It is with deep distress that I am compelled to point out the following inaccuracies pertaining to Goan history and heritage present in the exhibition entitled, “Ten Histories: Goan Costume,” on display at the Serendipity Festival of the Arts 2016, at the Old Secretariat, Panaji.
The panels which are printed on the walls are replete with historical inaccuracies about Goa, with even geographical details being incorrectly stated, glaring spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and even some letters missing from words printed on the walls.
The very first panel on “Mother Goddess” is riddled with factual inaccuracies as regards historical detail and geographical locations.
To begin with, the very dating of the petroglyphs i.e. rock engravings has not been correctly recorded in the panel.
The earlier identification of the petroglyph of Pansaimal, referred to in the panel as a ‘mother-goddess’, is now established as an engraving of a male figure based on the initial research done by the archaeologist, Dr V R Mitragotri, followed by my own published work in the field.
Yet, it has been identified here as a ‘mother-goddess' in utter disregard to the latest research on the subject.
Hence, the question of making offerings to a purported female deity, as claimed in the panel, does not arise. Moreover, there is no such recorded tradition with regard to the petroglyphs of Pansaimal.
With reference to the mother-goddess of Curdi, relocated at the Verna plateau, it is not known on what basis the panel states that “the authenticity of this Mother Goddess is in doubt…” because its authenticity and antiquity have been well established by experts.
Another error that the panel contains is the statement that the sculpture was moved from “a nearby village site.” This is absolutely incorrect as the sculpture was transplanted to Verna from the South Goa village of Curdi located about 40 kms from the present location.
Lastly, may I ask what has led to the assertion that the mother-goddess in Goa is “most often depicted without clothing”? If this be the case, why include nude sculptures in an exhibition on costumes?
The next panel on “Shantadurga” opens with the sentence: “While the Goddess Shanta Durga appears in most parts of India as a warrior goddess riding a tiger…”
The worship of the deity Shantadurga is notfound in most parts of India, rather it is restricted to Goa and its immediate Konkan neighbourhood. The rest of the references in the panel are particular to Shantadurga Kunkollekarin of Fatorpa, in South Goa, and not necessarily to the many other Shantadurgas worshipped in Goa. Hence, it is imperative that the exact location of the “Shanta Durga Mandir” referred to in the panel as the source of the displayed in the accompanying vitrine, be specified.
The panel on “Buddhism in Goa” commences with the sentence, “The Buddhist and Jain period in Goa is not spoken about for many reasons.” This is factually incorrect since several historians, including me, have written about the Buddhist-Jain legacy of Goa beginning with Father Henry Heras onwards.
This also appears to be a leading statement given that the very next sentence states: “Some blame the Muslims for destroying the Buddhists sites in Goa while others claim the destruction was by Brahmanical forces, who were marginalized and later resumed power on the death of Emperor Askoka.”
The vitrine beneath this panel contains a sculpture found at an archeological site which, it is stated, has been donated to the “Moda Goa museum due to open in 2018.”
The inclusion of this sculpture as a part of the panel on “Buddhism in Goa” raises the following questions: Firstly, can an antiquity be donated to a private party? Should it not have been handed over to the official custodian of unearthed antiquities of the Government of Goa? Has this antiquity been registered with the authorities concerned under the relevant Act? Assuming this has been done, the iconographical linkage between the sculpture and Buddhism in Goa has not been established and hence its representation as part of the Buddhist legacy of Goa is questionable.
In the panel on ‘The Kunbi Sari’ a claim is made that the Kunbi was “revived” by the prominent fashion designer Wendell Rodricks in 2010 “after almost a century of the sari not woven in the state…” This statement is not true.
Next, the inclusion of the panel on Narakasur in an exhibition which purports to recount “Goan histories” through Goan costumes is problematic for it tries to suggest that the costume worn by the on display in the gallery is a standard costume for all , which is not the case, and that it is a Goan costume.
The panel on “The Pano Bhaju” contains basic errors in spelling, both of the costume itself, and the song-dance with which it is associated. Further, its etymology has also not been correctly recorded.
For want of space I have not pointed out similar such inaccuracies across the panels.
However, I am constrained to note the common theme of historical inaccuracies and sweeping statements in the exhibits, pointing to a lack of due diligence and scant respect to historical facts and cultural sensibilities.
Owing to these observations, I have requested that the exhibition entitled, “Ten Histories: Goan Costume,” be withdrawn for public view until the errors are rectified and the material presented therein is vetted for historical authenticity.
