Goanetters annual year-end meet is on Dec 27, 2010 (Monday) from 4-6 pm at
Institute Piedade (near Hotel Mandovi, opp Bread & More) in Panjim. Do come
along. RSVP via SMS 9822122436, f...@goa-india.org or 2409490 (after 2 pm).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear FN,
You seem to get unduly worked up on non-existent issues. No one, to my
knowledge (and certainly not I), has said that you bear any bitterness (whether
special or general) towards me. So your clarificatory preface makes no sense.
Even if you were to bear any bitterness, that would not be my concern, though
it might be yours. Bitterness is not a necessary ingredient for any fruitful
discussion or debate; in fact, it could spoil a good debate. But disagreement
(with an open mind) is a sine qua non; two persons holding identical views wrt
an issue cannot carry on a discussion on that issue. A discussion helps us to
understand the issue more clearly. It enables one party to see the issue from
the perspective of the other; it also affords the dispassionate reader a
holistic view as well. And this is certainly a positive and desirable outcome.
Through this medium I learn many new things. I come across facts which I would
not otherwise have come by. If I find
any information to be dubious I am free to check its veracity; and even if it
turns out to be a dud, I welcome it as a positive addition to my knowledge. I
may ignorantly harbour a wrong notion; but only when I present it in a
discussion can it be corrected through the kind courtesy of my opponent/s in
the discussion or even a fence-sitter. The concept of winning or losing an
argument is too puerile to apply to discussions on forums such as the present
one. In stead, the goal of any debate should be to gain a deeper insight into
the issue, if not (ideally) arriving at the ultimate truth. When two parties
hold diametrically opposite views on an issue, the discussion may even be
fierce, but should not generate any interpersonal bitterness. The rancour
happens only when one or both the parties have a direct personal / material
stake in the outcome. A fruitful debate should empower a reader to arrive at
his own considered decision on the strength of
knowledge and sound facts rather than ignorance, half-truths or plain
distorted facts. Admittedly, every honest individual will not arrive at the
same identical decision; this will depend on the relative weightage that one
gives to each aspect. I would prefer, although many will frown at this, that a
serious discussion be carried out anonymously or pseudonymously. This would
help to do away with the type of mudslinging that some threads degenerate into.
The focus being on the subject alone, the reader would be able to assess the
issue shorn of any personal attitude towards the discussants who would also be
saved the "bitterness. "
Discussion should be ideally restricted to the issue at hand. Personalities
should be avoided to the extent possible. Tonsorial appearance, sartorial
habits and physical attributes, to my mind, do not have a bearing on any issue.
If I were to quote you, I could not possibly avoid citing your name. Actions
(or instances of inaction) of persons may be brought in only in so far as they
directly bear on that particular issue. If wrongly reported, they can always be
refuted or corrected. In the present issue, I was dealing with a post by Wilmix
which was focused on Konkani language and scripts (Roman and Devanagari). As a
journalist, you are certainly aware that Wilmix also happens to be the Convenor
of Romi Lipi Action Front (which is hybrid for "Action Front for Konkani in the
Roman Script") that is campaigning for the inclusion of Roman script in the
Official Language Act. He is also one of the tiatrists who, through their
songs, exhort other Goans to
speak publicly in Konkani, but themselves avoid doing so. Am I wrong in
referring to his inaction in this regard off-stage? Should we not practise what
we preach? I did not state or imply that
"you-act-in-Konkani-but-don't-write-in-Konkani." This is, I am sorry to say,
your unwarranted inference. Speaking (and singing) in Konkani does not involve
the use of any (Roman or Devanagari) script, but reading and writing do. And
one cannot read something that is not written. Therefore, writing is the
primary function of script. And, as so very convincingly exhorted by Lino
Dourado on this forum, Goans must not only speak but also write in Konkani; not
just write "Konkani is my mothertongue" in English. Is it therefore too much to
expect that the head of an organization which claims to fight for Konkani in
Roman script would also write in that language and script? And I have not asked
him to write exclusively in Konkani, but to emulate others by doing so in
Konkani in addition to English which he seems to prefer.
Now, let me react to the questions you have posed for debate.
(1) Nothing wrong. In fact, the language used will depend not only on the
purpose but also on the addressee and the subject matter, among others.
(2) You seem to be carrying an unnecessary load on your heart as evidenced by
your breast-beating. This is the result of wrong nomenclature. Correct that,
and the load will disappear; you will be able to walk with your head held high!
Where is the exclusivity? No one is debarred from the discussion; but the
reader is certainly alerted to decide for himself the weightage he should give
to the pronouncements of persons so qualified. Such decision not being imposed
on any reader, I see no reason to take exception to such qualification; in fact
it should be welcomed. And the "excluded" person could always argue why he
should be "included." I feel that the objections such as yours are not just
untenable but they lead the discussion astray.
(3) I have no quarrel with this; nor do I know anyone who does. Do you?
Would love to read your reaction, even if it is "bitter. "
Sebastian Borges
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:14:03 +0530 Frederick Noronha
<fredericknoro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all:
I don't have any special bitterness towards Prof Borges, and even
though I disagree with his approach on script in Konkani, I think it's
worth hearing all points of view, and tune in to his arguments often.
Just for debate:
(1) What is wrong if someone prefers to use one language for one
purpose, and other language for another?
(2) I dislike this Goan form of exclusiveness, which uses any argument
possible to beat down someone-we-dont-like. This
you-act-in-Konkani-but-don't-write-in-Konkani is a new one! There is
also the are-you-an-Indian-citizen argument. I confess to have used
the but-you-don't-even-live-in-Goa-and-have-lost-touch-with-it logic
earlier. We Goans are a divisive people, and will find any excuse to
exclude you from the circle. They remind me of the French, who look
disdainfully upon poorly-pronounced French, not Germans (who are
appreciative even if you know three words in their language). Correct
me if wrong...
(3) Why not accept that different languages have differing roles in
today's Goa (and in the past too)? English and Marathi dominate the
newspaper world. Konkani the local cable/TV world. Konkani in the
fish-markets and streets (for much of the day, except at 7 am on
Sundays, the siesta hours, and the tourist areas). Russian and English
in the tourist world. Hindi in the wholesale markets. Portuguese for
historical research and history seminars ("Don't you know
Portuguese?") Etc...
FN
Sebastian Borges
