“I was born in India, cradle of poetry, philosophy and history, today its tomb,” wrote the young Indian. “I belong to that race which wrote the Mahabharata and invented Chess—two conceptions that bear in them the eternal and the infinite.” Yes, his homeland’s weakness had allowed it to be ruled by colonial powers—“India is imprisoned”—but the young visionary believed in its resurgence: “I pray for India, liberty and light.”
Given that these sentences were written in 1861, it would be natural enough to assume that their author was a Bengali Hindu, writing either in Calcutta or in London. In fact, it was a young Goan Catholic in Lisbon who composed these stirring phrases. The Goan, Francisco Luis Gomes, also published a novel in Portuguese, Os Brahmanes (The Brahmins), that can claim to be one of the earliest Indian novels. Many Goans regard Gomes, who died in 1869, as their land’s greatest son—a homegrown version of Vivekananda, Tilak and Gokhale. Not only have most Indians not heard about Gomes, but many would find it jarring to think of a Goan Catholic who wrote in Portuguese as a nationalist. This speaks more about the narrowness of our present conception of Indianness than about the patriotism of 19th century Goans. Under the familiar sights of Goa—which exists in the contemporary Indian imagination only as a landscape of fun—lies an unexpected literary treasure: the neglected works of pioneering Indian thinkers, most of them Catholic, many of them writing in Portuguese. Of these, Gomes is perhaps the most important.
The brutal start of Portuguese rule in Goa in 1510 resulted in two unexpected boons for modern India. Forced to flee their homeland in order to protect their faith, the Saraswat Brahmins spread throughout the Konkan and Malabar, fertilising commerce and culture everywhere they went. (The Saraswat diaspora is described in Kannada writer Gopalakrishna Pai’s historical novel, Swapna Saraswata, which is being translated into English.)
Of course, no career like this was possible for a Goan in Goa. In 1835, a liberal government in Lisbon sent a man named Bernardo Peres da Silva to Panjim—as his portrait in the gallery in old Goa notes, da Silva “was a native of India”. The first Indian to rule colonial Goa, he was also the last. Seventeen days into his reign, the white and mixed-race officers who controlled the Goan army put da Silva on a ship and told him to leave. After that they butchered his supporters. From then until liberation in 1961, although native Catholics rose high in the judiciary and clergy (and some Hindus became fabulously rich), no Goan again ruled Goa.
This was the world into which Gomes was born in 1829, where talented native Catholics, often fluent in Konkani, Portuguese and French, were still doomed to a second-class existence. Gomes, however, wasn’t simply talented: he was a prodigy. By his early twenties, he had passed his medical examination and was serving as an army surgeon; later he went to Bombay to study Sanskrit and the Indian epics; barely 30 years old, he was elected to the Cortes—the Portuguese parliament—from the southern talukas of Goa. (Unlike Britain, Portugal gave its colonies the right of representation.)
The young man’s first day in parliament was a rough one: he heard another member demand that the government rescind the right given to colonial savages to sit in a civilised parliament. The member from Goa, in his maiden speech, counter-attacked. Savages? “In India,” he informed the carnivorous Europeans, “there are no banquets of human flesh; on the contrary, there are sects whose hands are innocent of all blood; who abstain from a diet of meat; who show compassion towards animals.” His parliamentary eloquence won him admirers in Lisbon; Gomes met John Stuart Mill and corresponded with French novelist Alphonse de Lamartine, wrote a treatise (in French) on economic theory, and in 1866 completed a novel in Portuguese—Os Brahmanes. Set in Fyzapur, a town in Avadh, on the event of the 1857 upheaval, its main characters are Magnod, a Brahmin domestic servant, and his Irish master, Robert Davis. Though the civilisation from which Magnod comes is ancient and rich—the novel explains the Mahabharata and the Hitopadesha in some detail for its European readers—he is a decadent example of it, obsessed with caste purity: “Blinded by fanaticism, he denied to the Pariah and the Sudra the sympathy which he held out to irrational creatures.” His white master is another kind of Brahmin—one obsessed with skin colour: “Robert seldom spoke to him in English, and very often taunted him with the epithet for gentleman of colour.” The clash between these two fanatics is inevitable, and the revolt erupts as the novel ends. Gomes urges his European readers, familiar with horror stories like the Black Hole of Calcutta of 1756, to take a balanced view of 1857: “Impartial men, who care for liberty and not for races, desire India for India and detest all despots, be they called Nawabs or Clives.”
Shri Saptakoteshwar temple in Goa—a blend of Indian and Portuguese flavours. (Photograph by Atul Loke/Outlook Archive)
Gomes’s gifts inclined to the essay and oration. Parts of the novel read like Orientalist escapism, as Magnod turns into a thuggee, and Robert’s relatives become embroiled in a romantic subplot. It is when he digresses from the narrative to editorialise on India—and the world—that Gomes dazzles. “It is said that the law of Christ governs European civilisation,” he writes. “It is a lie—Europe tramples upon Asia and America, and all trample upon poor Africa—the Black races of Africa are the pariahs of the Brahmans of Europe and America.” What is the way out of darkness, then? Vivekananda saw education and the renaissance of Hinduism as the answer. Gomes, who believed Hinduism was spent, pointed to education and Christianity.
His liberal and nationalist temperament lived on in Goan intellectuals like the poet Armando Menezes, who translated Gomes’s Portuguese works into English, and later, while at Dharwad University, also translated medieval Kannada vacana poetry. Whether it was writers like Dom Moraes, or painters like Antonio Xavier Trindade and Angelo de Fonseca, or the musicians who worked in Bombay’s film industry, Goans have always been expanding our sense of what an Indian can look like, dress like, sound like—and be. Less well known, as the Margao-based journalist Valmiki Faleiro points out, is that tiny Goa may have contributed, proportionately, more officers to the Indian armed services from 1947 to 1980 than any other region. Most of these men were Catholic.
Konkani, now Goa’s official language, was one of Gomes’s mother tongues. But was so was Portuguese. Can the language of the Inquisition—the language of the men who persecuted Goa’s Hindus and Muslims in the 16th century—be called an Indian language? The issue has cropped up in recent years as Catholics, aware that their presence in Goa is diminishing (they now make up only a quarter of the population), seek to protect their heritage. A few years ago, a festival of Lusitanian-Indian culture was mocked by Hindu nationalists as a glorification of colonial rule. To Goan Catholics, this is a bitter irony: their patriotism is being questioned by Indians who speak English, follow every ball of the Ashes and spend their nights reading the Guardian blog. In the early 1980s, a grand statue of Camoes, author of the Portuguese epic poem The Lusiads, was removed from the square in old Goa, and consigned to a dingy museum. The Lusiads does celebrate Portugal’s imperial expansion—but it also shaped the language in which Gomes and his peers would assert India’s right to self-respect. By dispatching the statue of Camoes from our sight, we are also choosing to ignore one of the most brilliant pieces in the mosaic of the modern Indian identity.
(Aravind Adiga is the Booker Prize-winning author of The White Tiger)
Aravind Adiga’s article on Goa’s illustrious son, Francisco Luis Gomes, was an excellent read (The Lusitanian in Hind, Sep 2). Hardly anyone can have an issue with calling Gomes an Indian patriot, even though Adiga’s tone makes it clear that he’d love it if an Indian ‘nationalist’ contradicts him. But then I assume there simply isn’t evidence conflicting with what Adiga has presented us—I confess I hadn’t heard of Gomes till now! Even so, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Adiga’s account is a bit selective. As it turns out, Gomes actively helped convert Hindus through bribes and other, more ‘persuasive’ means. But Adiga’s facile argument elsewhere doesn’t hold much water. No Indian nationalist worth his salt will celebrate English-Indian culture, comparable to what Adiga cites—Goans celebrating a festival that upholds Lusitanian-Indian culture. He may follow the Ashes, but Adiga very likely doesn’t read the Guardian blog, knowing their bias. Adiga’s too-clever-by-half argument is sneaky and tries to establish a comparison where there isn’t any!
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Arvind Adigas account of Francisco Luis Gomes is quite revealing.
Goan Catholics have contributed significantly in multifarious fields in independent India.
Hardly anyone will have issue with calling Francisco Luis Gnomes an Indian patriot even though the tone of the Adiga's writing makes it quite clear that it would warm the cockles of his heart no end if at least one Indian nationalist would take issue with that. Here I must insert a caviat that I'm assuming there's no conflicting evidence than what Adiga has presented to us - I confess I had not heard of Gnomes until now. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turned out that Adiga's little history lesson involved a little selectiveness. For example if it turned out that Gnomes was actively involved in helping catholics in converting Hindus through artifice and bribes. Anyway, all that is minor compared with what Adiga ends with. That's the real meat of the article and I quote:
"A few years ago, a festival of Lusitanian-Indian culture was mocked by Hindu nationalists as a glorification of colonial rule. To Goan Catholics, this is a bitter irony: their patriotism is being questioned by Indians who speak English, follow every ball of the Ashes and spend their nights reading the Guardian blog. In the early 1980s, a grand statue of Camoes, author of the Portuguese epic poem The Lusiads, was removed from the square in old Goa, and consigned to a dingy museum. The Lusiads does celebrate Portugal’s imperial expansion—but it also shaped the language in which Gomes and his peers would assert India’s right to self-respect. By dispatching the statue of Camoes from our sight, we are also choosing to ignore one of the most brilliant pieces in the mosaic of the modern Indian identity."
For the first part, I will merely note that no Indian nationalist worth his salt will celebrate something called English-Indian culture as some Goans purpotedly celebrated. He may follow the ashes but he's very unlikely to read the Guardian blog having by now clearly understood the Guardian's biases. Adiga too-clever-by-half argument is sneaky and tries to pass off as equivalent things that clearly are not.
The second part is patent garbage. Apparently Indians must celebrate Camoes, an ardent colonialist, because he added to a language that a few Indians wrote in. Then we must also celebrate, say, Churchill, another diehard colonialist who was happy to keep Indians in slavery (and many other colonialists besides) because he wrote books in English that other Indians write in.
No, no, what Adiga is doing here is singing for his supper, past and future (hint! hint!). It's pay back time for his putative benefactors and award givers. Makes the flesh crawl.
As always, good to read polished and well-informed prose from a good writer. Except that he almost ruins it all with an astonishngly sweeping and naive generalization at the end when he says: "To Goan Catholics, this is a bitter irony: their patriotism is being questioned by Indians who speak English, follow every ball of the Ashes and spend their nights reading the Guardian blog." That's just absurdo, Mr Adiga!
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT