari script as the official language of Goa. It would not have been possible for the Roman script to be accepted by the Sahitya Akademi and perhaps, Konkani would then never become its official language.

However, I agree that the Catholics in Goa find great difficulty studying in Devenagari. But today, we see many Konkani youth and author-poets who are Catholics, but find no difficulty with Devenagari script. Similarly, the Government of Goa has helped Roman Konkani by establishing the Dalgado Konkani Akademi (DKA).

However, except a few exceptions, the majority Hindus of Goa use Marathi for “official and formal” occasions since decades – right from their early morning newspaper to their wedding invitations.

Menezes has pointed out towards the representation of Goan Muslims in politics. I have also observed that the Goan Muslims have been underrepresented in politics, perhaps due to their miniscule population. One famous Muslim in Goan politics was Sheikh Hassan Haroon, some decades ago. But here, a difference has to be marked between Goan ‘niz Goemkar’ Muslims and non-Goan Muslims. Goa today has many Muslims, but a large chunk of them are the migrants from states like Karnataka – referred to as “ghaati” by Goans. But they meet the labour demands in Goa. These Muslims mostly hail from the Bijapur, Gadag and such parts of Karnataka.

In the recent Municipal polls, one gentleman called Qutubuddin has been elected by the voters.

He is a Muslim and is the people’s choice too, but he is not a Goan Muslim per se. Goans generally do not vote on religion lines. Right from the first Goa, Daman and Diu Legislative Assembly, this can be seen. Anthony D’Souza was elected in the first Assembly from a Hindu majority constituency in North Goa. Even today, Hindu voters vote for Christian candidates and vice versa. Based on a few isolated comments, Menezes should not paint the all Goemkar lot as communal.

MY RESPONSE:

I would like to thank Vikas Kamat for writing such a prompt response (12 November, 2015) to my op-ed, and also for agreeing on many points and arguments I made.

Apologies for being blunt, but it is ridiculous to say “[i]t would not have been possible for the Roman script to be accepted by the Sahitya Akademi and perhaps, Konkani would then never become its [Goa’s] official language”, without a touch of irony. What Kamat is trying to tell us, in essence, is that the Roman script and the people who use it are not legitimate carriers of Goan identity. Thus, a large section of Goans are excluded from Goan cultural life. The fact that the Goa government belatedly started giving out grants to Dalgado Konknni Akademi, does not take anything away from the fact that many Goans for a long time have been at the receiving end of “intolerance”.

Further, it is also important to call out the blatant display of xenophobia and islamophobia in relation to my argument about adequate representation for Muslims in Goa. I think, to make a distinction between Goan and non-Goan Muslims in response to claims for Muslim representation is another way to deny Muslims in Goa adequate representation, as on the ground Muslims are almost invisible-ized in politics. Although it is an oft-repeated anecdote in Goa that the Saraswat brahmins had migrated to Goa (is it a fact or fiction, is a story for another day), yet it is unthinkable today to think of the Saraswats as anything but Goan. One needs to ask why this distinction is made generally in the case of Muslims.

To end, it is not at all my aim to paint the whole of Goan lot as “communal”. In my mind, I am quite clear that those in Goa – be it the migrants, settlers, or natives – who have been at the receiving end of discrimination and intolerance can ever be “communal”. Fact is they can’t be. My only fault in this was to assume that this fact was obvious to all Goans.

THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND GOA’S TRAGEDY

With the Forum for Rights of Children to Education (FORCE) commencing an indefinite hunger strike to make governmental aid to English medium schools as part of a law, the often ugly linguistic politics in Goa looks poised for another round of jousting. Things seem to have settled down a bit with FORCE receiving written assurance from some MLAs that the matter will be resolved in the next assembly session. But as assurances and promises go from those in power, there is no reason to celebrate right now. Nothing is clearly stated whether the Bill on the Medium of Instruction (MoI) would be passed and made into a law. The opposition to the demands of FORCE came from activists clustered together under the Bharati Bhasha Suraksha Manch (BBSM).

The different constituents in Goan polity should see to it that the rightful demands of FORCE are taken to their logical conclusion. While we agree to the legitimacy of the demands by FORCE, and the right of parents to decide the future of their children, it is also important to consider the politics of language in Goa in a holistic manner. To be clear right from the beginning, language politics in Goa is not just centered around the opposition of Konkani and Marathi. It is much more complex as contestations of scripts, such as the Romi-Nagri issue, are as important as contestations regarding languages in deciding the political fates of the people of Goa. Thus, much of the rhetoric of BBSM-type of activists misguide the people owing to the ignorance of such complexities.

Primarily, there are three agitating groups that form part of the dominant linguistic politics of Goa: the Marathi language supporters, the Romi Konkani supporters, and the Nagri Konkani supporters. The boundaries of these groups are not necessarily fixed, as is seen in Marathi language and Nagri Konkani script supporters teaming up to form the umbrella organization of BBSM. Almost all of the Nagri Konkani activists have been vociferously against the implementation of English as MoI in government-aided primary schools. This is not surprising given the hegemonic hold of Nagri Konkani activists in politics as well as the many governmental institutions and bodies that make and direct the language and pedagogic policies in Goa. Furthermore, these governmental bodies jealously guard literary and cultural awards, as was seen when Nagri script supporters opposed the move by Kala Academy to restart literary awards for Romi Konkani writings. While the Nagri Konkani supporters would never give-in to the demands of equal recognition to the Romi script, they would occasionally ally with some Marathi language activists in order to check the mobilization of Romi script activists.

The MoI controversy and the demand for English in primary schools did put the activists of the Romi script in a somewhat uncomfortable situation. This was so because while on the one hand Romi script supporters were standing firm behind the demand for equality, on the other hand they had to be careful to avoid being accused of abandoning the cause of Konkani, and the Goan identity constructed around the Konkani language. The Roman script activists had also to make sure that the constituency of Romi script supporters does not see them as aligning in any way with Marathi language activists as well. Within the language politics, Romi script supporters are shown the bogeyman of Marathi taking over Goa, in the sense that it is made out to be a problem that will affect Catholics thus playing the Catholic against the Hindu bahujan. And hence the Romi supporters are sold to the idea that Nagri Konkani is necessary to check the ‘threat’ of Marathi. The Romi script activists did, however, skirt the contentious issue of MoI by giving a choice between Nagri and Roman scripted Konkani to the parents.

The Romi script activists failed to recognize that for the Romi Konkani supporters English is as important as Romi Konkani in their lives. This bi-lingual requirement was not adequately represented by the Romi Konkani activists, thus missing a golden chance to democratize and expand the scope of language politics for the betterment of all Goans.

I however argue that the Marathi activists also face a similar situation like the Romi Konkani activists, as far as betrayal of their respective language causes is concerned. The Marathi activists could also be seen as compromising with English, and thus ‘betraying’ Marathi. This is quite unfortunate, as Marathi language politics in Goa was not started to further the literary cause of Marathi, but to counter upper-caste, in particular Saraswat, hegemony in Goa. Supporting the cause of English would have also allowed Marathi language activists, especially the bahujan, to challenge oppressive social structures. The Marathi language activists also do not recognize that the Hindu bahujan have aspirations tied to the English language. Another problem that can be seen is the compromise and alliance that a section of Marathi language activists have forged with Hindutva ideologues and/or upper caste ideals.

The alliance between Marathi Rajbhasha Andolan (MRA) and Romi Konkani Andolan (RKA) some years back was arguably a bold move. But it was short-lived. Although these two groups aimed (quite commendably) at creating a unity of Hindu bahujan and Catholics, very little was done to actually forge these bonds on the ground level and assuage the mistrust present in the communities about each other. On a legal and systemic level, MRA had no proper vision of protecting Catholic interests as far as jobs are concerned since the Hindus who know Marathi (and Nagri Konkani) would automatically be more qualified against Catholics who only know Romi Konkani.

Which brings me to what activists in FORCE are trying to do: to my mind it is a rejection of the decades-old and quite often ugly politics in the name of ‘mother tongue’, ‘Konkani’, ‘Goan identity’ etc. What FORCE is doing, by standing up for the right to English as MoI, is democratizing language politics by rejecting the hold of a few class and caste patriarchs. FORCE is rejecting an oppressive model of mono-lingual practices imposed by largely upper-caste activists. In this there is a recognition that as Goans we need at least two languages in our lives. To not publicly accept this will be hypocrisy. To not change quickly will be Goa’s tragedy.

See also other articles on the issue of MoI: on the Supreme Court terming the imposition of 'mother tongue' as MoI as unconstitutional, see here; for an open letter to the Goan government's advisory committee on MoI, see here.

(First published in  O Heraldo, dt: 5 August, 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)

DORZO NA?: DILIP BORKAR KHOIM ANI KITEAK CHUKTA

Borovpi

Dale Luis Menezes, Albertina Almeida, Jason Keith Fernandes, Amita Kanekar, ani R. Benedito Ferrão

Survat

Kaim mhoine fattim Kala Academy-n Romi pustokank porot puroskar divpacho nirnnoy ghetlolean, ani Romi Konknni Rajbhas Andolon ani Moratthi Rajbhasa Andolan eke machier ekttaim zalolea karonnank lagun, Gõychea Nagri lipieyechea pattlavdarank borech tras zaunk lagleat, oxem amkam disun yeta. Nagrichea muttintlean Konknni bhaxechem rajkaronn ani kobzo atam sutton vochunk lagla, hem-i ami polleun ghetlam. Ho lekh ami kherit bhaxen Dilip Borkarachea “Aplech Bhaxecho Fondd Khonnnttat!” (Gulab, Janer 2013) hacher bhasabhas korunk boroitat.

            Dilip Borkar Nagri lipient aplem choddant-chodd borovp korpi veokti. Kala Academy-chea 2013 vorsachea Tiatr spordhent tiatrachea borpavollink vo scripts-ank inama diupachea vavrant, Dilip Borkarak porikxok mhonn vichun kaddlolo. Dilip Borkaran hi sond gheun, Romi lipientlea borpavollicher aple kaim vichar manddunk tharailem. Thoddkeant sangchem mhollear Dilip Borkar hi tiatranchi borpavoll vachun niraxi zata ani apnnem kiteak mhunnon “hi vikti pidda angar oddun ghetli kai,” oso prosn korta.

            Jem Dilip Borkar aplea lekhant amkam sangunk sodta tantunt kaim novem na. Je mud’de to hattallta, te tis-challis vorsam fattim Nagrivadi porgott kortale hem ami somzun gheunk zai. Tedna zo tancho hetu aslo to aiz meren puray zalolo na. Fuddarak kednanch zavcho-i na. Dekun Dilip Borkar jem kitem boroita tem kiteak boroita ani tache fattlean tacho hetu kitem, hem ami bariksannen zanna zaunk zai.

Romi Munis ani Loz

Dilip Borkaracho poilo mud’do mhollear Romi borpavollicho dorzo vo ‘standard’. Nagri fuddareanchea mota pormonnem, Romi borpavollik dorzo na. Ho argument Nagrivadi fattlim tis-challis vorsam savn korit aileat. Romi lipi Purtugez vosnnukponnantlean (zaka Dilip Borkar ‘itihasik karonnam’ mhonnon ul’lekh korta) Gõyant bhitor sorli mhunn ti Gõychi ani Bharotachi nizachi lipi nhoi, oxem Nagrivadi fuddari aiz pasun mandtat. Punn Romi lipi Gõychea xirontoramnim khellta ani dekun hi lipi porkhi mhonn dakhoun divpak Nagrivadi fuddareank Romi lipik ani ti uzar kortolea lokank ‘dorzo na’ oxem sangchem poddta. Tantuntlean Romi monis lojek poddta, tankam aplech bhaxechi loz dista. Dekun Dilip Borkar jednam “...mhoje lagim jim hatborpam asat tim vachpa sarkim nant,” mhonn sobhemazar sangta, tednam to Romi mon’xeak ani kheritponnim tachea Gulab-achea vachpeak lojek ghalta.

            Romi-Nagricho vad bhaxecho ani dhormacho nhoi, ho vad kheritponnim zaticho zaun asa. Hem sot ami kednanch visrunk favo na. Oxem aslolea karonnak lagun, jedna Romi mon’xeak sangtat ki tachea borovpak ‘dorzo na’ mhonn ani to apli man lojen khala  ghalta, tedna ti loz zativadak lagun zata (caste-based humiliation). Nagri fuddari bamonnvadachim adorxam gheun fuddem choltat ani zori tor konnui hea adorxank ani totvank man’ diunk fattim sorta zalear taka Gõychem hok’kachem nagrikponn (citizenship rights) mellona. Dekunuch, Nagrivadi fuddareanchea mota pormonnem, Romi lipi Konknnichi ani Gõychi nizachi lipi nhoi oxem zata. Romi lipik aplem hok’kachem sthan mellonk addkholl yeta. Hakach lagun eka Romi mon’xean aple nizache hok’k magunk zainant. Dekunuch Dilip Borkar oxem mhonnta: “Ani prosn poddlo, he Romivale Romi lipi magtat te hiech Romi lipik kai? He Puroskar ani Inamam magtat te heach Romi sahityak kai? Toxem tor asot zalear he vhodd chuk kortat.”

            Dilip Borkaracho lekh vachlea uprant ami somzun gheunk zai, ki Nagrichim voklam lavun to Romi lipientle sonvskrutik pikavollicher aple vichar manddta mhunnon. Zoxem Bardezant vochun Kankonncho ganv sodop chukichem, toxench Nagrichea mapant ami Romichi udorgot mezop, hem-ui titlench chukichem. Romi ani Nagri veglli vortouta. Dilip Borkarachem oxir mon hatunt disun yeta.

Romi ani Moratthicho Ekchar

Kaim mhoine fattim jednam Pri. Pratap Naik-an Moratthivadeancho tenko gheunk pavl marlem tednam her Romivadi ani Nagrivadi thottakle. Ho ekvott chodd korun Nagri lipik ani fuddareank tras korpi zaun asa. Dilip Borkar jedna Romi ani Moratthichem sthan Rajbhas kaideant kitlem ani koxem aschem hacher bhasabhas korta, tedna to Nagrivadi fuddareanchi ek vhodd bhirant veokt korta. Tor bhaxechea rajkaronnachi poristhiti oxi asa: Nagri lipicho xek fattlea 25 vorsam savn cholot aila dekun Hindu bahujan ani Kristanv lok eka-mekacho adar gheunk xokonasle. Kristanv lokank Moratthichi bhirant dakhoun tankam Nagri lipiechea tabeant dovortale. Dekun Nagrivada add virud’dh korunk borench kottin zatalem.

            Hindu bahujan somaz zor tor Moratthi vatten asa, tachem karonn mhollear te adinch savn zanna asle ki Nagri Konknni mhollear tancher bamonnvadachem vojem zavn asa mhonn. Hatunt Hindu bahujan chidd’ddun vetole mhonn tankam bhes borem khobor aslem. Dilip Borkarak Kristanv ani Hindu bahujan somaz Nagrichea muttint urlolo zai, ani hakach lagun to mhonnta, “Hea lokam fattlean aiz Moratthi, Moratthi korpi lok nant. Tankam sot kollun ailam dekun Moratthi rajbhas korun Gõycho faido nam ani ti zali nam zalear Moratthichem luksann nam mhonnpachem uktem zalam. Ten’nam hem mel’lem moddem ustun kaddunk konnak xanneponn disonam. Tech pasot he konn je Moratthi rajbhas zai mhonnot xempddi boddoitat tankam aplem hem pixeponn mukhar vhorunk dusrea pixeancho adhar zai.”

            Dilip Borkar Moratthik ani Romi Konknnik ‘maim-bhas’ vo ‘avoy-bhas’ hea nodrentlean polleta. Oxem kelear Dilip Borkara vangddach ami-i chuktanv karonn, amchea jivitant amkam don vo tin bhasancho upeog korcho poddta. ‘Avoy/Maim-bhas’ mhollear amkam fokot ekuch bhaxechi puja korunk poddta. Atanchea sonvsarant hem xokeo na. Tor, Gõycho Hindu bahujan somaz Moratthichi magnni zori Konknni bhaxent korta zalear hatunt hanspa sarkhem kainch na. Hindu bahujan somaz zorui ghorant ani ganvant Konknni uloita, tor dhormik ani sonvskrutik karyavollimni Moratthicho upeog korta. Serkari nokreo melloun ghevpant tankam Moratthi bhas upkarta. Hindu bahujan somaz zor tor Moratthi uzar korta zalear taka veglloch orth asa, ani ho orth ‘Avoy/Maim-bhas’ gheun somzunk proyotn kelo zalear ami nirfoll zatoleanv.

            Toxench, Dilip Borkar mhonnta Hindu lok Moratthichea nanvan “dhondo” kortat, zalear Romivaleancho “[d]hondo cholta Inglezichea naddear.” Romi ani Moratthichi hok’kachi magnni durust korunk Dilip Borkar porot ‘loz’ hea hatiaracho vapor korta. Kristanv lok Inglez disallim chodd vachta hache voilean Dilip Borkarak “Romi Konknnink kitlo tenko asa ani tichi lokak kitli goroz asa tem gomun yeta.” Atam hanga loz koxe toren Dilip Borkar rigoita? To mhonnta, “Romichea nanvan arodd marpi sogle aplea bhurgeank Inglez xikoitat, tanche lagim Inglez katortat ani aplea ghorant sokall fuddem Inglez disallim haddtat. Vachunk konnak yeta ho prosn mhotvacho nhoi. Inglez bhas mon’xak status dita.”

Nagri lipichem ekuch disallem Sunaparant, khoinchea-i Romi vo Moratthi masik-disallea pasun komi khopta. Sunaparant fokot muttbhor lok vachta, zalear Nagrik Gõykarancho kitlo tenko asa oxem ami somzun gheupachem? Aplea bhurgeank kosli bhas vo bhaso xikouncheo ani tanche lagim kosle bhaxent ulounchem tem lok apleak zai te bhaxen korta. Ani ho lokancho odhikar zaun asa. Aiz Konknni zalear faleam Inglez ani porvam Purtugez, hatunt vaitt kainch na. Karonn, khoinchi bhas kednam ulouchi/borounchi ho soimik nhoi punn somajik poryai (choice) zaun asa. Konnak tor vachunk yena zalear to munis koslem-i khobram-potr viktem gheuncho na, vachunk yeta mhunnonuch to tem potr viktem gheta. Romi lipiechi magnni kelear her lipio ani bhaso ulounk, borounk, ani xikunk koslich addkholl nasta ani ami oslea ‘multi-lingual practices’-ank protsahon diunk chintpachi goroz asa. Nagrichea nanvan “arodd” marpi zaite fuddari tanchea natrank ani burgeank Inglezintlean xikoitat ani uloitat. Zaitea Gõychea lokank Inglez pottachi bhas zaun asa. Bhas hi pottak lagun upkarta hem Dilip Borkar kaim zageamni manun gheta, punn hea sotachem mhotv to somzun ghena. Anink ek gorjechi khobor mhollear, jedna lok aple bhaxek serkari manyotai magtat tednam tem fokot sonvskrutik nodrentlean vo avoy/maim-bhas tigoun dovrunk itleach karonnak lagon nhoi. Serkari sirvis, zomin hea oslea moladik vostuncho faido gheunk ap-apli bhas serkaran manun ghetli zalear khub sovlotio mellunk xoktat. Hantuntlean, rajki mollar boll ani zutt’tti (power) ek somuday zoddunk xokta, hem-ui ami visrunk favo na. Heo osleo gozali Dilip Borkar amkam sangona.

            Romi pattlavdaranchem mukhel magnnem asa tem mhollear, Romi lipiek Rajbhas Kaideant manachem sthan melloun divpachem. Tor hakach lagun Romi lipiek jedna Gõycho lok hok’k magta tedna Dilip Borkarachea mota pormonnem tem “pixeponn” ani osle lok pixe thartat. Romi lipiek Rajbhas Kaideant sthan divchem nhoi karonn “Gõyant Romi Konknni mhonn kherit bhas” na, oxem Dilip Borkarak dista. Hea dhoronnacher Dilip Borkar bariksannen vichar ani obheas korina. Romi Konknni fokot bhas-xastrachea (linguistics) nodrentleanuch nhoi, punn somajik, sonvskrutik, ani rajki nodrentlean veglli zaun asa. Khoreponnim ‘Konknni’ hi bhas Romi lipientleanuch upzolea, jivi urlea, ani aiz meren ful’lea. Mud’deachi dusri bazu mhollear, Nagri lipientli Konknni hi addechi rochna (artificial invention), Bomaim xarant 19vea xekddeant rochloli ani ji atam somest Gõykaranchea gollent ghalunk proyotn kortat.

            Rajki jivitant don vo tin veg-veglle gott (groups), eke machier ekttaim yevop, hi atanchea kallachi novidade nhoi. Medium of Instruction vadachea vellar Nagri borovpeamni Moratthivadeancho sohokar ghetlolo. Moratthivadi ani Nagrivadi ekech machier dislole. Tor aiz zori ami Romivadeank ani Moratthivadeank ekech machier polletanv zalear amkam koslench ojeap disonk favo na. Voilean ami choturponnan ani huxearkayen hea ekvottacho upeog korunk zai. Amkam Romi Konknni Rajbhas Andolon ani Moratthi Rajbhasa Andolan hea ekvottant soglem sarkem asa, oxem mhonnonk naka.  Moratthi zomeamni zaito zativad asa. Hindu bahujan ani unch-zaticho Hindu hea fuddem ek machier ekttaim yeunk xokta. Torui astanam hea  ‘alliance’-acho faido Romi lokanim koso gheunk zata, Nagricho xek ani hukumxay koxe toren foddun uddounk zata, tem chintunk vachpeank ami suchoitanv.

Ek Lipi, Ek Bhas, Ek Somaz?

Romi borovpeank ani Romi mon’xeank tanchea borpavollichea dorjeachea nanvan lojek ghalunk Dilip Borkaracho sogleant mukhel hetu asa to Rajbhas Kaideant kosloch bodol na zavpant. Dekun to aplea lekhant oxem-i manun gheta: “Tori legit Romi lipintlean zannim Konknni tigoun dovorli tea lokancho ankddo khub vhoddlo asa. Tancheach naddear ami Konknnichim khub xim zoitam hatall’lim.” Punn Dilip Borkar itlench mhunnon ogi ravona ani fuddem mhonnta, “Punn tancho tenko Konknni bhaxek aslo. Nagri vo Romi lipik naslo.”

            Hea Rajbhas Kaideant tor bodol zalo na zalear Nagrivadachem ‘Ek Lipi, Ek Bhas, Ek Somaz’ hea chintpak boll mellta. Hem chintop Konknnicho ani Gõycho ekvott haddunk sodta. Zalear oslea chintpant vaitt kitem asa? Ami hea oslea chintpa pasun pois ravunk zai karonn hea chintpant fokot ekech toreche bhaxek, bolik, ani lipiek suvat asa. Hea chintpant vividhtayek kosloch zago na. Fuddem, jedna ‘ek bhas...ek somaz’ oxem konnui udgarta, zalear tacho orth, zanna zaun vo nennarponnan, sogleanim Hindu dhormachea ani sonvskrutichea khala yeunchem oso zata. Amkam hanga Dilip Borkar sogle Kristanv Hindu zanvche oxem mhonnta mhonn ami sangunk sodinant. Punn jedna to “...ek bhas mukhar vhortolo zalear soglleant adim bhaxecher kherit bhor divpachi goroz asa, lipicher nhoi. Punn amchem chol’lam tem rajkaronn bhaxechea nanvan ani lipichea nanvan. Haka lagun amchi Konknni bhas marun uddoitole ani amche modem Gõykar mhunn zo ekchar aslo taka ver vochun dhormik futt poddpachi bhirant upraslia,” oxem mhonnta tedna to Hindu sonvskrutichea khal ekttaim yevop, hea totvak, eke bhaxen, bollixtt korta.

            Ek Lipi, Ek Bhas...ani Ek Dhorm, hea totvak zori ami dhorun vetanv zalear, Romichea boreponna vixim amchem kitlem-i mon borem asum, tem kednanch lipivad kobar korunk pavchena. Dilip Borkarak dista ki Romi borovpeank tanchea odhikaram pasun pois konnech dovorche nhoi mhunn. Torui astanam matxe fuddem to him utram boroita: “Punn zô meren Gõyant Moratthi [ani] Romi asat tankam...favo tio gozali diunk zai, soddun rajbhaxecho patt.” Romi borovpeank ani lokank tanche odhikar diupant zori Dilip Borkarak kainch oddchonn na zalear Rajbhas Kaido bodolchoch poddtolo, karann Romi pattlavdarank poilem mukhelponnan zai tem mhollear Romi lipiek Rajbhas Kaideant manachi suvat. Romi lipiek man zai, dan naka. Rajbhas Kaideant Romi lipiecho aspav ani borpavollik inamam him Romi borovpeanche ani lokanche hok’k, je Nagrivadi aplea tabeant korun asat. Dekun Dilip Borkar oxem mhunnonk xokta: “Tech pasot mhaka fokot Romintlean borovpiank kherit puroskar divop man’ya nam. Zaka jie lipint boroin dista tannem tie lipint boroum di. Ti lipi Nagri asum, Romi asum, Molyallom vo Kon’nodd asum. Punn puroskaracho vichear Konknni mhunn zauncho. Tantuntlea puroskarak man astolo.” Oxem asa zalear, fattlea 25 odik vorsam Nagri borovpeanim, Romi kuxik dovrun, apleach bhitor puroskar vo awards vanttun khale taka ami kitem mhonnpachem? Taka koslo man asa? Dilip Borkaran hacher vichar korcho.

Xevott

Dilip Borkarachea hea lekhant khupuch guspagonddoll asa. Ho lekh tannem Konknnichea hitak lagon boroilolo na, punn bamonnvadachim totvam Romi ani Konknni mogianchea golleant ghalunk boroila. Romi lipient ani bhov korun tiatrank ani tiatristank lagon Konknni jivi urlea. Konknni bhaxecho pormoll kantarantlean sonvsarantlea chearui vattamnim posorla. Haka lagon Dilip Borkar jedna tiatr boroitoleanchim fokannam korta, tanchea borpavollik unnak lekta tedna to fokot tea borovpeanchinch fokannam korina punn somest Romi vapuddtolea lokank to hansta. Romi mon’xean ek ghott motint dhorchem: tankam Nagri lipientlea addechea sahityachi goroz na, nam mhunn tankam Nagri fuddareanchi koslich goroz asa. Romi lipiek ani Romi uzar kortolea mon’xean Gõychea sonvskrutik mollar aplem kherit sthan toyar korunk zai. Romi bhaxecho zago ani chaltea jivitant koslo upeog ascho hacher gombhirtayen niyall korunk zai. Nagri lipiechea khal ekvott zoddunk gele zalear Romi lipiechem ani Romi mon’xeachem khaxeleponn noxtt zatolem. Hem sot ami visrunk favo na.

(Ho lekh uzvaddak aila, Gulab, Febrer 2014, panam 3, 4, ani 53)