Common sense and Hindu nationalism – Why the Catholics in Goa are not Hindu: Albertina Almeida & Others

This Guest Post by ALBERTINA ALMEIDA, AMITA KANEKAR, DALE LUIS MENEZES, JASON KEITH FERNANDES AND R. BENEDITO FERRÃO is a response to a statement by Chief Minister of Goa, Manohar Parrikar.

Can a Goan Catholic be Hindu? Can Catholics professing a tradition of Catholicism that is over five centuries old be considered Hindu in culture? This is what the Chief Minister of Goa, Manohar Parrikar, sought to suggest in a recent interview with Sambuddha Mitra Mustafi of the New York Times India blog India Ink, where he said:

I am a perfect Hindu, but that is my personal faith, it has nothing to do with government. India is a Hindu nation in the cultural sense. A Catholic in Goa is also Hindu culturally, because his practices don’t match with Catholics in Brazil [a former Portuguese outpost like Goa]; except in the religious aspect, a Goan Catholic’s way of thinking and practice matches a Hindu’s. So Hindu for me is not a religious term, it is cultural. I am not the Hindu nationalist as understood by some TV media – not one who will take out a sword and kill a Muslim. According to me that is not Hindu behavior at all. Hindus don’t attack anyone, they only do so for self-defense – that is our history. But in the right sense of the term, I am a Hindu nationalist.

Parrikar’s bizarre statement was in response to the question of whether he saw himself as a Hindu nationalist. Of course, a quick and easy response to his statement would be to summarily dismiss it as expected rhetoric flowing from his saffron affiliations; yet, questions persist, not least because of the peculiar and oft-misrepresented Goan scenario.

More than meets the eye
Goan Catholics today find themselves in a strange situation. On the one hand they are summoned to maintain a distinct Goan identity which rests in large part on the Portuguese past of the territory. This distinct identity is called upon not merely by an officially approved tourism policy and practice, but also by local elites who use the claim of a distinct identity to cyclically generate local mass movements that help them maintain their dominance. On the other hand, as Victor Ferrão argues in his recent book Being a Goan Christian: The Politics of Identity, Rift and Synthesis (2011), there is a simultaneous suggestion that this Catholic ‘cultural’ element is not compatible with a Goan and Indian identity; this is precisely what Parrikar is proposing here. What he further does is to paint the community as a monolithic entity, despite a situation where large segments of the Catholics are being delegitimized by dominant-caste members of their own faith who participate in a Hindu nationalist reading of Goan history.  Parrikar’s statement also distorts history through a saffron lens, contributing to the further marginalization of not only Goan Catholics, but also Goan Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis.

Finally, when Parrikar says that his Hindu faith has nothing to do with governance, he is cleverly skirting the intimate connection that religion and caste ideologies, including the right-wing one he professes, have with state apparatuses in post-1947 India. In the political mobilizations of the dominant as well as the subaltern sections in India, religion has emerged as a potent and important factor. Our contention, not necessarily a new one, is this: that religion in post-1947 India is not a personal affair; it is deeply public and profoundly political, and has now become even more overtly so with the rise of the BJP.

Goa’s encounter with Christianity
This background of political machinations and mobilizations makes it even more necessary to unpack Parrikar’s statement against the actual historical context in which Goa and Goans encountered Christianity.
As has been pointed out by the historian R. E. Frykenberg in his book Christianity in India: From the Beginning to the Present (2008), despite appearances to the contrary, the transmission of Christianity from the proselytizer to the converted always involved shifts in practice. These shifts resulted in new and unique forms of Catholicism or Christianity as the converted took in the message of the faith and made it their own. Thus, when Parrikar views a Goan Catholic as different from “Catholics in Brazil”, he is right only to the extent that there would be some ethno-local differences, because the local culture of Goan Catholics is Goan culture in its multiple variations, including, but not limited to, Hindu culture. Further, just as there are many shades in Goan identity, as also with the universality of Catholicism, there are many identities of the Brazilian Catholic. So which Brazilian Catholic is Parrikar referring to? Or is this also part of the fascist project – to understand every community or region everywhere in terms of its majority or dominant group?
Pre-Portuguese Goa was not a Hindu Space.

When Parrikar suggests that the Catholic in Goa is culturally a Hindu, and that Hindus and Catholics in Goa match in their practices and ways of thinking, he lends weight to a particular assumption about pre-Portuguese Goa: that it was a Hindu space. The truth, however, is that the territories that became Goa following Portuguese conquest in 1510 were, if anything, Islamicate spaces. This means that, although the majority of the people were not Muslim, they were culturally influenced by the Persian, Arabic, and Turkic traditions of dominant Muslim groups. As Phillip Wagoner and other scholars of the Deccan have pointed out, the notion of kingship in the early modern Deccan was firmly fixed within Perso-Arabic, and Turko-Afghan traditions that had taken root among the elites of the peninsula. Even the ostensibly Hindu kings of Vijayanagara adopted a vast variety of Islamicate traditions, in addition to styling themselves as “Sultans among Hindu kings”. The control of pre-Portuguese Goa shuffled between the Delhi Sultanate, the Deccan Sultanates, and the Vijayanagar kingdom for close to two centuries before the arrival of the Portuguese. In turn, this laid the ground for an Islamicate culture in the territories. So, when Parrikar proposes that Goan Catholics are culturally Hindu, he effectively obliterates the vibrant erstwhile and contemporary manifestations of the Islamicate in Goa by suggesting that the state’s society is one of Hindus and Catholics (with putative Hindu pasts) alone.

Goa’s pre-Portuguese history prior to the Islamicate period similarly reflects a complex diversity. There were communities who followed indigenous belief systems which cannot be considered Hindu, and ruling classes that were only recently Hindu. There is strong evidence of Jain and Buddhist communities in the Goan region in the first millennium of the Common Era, communities who were wealthy enough and politically dominant enough to leave behind fairly substantial architectural remains. While there are those who would lump both Buddhist and Jain ideas into Hinduism today, the fact is that these faiths arose and developed in opposition to brahmanical ideas. Parrikar’s statement thus erases the complex cultural life of pre-Portuguese Goa, collapsing it all into ‘Hindu Culture’ even as Hindu “practices” become the benchmark of evaluating the Goanness and Indianness of a Goan Catholic.

Parrikar’s logic implies that Goan Catholics are lesser citizens

Parrikar’s assertion that Catholics are culturally Hindus has another insidious side to it, for it draws from the old accusation of Hindu nationalist historians that Christianity and Islam are foreign to India. While Parrikar may not have actually said that Christianity is foreign, his statement makes it foreign. The truth though is that just as the Christians of the subcontinent are not foreign, their practices embody the culture of the land too. To label such culture as Hindu is not just erroneous, but also pernicious. As a corollary question to Parrikar’s logic, are Hindus living in Christian-dominated countries ‘culturally Christians’?

As Victor Ferrão demonstrates in his book, assuming and asserting a Hindu or brahmanical character to pre-colonial Goa has another ramification. It brings into play the purity and pollution principle that structures caste life within the political realm. The colonial period, and the colonial introduction of Christianity, is seen as polluting the former purity of the Hindu body politic. Consequently, Catholics are placed outside the purview of legitimate citizenship in Goa and India, because the nation’s purity is predicated upon assumptions of its essential brahmanical Hinduness. In Ferrão’s words: “Being polluted by the colonial era, [the Catholics] are thought to have lost their ability to take Goa to the path of authentic progress”. The Catholics may remain in Goa, but every time they make a demand that challenges the assumptions of Hindu nationalism, they are charged as being anti-nationals. This can be seen in the response to the demands for the recognition of the Konkani language in the Roman script, as also the demand for state grants for primary education in English. Thus, even though Parrikar’s statement on the cultural essence of Goan Catholics may seem to embrace, it is in fact a reminder of the second class location of that community within the Goan polity.

Reinforcing clichés of the nationalist historiography of India
The assertion that the term ‘Hindu’ “is cultural” rather than “religious” privileges only a certain rigid notion of Hindu culture and way of life, while relegating anything that is not Hindu to a second class status; this of course also begs the questions as to which religion is not a prescription for a way of life? It also relegates everybody in India who is not of the ‘Semitic’ faiths into the category of ‘Hindu’ by default. Such co-option has been challenged in Jharkhand where a struggle is on to give official status to the local Sarna religion. Dr. Ram Dayal Munda, the former Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi University, has written in detail about how the Sarna faith differs in cosmology, myths, deities, rituals, priesthood, and other details, from Hinduism. Yet for many like Parrikar, non-Christian and non-Muslim Adivasis are ‘automatically’ Hindu. Kancha Ilaiah also discusses similar processes in his path-breaking book Why I am not a Hindu (1996). Ilaiah points out that for many children of subaltern communities even in the 20th century, the introduction to Hindu deities, epics, rituals, and other traditions happened only when they joined school, and the novelty was on par with learning Christian faith traditions.

Parrikar’s assertion that Hindus do not attack except in self-defence, i.e. they are a peaceful and tolerant people, is another myth that has been successfully contested by historians as well as scholars of contemporary caste society. That the Hindu nationalists play the card of perpetual victimization, as Parrikar does, when in reality it is the Dalits, Adivasis and many minority groups who are violently oppressed and abused by the caste nature of South Asian society, a society whose ethos, traditions and survival are now championed by Hindutva politics, is an old irony. As for peacefulness, Parrikar may never take up a sword to kill, but he is already neck-deep in a discourse that is violently casteist, racist, and – not to forget – Islamophobic. Furthermore, he does not have to personally pick up a sword because the Hindu right-wing has set up several proxy organizations that do the job, while political leaders like him either plead helplessness or remonstrate that such violence is not ‘true’ Hinduism.

A ‘Universal’ Church divided in itself
What Parrikar and others who think like him should acknowledge is that many of the converts to Christianity were from the subaltern communities. But it is also necessary to acknowledge that the Church hierarchy in Goa is not only dominated by upper-caste Catholics, but displays a tendency to discriminate against the subalterns in a manner similar to that of Hindu caste society. There are many examples of this, as when the demand for the Roman script of the Konkani language to be given official recognition in the state, which was made by subaltern-caste and -class Catholics, was opposed by the sections of the Catholic clergy. Ironically, many of those clergy members themselves use the Roman script on a daily basis. The discrimination against the subaltern Catholic groups is intensified by the tendency of the Hindu Bahujan Samaj to ally with the Hindu dominant castes. This tendency is most evident in the way the Saraswat-led Konkani language establishment allied with the Hindu Bahujan leadership to ensure that English language education at the primary school level was denied state grants; a move that the Catholic hierarchy acquiesced to. Grants were thus reserved for schools offering education in Marathi or official (Nagri) Konkani, a move which seriously hurt only poorer (and subaltern-caste) Catholic families, the wealthy being able to shift their wards to private schools where they could continue with an education in English.

Summing up
Goan Catholics are not Hindu. Most never were. The reality and history of Goa militate against the simplistic concepts offered by Parrikar. His understanding of universal Hinduness deliberately excludes the minorities while at the same time strait-jacketing and leveling any differences from the point of view of the dominant sections of the majority community. Such notions may appear to unite communities but in reality foster discrimination.

 Albertina Almeida is a lawyer and activist who holds a PhD in law; Amita Kanekar is an architectural historian and writer based in Goa; Dale Luis Menezes studies medieval history at JNU, New Delhi, and blogs at daleluismenezes.blogspot.in; Jason Keith Fernandes has formal training in law and a PhD in Anthropology and blogs at dervishnotes.blogspot.com; and R. Benedito Ferrão researches Goan diasporic literature and blogs at thenightchild.blogspot.com.

22 thoughts on “Common sense and Hindu nationalism – Why the Catholics in Goa are not Hindu: Albertina Almeida & Others”

  1. I have been fuming since reading Parrikar’s frivolous comments on a Catholic in Goa being “Hindu culturally”, and indeed his simplistic but dangerous statement that he was a “Hindu nationalist” Much of this fury has been considerably assuaged after this very accomplished post that systematically tears apart his platitudes.

    It pleases me no end too, that apart from the studiously secular tone the writers appear to have consciously adopted in eloquently arguing their case, they distance themselves – as indeed more Goans ought to – from the Church hierarchy in Goa that has consistently sided with the mighty, either because of their so-called upper caste status or their wealth.

    In recent times many of us are even more disappointed in the way the Church hierarchy in Goa has shown two faces to the outside world. Their silence on getting the Romi script in Konkani recognized is the least surprising, although in fairness, it must be borne in mind that it was and continues to be individual priests, who keep the flame for this almost musical form of spoken and written Konkani alive.

    It does help to remember however that at the height of the mining greed in Goa, the Archbishop of Goa’s letter to his flock on the theme of the environment waxed eloquent on the relationship of a God-given environment and the innate spirituality of recognizing the Holy Spirit in the natural world, but mentioned the term ‘illegal mining’ only once.
    It was only after the Shah Commission report was made public and the Supreme Court ban came into play, that the Council for Social Justice and Peace, the CSR arm of the Archdiocese, issued a statement condemning the mining.

    Now, as if intoning “mea culpa” thrice, it seems to conveniently forget the 35,000 crore that the Shah Commission roughly estimates was looted, remains silent about bringing the guilty magnates to justice and looks the other way as Goan Catholics within government conspire to bring the mining back so that they can continue to fill their pockets at the expense of Goa’s forests and water.

    While today’s Goan paper the Herald, has a statement by an individual Catholic priest likening Narendra Modi to Hitler, it must not be forgotten that the Church, through selected priests, openly campaigned for the BJP’s token Catholic candidates to teach the incumbent Catholics in the Congress a lesson. Naively, they even looked the other way as a Mining-supported journalist, Sujoy Gupta, took over Goa’s largely Catholic-read daily newspaper, and engineered a catholic vote for the BJP.

    While individual priests, more from their individual conscience, have been known to stand with their respective parishes to foil the increasingly predatory big player real estate lobby, and openly condemn corrupt Catholics in the panchayat, officially the Church in Goa may be less inclined to be open.

    Barely a couple of years back, without a by your leave, they sold prime land on the river island of Vanxim owned by the Church a few centuries at least, to a Hindu politician cum broker, who in turn sold it to a major player from Bangalore.
    The fight against this sale is led by a priest, Bismarck Dias, who also stood for election.

    In the final analysis, one does not need to go to Church every Sunday, or even believe in the faith to understand that a Goan Catholic is culturally unique, although one would need to have a world-view broader than that of Manohar Parrikar to comprehend that. By the same yardstick, one would also expect the Church, as it has done in Latin America, and closer home in the Philippines, to dwell more on beatitudes it may have misplaced and side more effectively with their flock on the ground.

    Those who liken Narendra Modi to Hitler may not be aware that to persons who preach parochialism, and who want the universe of experience to be narrowed this may not be a criticism at all.

    Inaugurating an exhibition of photographs organised by the Photo Journalists Association of Goa, Parrikar said he was often called “Hitler”, but he took that as a compliment, as people who said that were actually referring to his reputation for discipline.

    “It is a compliment, actually,” he told the press. “No one who criticised Hitler survived. Those who criticised him were sent to the gas chamber,” he added.

    Like

  2. You write:

    “While there are those who would lump both Buddhist and Jain ideas into Hinduism today, the fact is that these faiths arose and developed in opposition to brahmanical ideas. ”

    There is some evidence that Brahminical Hinduism as we know it today arose AFTER Buddhism and Jainism, and even Brahminical Hinduism is not the dominant religious practice in India today, rather I would say it is the worship of village Goddesses, such as the Amman complex in South India. And closely equating Brahminical Hinduism with Vedic Hinduism is problematic: What happened to the practice of the horse sacrifice which was the central rite in the Yajurveda. Brahminical Hinduism as we understand it today only arose with the emergence of the Vedanta schools of Shankara and Ramanujan 800CE and later.

    Like

    1. John, you make a valid and important point. Brahminical Hinduism represents one strand of a whole host of irreconcilably diverse Hindu traditions. Hinduism is not a cohesive, monolithic structure. It was a term and a concept developed in the colonial period to refer to many, but not all, of the traditional spiritual traditions arising in the Indian subcontinent. These traditions developed alongside, but sometimes even in opposition, conflict, and debate with each other.

      The Indian political and religious elites, mainly Brahmins, who collaborated with the British orientalists in this process marginalized the folk, animist,and nature-oriented traditions of much of the Hindu masses, especially in the rural areas, and elevated their own, insular customs as the norm. This process still continues today with attempts by the Hindutva elites to reconstruct Hinduism in the mold of other dominant world religions, to impose structure upon it and to standardize it, with Ram or Krishna as the chief deity, the Vedas or the Gita as the Bible, and Ayodhya as Jerusalem. The political motives for this project are not difficult to discern, for it allows these elites greater control over the diverse Hindu traditions and people. They can magnify what would otherwise be a parochial and limited concern, such as the Ayodhya issue, into one that affects all Hindus.

      The folk deities and traditions of many Hindus, especially in South India, are far removed from the beliefs and practices that are decreed as the most authoritative and valid by the Hindutva and Brahmin elites. Hindus concerned with preserving unique and local traditions bear the responsibility to deconstruct and reject the artificial homogeneity being imposed on us. However, when others write of Hinduism broadly but equate it with the narrow scope of Brahminism, they are unintentionally contributing to and reinforcing the assimilative Hindutva/Brahminical project, which suppresses the diversity in the beliefs and practices of Hindu traditions and people.

      Like

      1. So Arul, am I to take it that you are against structure, organisation, control and empty formalism in *all* religions, and in all religious expressions, including the folk and animist? Or just against it in Hinduism?

        Like

        1. Wikipedia defines religion thusly: “Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality.” The first meaningful word is “organized” which to my mind implies organisation. All religions are “organised”. To me religion is a social power structure of sacred supernatural symbols and rituals that serves to control personal and group behavior and in evolved societies is often hierarchical. There is no question of being “against” religion. It just is and it is everywhere and is everywhere often abused in service to the power structures of society.

          Like

      2. Very well put, Arul. Your style and content suggest to me that you are a published and noted author or op-ed editor. If not, I suggest you consider the latter profession. The age old nexus between profane and sacred power continues unabated in India as much as it rules much, but not all of the rest of the world. Europe for most of the 20th century evolved beyond that, if that is the correct word, to a conflict of socio-economic ideologies, but currently appears to have even put much of that behind it, although a future where bloody conflicts centering on competing rising and falling ethnicities and religion, seems easy to imagine. China and North Korea have suppressed both religion and any real ideological ideas and operate on the level of pure State Power increasing along inherited family lines. The US is fundamentally split with religion playing an increasing role on one side and humanism on the other. Where India will go in the future is anyone’s speculative guess but I think regionalism will play an increasing role as the Center continues it decline. Should there be an unlimited war with Pakistan, unimaginable yes but I think potentially possible, India may well split up and the rest of the century dominated by internecine conflicts over declining resources.

        Like

      3. Though various religious traditions of Indian subcontinent differ from each other, there are some basic epistemological and metaphysical unity that binds these traditions. Refer Rajiv Malhotra’s Being different for a philosophical exposition of the basic unity of Hinduism or Dharmic religions.

        Like

  3. Parrikar himself is culturally Catholic, he studied in a Catholic School in Margao, Goa. His vestiments besides the ugly flip flops that he wears on all occasions indicates western dress codes of a pant and shirt rather than the pudvem. And one does not know if he consumes beef and pork after a few gulps of feni,

    Like

  4. The article is focused on disproving Mr Parrikar’s statement. I would like to look at it from a different viewpoint. If one is to say that Indian Catholics are culturally Hindu? ( This is another issue), To use the term loosely, I would agree. But to say that Goan Catholics are culturally Hindu? Is wrong. The people of Goa evolved uniquely from the rest of India, mainly in part to our geographical location and the Gaunkari system, The Communidades. This system bound the people to the land and the community creating a balanced cultural ecosystem.Most rulers were absentee ‘landlords’ and non interfering. There is evidence of Christianity being prevalent in Goa long before the arrival of the Portuguese. An issue certain parties would like suppressed. The Portuguese Lusitanised Goan Christians and for various reasons converted a large portion of the Goan populace to Catholicism. The powers that be decided that the converts had to sever all contact with their family and society so they were perforce given New names, and a new Culture. Which really entailed the eating of Pork, dressing as Europeans and speaking the Portuguese Language. What was criminal was the destruction of our language Konkani. The division was forced upon the people by the Portuguese. But never welcomed by the Goans, hear the Goan Mando to experience the bitterness of seperation.
    However today, all Goans dress as Europeans, All speak Konkani, most importantly all Goans think and feel alike. We have a distinct Goan culture which is not Hindu, not Catholic and also not of the Indian subcontinent.
    We are simply Goan.

    Like

    1. “This system bound the people to the land and the community creating a balanced cultural ecosystem”_ would names like Zuari, Chowgule etc figure on this people’s list?

      When is the term ‘ghati’ used? and for whom, Thx

      Like

  5. While objecting to discourse that seeks to bury differences, it would be edifying to take a step back and look at the larger picture.

    Differences do exist, but there are similarities too. What we seek to focus the lens on, varies depending on our immediate concerns.

    Beyond mere “tolerance” if all human beings could move to “mutual acceptance”…that would be a progressive step ! Pray it happens !

    Like

  6. Maintaining ones identity is THE goal in the discussion. Given the amount of intolerance shown by Catholics elsewhere in the world, (Spanish anyone?), please consider the following.
    Were not Catholics preferred over others during portuguese times in goa?
    How many religions were eliminated by spread of christianity?
    So a simple statement from a leader takes so much heat. Do you believe that you are saving souls from heathens?
    No one asked you to change your god.

    Can we now focus on nationalist part? Ambitions of your kids for a good material life? Of a better future in this country as opposed to pining for old glory days of portuguese?
    Always change happens. Splitting hair over brahminical/local/shankara does not help future of kids. While you may miss the royalty air of old days, things are much better than ever for Goans. There are more people having a good time.
    Yes, it feels sad that people may have lost way of the lord. Let everyone figure out their own path. Let there be enough time for people to think for themselves.

    Like

  7. While I agree with the general sentiment of the post that Hindus are not same as Christians, it must be pointed out that “Hindu” became a religious term relatively recently. The term “Hindu” was originally used to as a geographical demonym to describe what we today call “South Asians”. Slowly, it came to mean a “South Asian who doesn’t believe in Islam”, and became an ethno-religious term similar to “Jew”. And slowly, it came to identify people who practice Indian faiths except Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

    The term “Hindu Christian” can be found in many 17th and 18th century British writings, where it means “Indian Christian”. Some examples (all of these can be found via search on Google Books):

    * “…a certain Hindoo Christian, named Ramogyris, was ordained Bishop…” – The Scottish Review, Volume 16, page 96 (1890)

    * “A few days ago, on hearing of the apostacy of Appa, a Hindoo Christian in connection with the Scottish mission in Bombay…” – The Missionary Herald, Volume 28 No. 11 (November 1832)

    * “The Little Hindoo Christian” – the title of a teacher’s address to the girls of Hanover Chapel Sunday School (1848)

    * “How a Hindoo Christian died in the Neyoor Mission” – The Christian Witness And Congregational Magazine, page 379 (1871)

    * “Why should not the Hindoo Christian have Christian prayers and rites for the same and the like occasions?” – The Colonial Church chronicle, and missionary journal, page 186 (July 1847-Dec. 1874)

    * “…thee Unitarians there have rigorously examined every charge, and the result has only served to place the Hindoo Christian still higher in public estimation” – The Christian Examiner and General Review – Volume 5, page 94 (1828)

    * “But they have a far more ominous sound in the ears of a Hindoo Christian” – The competition wallah – Page 299 (1866)

    * “On the 25th of April an eminent Hindoo Christian, whose name was Futick…” – The History and Origin of the Missionary Societies, p. 427 (1824)

    * “Joseph, the young Hindoo Christian” – The Church of England Magazine – Volume 45 – Page 79 (1858)

    Hindutva proponents use the term “Hindu” in the original sense. This way, their idea of a “Hindu nation” includes Christians who are retain Indian culture (e.g. speaking a native language, wearing a Sari etc.)

    In fact the person who coined the term “Hindutva” – Mr. Savarkar – was himself an atheist. He wrote and spoke extensively outlining the differences between “Hinduism” and “Hindutva”, and often preached against Hindu rituals, calling them superstition. The

    Mr. Manohar Parrikar has also used the term “Hindu” as in “Hindutva”, not as in “Hinduism”.

    Like

  8. Goans are not Indians and they are certainly NOT hindus. If anything, the recent persecution of Christians in India has taught us that Hinduism does not have room for tolerance.

    The more Hindus try to claim Goans for their own, the more will we fight against them. I have great faith in Goan Catholics – We know who we are and we our certainly proud of our differences from India and its Hindus.

    My honest advice to all Indian Hindus – Don’t make more enemies. You’ve made enemies with Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists & Jews (Yes, I’ve met Jews who are pissed off with Hindus).

    Don’t make that list longer – you’re not a superpower and you’ve got a long way to go. We are not happy with India’s illegal occupation of Goa and we are an educated, globalized community. Don’t make enemies of us – it will not serve you in any useful way.

    Para Goa e Cristo Redentor! Viva Goa!

    Like

    1. i think rodrigo needs a large pack he is in hallucination i guess he still lives in pre 1947 british india

      Like

  9. Rodrigo, you sound like a fanatic, the kind who makes enemies with non-Christians, as well as with atheists and agnostics. Hindus haven’t made enemies with anyone, for your information. Except idiots and narrow minded louts.

    Like

  10. There are some catholics in Goa who calls themself Brahmins.These people really dont know what religion is.They make a fool of themselves in front of hindu fanatics and gives them mouth to talk.A Christian has to realise even if he is a convert the moment he takes baptism he has become one with Christ.An when you are in Christ everything else is unimportant.The old has passed and you are a new being.There is no Brahmin, SC, orST in Jesus.There is only one thing existing and that is a Christian.So how foolish are the christians taking pride in calling themselves Brahmins.Why dont they convert themself back to Hinduism rather than putting Christ to shame.When will these christians in Goa stand up and proclaim that they belong to only Christ…..not to any caste.
    I have nothing against Hindus infact I admire the way they stand up for there religion.Whereas we christians here are like a confused lot dwelling in unwanted caste system which does not exist in christianity.We should concentrate fully on CHRIST and forget everything else.

    Like

  11. I was born in the Goan community of Santa Cruz – Bombay. I grew up in a small town in East Africa that had two and a half Goan families. The two families were Brahmin and the half was not.
    The important thing to me was he was half and not full because the Goan Catholic religion he was born in would not respect his relationship with an African Muslim woman. Despite this, because of his Goan upbringing, while he did well he made generous donations to the church. When he fell on hard times, the very European Christian church offered him shelter. Despite his caste, this is a Goan I admired as he turned down the European Christian Charity that was not extended to his family. He was also ahead of his time in respecting the religious beliefs of the woman he loved.
    To authenticate, I knew the man as Bwana Dias of Songea, the God father of the late Clement Siqueira of Dar-es-salaam and Toronto.

    Like

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s