https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIGO%2F2018%2F02%2F27&entity=Ar00220&sk=5BBA3DFF&mode=text
An interesting can of worms has been split wide open by the citizens of Lisbon a couple of months ago, when they voted to build a memorial to the victims of the mass-market Atlantic slave trade that was initiated in 1444 with the sale of 235 men, women and children who had been kidnapped from their homes by a Portuguese expedition to West Africa. That incident triggered a grotesque triangular trade of black bodies that persisted for another four centuries, crippled the existing societies of sub-Saharan Africa with a lasting fallout even today, and comprehensively remade the “new world” of North and South America by the forced relocation of at least 12 million humans in bondage (at least another 2 million are estimated to have died in transit). The Portuguese role in all this is undeniably significant. While slavery in some form has been present throughout human history, it was Portugal that first began launching raids on newly accessible sections of the African coastline specifically to snatch people, and then also developed the slave plantation economic model (first with sugarcane in Madeira) that was exported across the New World. In the 1450s, vital Papal sanctions for these “innovations” were acquired when Pope Nicholas V was persuaded to issue one “bull” authorizing the Portuguese to forcibly convert any non-Christians to the status of slaves, and another granting the Portuguese a perpetual monopoly on trade with Africa. History shows, plain and simple, that Portugal was not only the first country to initiate the mass-market Atlantic slave trade but also the last to cease (the final trade route was discontinued in 1870). By far the greatest number of Africans were sold into servitude in Portuguese Africa (specifically Angola) and by far the largest centre of chattel slavery was Brazil, which today is the home to the second-largest black population in the world (after Nigeria). There were countless ripple effects in other directions as well. Almost immediately after arrival in Goa, a flourishing slave trade was established that lingered for centuries, in which native elites also enthusiastically participated and profited. Slave ownership was commonplace right into the 19th century. Acknowledgement of all this is one thing, but tendering an apology is altogether different. There are related questions of complicity, guilt, reparations and restitution. Plus, there are other deserving historical crimes, which certainly includes many that were committed in Goa. Right before Indian-origin (his father was from Goa) prime minister Antonio Costa made his debut visit to his ancestral homeland as head of state, the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party’s strongman Sudin Dhavalikar demanded “He should first apologise to Goans, for all the hardships and atrocities Portugal has committed in Goa while they were ruling” adding, “The amount of destruction they did while leaving Goa in 1961 by blowing up bridges and the mayhem they orchestrated is also unforgivable.” On the other hand, there is a distinct (albeit minority) strain of resistance to the idea of national apologies. The Goan scholar Jason Keith Fernandes has written, “I get extremely agitated when Portuguese academics express the need to apologize for, and attempt to undo the damage done during the colonial period, especially that of the slave trade that was conducted in part by them. It is not that there is no need to recognize that this slave trade, and other heinous practices under colonialism took place. There is such a need.” However, “the fact of apology carries its own baggage; baggage that can further complicate relations between the colonizer and the formerly colonized.” Instead of this minefield, Fernandes suggests, “we can recognize the sorrows of the past, not ignore them, and then go on to build relations that do not depend on apologies.” While there is some validity to this viewpoint, human history has copious examples of the immense value of truth and reconciliation between peoples and nations. It is true that imposed apologies carry the taint of humiliation (witness Japan’s repeated expressions of remorse for its actions in World War II) but such statements of regret can also be made in a manner that uplifts everyone. This was accomplished to particularly great effect by Pope Saint John Paul II, who made over 100 official apologies, including for the Church’s own involvement in the slave trade. With relevance to Goa, in 2000 he apologized for violence “in the service of truth” ( a direct reference to the Inquisition) as well as “attitudes of mistrust and hostility toward followers of other religions” (which means forced conversions). The leaders of today can learn a great deal from this example.