The history of Konkani, an Indo-Aryan language spoken along India’s Konkan coast, is marked by its pluralistic roots, colonial interventions, and the construction of caste-based identities. Under Portuguese colonial rule in Goa (1510–1961), Konkani’s trajectory was shaped by missionary efforts, colonial suppression, and elite-driven linguistic reclamation. Employing Michel Foucault’s archaeological method, this article excavates the discontinuities and power dynamics that transformed Konkani from a diverse linguistic ecosystem into a Sanskritized, caste-specific, and Devanagari-centric language. Key figures like Joaquim Heliodoro da Cunha Rivara, Monsignor Sebastião Rodolfo Dalgado, Dr. Gerson da Cunha, and Shenoi Goembab (Vaman Raghunath Varde Valaulikar) played pivotal roles, while the influence of Johann Gottfried Herder’s 19th-century “one language, one people” philosophy and early missionary efforts to unify Konkani as a resistance to Portuguese imperialism and pragmatics needs of mission shaped its trajectory.
Konkani’s Plurality and Early Missionary Unification
Konkani, historically spoken from Maharashtra to Kerala, was a mosaic of dialects shaped by region, caste, and religion. Hindus, Catholics, and Muslims spoke distinct variants, written in Devanagari, Kannada, Malayalam, and Roman scripts. In the pre-colonial and early colonial periods, Konkani was primarily oral, with Marathi or Kannada used for literary purposes. Its speakers—Saraswat Brahmins, non-Brahmin Hindus, and Catholics—formed a heterogeneous linguistic community.
The arrival of Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century marked a significant moment. Unlike the colonial state’s later push for Portuguese, early missionaries, such as Thomas Stephens, sought to unify Konkani to facilitate evangelization and resist Portuguese linguistic imperialism. Works like Stephens’ Krista Purana (1616) used Roman-script and was in Marathi , blending Hindu concepts (e.g., krupa for grace, Yamakunda for hell) with Christian theology became part of Konkani today . This unification aimed to create a cohesive medium for communication with Goan converts, countering the colonial agenda of imposing Portuguese. However, this missionary-driven Konkani remained plural, embracing multiple dialects and scripts without a standardized form.
Colonial Suppression and the Rise of Marathi and Portuguese
A major rupture occurred in the 17th century when Portuguese authorities intensified efforts to impose their language. On June 27, 1684, a viceregal decree banned Konkani, mandating Portuguese adoption within three years. By 1745, Catholic priests and their families faced marriage restrictions if they did not comply, and by 1812, Konkani was excluded from schools, culminating in a total ban in state-run institutions by 1869. Konkani was relegated to the língua de criados (language of servants), as Catholic elites embraced Portuguese and Hindu elites turned to Marathi.
By 1853, as historian Rochelle Pinto notes, Marathi had become the official language of government and education, particularly in British-influenced areas and among Hindu communities. Figures like Suryaji Rao actively marginalized Konkani, associating it with lower-class Catholics and reinforcing Marathi’s dominance. This period marked a stark contrast to the missionary-driven unification, as colonial policies fractured Konkani’s plural character, aligning linguistic choices with social hierarchies.
Cunha Rivara’s Intervention and the Sanskritization Project
The mid-19th century introduced another discontinuity with Joaquim Heliodoro da Cunha Rivara, a Portuguese administrator and scholar (1809–1879). Appointed Secretary to the Governor-General of Goa, Cunha Rivara resisted the colonial privileging of Portuguese and Marathi by advocating for Konkani’s revival. His 1858 work, Ensaio Historico da Lingua Concani, documented Konkani’s history and literature, arguing for its cultural and literary significance. Cunha Rivara’s efforts were partly a response to the marginalization of Konkani under Portuguese rule and the growing dominance of Marathi, which he saw as an imposition on Goan identity.
Cunha Rivara’s work aligned with the emerging influence of Johann Gottfried Herder’s 19th-century philosophy, which tied language to cultural identity (“one language, one people”). While missionaries had earlier used Konkani to resist Portuguese imperialism, Cunha Rivara’s advocacy framed Konkani as a marker of Goan distinctiveness. However, his efforts also contributed to the Sanskritization of Konkani, emphasizing its proximity to Sanskrit and Prakrit to elevate its status. This project was furthered by Monsignor Sebastião Rodolfo Dalgado, a Catholic priest and linguist, whose Konkani-Portuguese Dictionary (1893) and Konkani Grammar (1905) standardized Konkani vocabulary and grammar, often drawing on Sanskrit roots. Dalgado’s work, while preserving Konkani’s Catholic variants, inadvertently supported the Sanskritization process by aligning the language with Brahminical linguistic traditions.
The Saraswat Reclamation and Caste Construction
The same period saw a cultural shift among Saraswat Brahmins, spurred by insults targeting their fish-eating practices, which were seen as inconsistent with Brahminical purity. This humiliation prompted a reclamation of Konkani as a marker of distinct identity. Dr. Gerson da Cunha, a Catholic Saraswat intellectual, played a key role in this process. His work, such as The Konkani Language and Literature (1881), emphasized Konkani’s Sanskrit-Prakrit origins, distinguishing it from Marathi and aligning it with Saraswat identity. Da Cunha’s efforts helped construct the Saraswat caste as a cohesive, elite group, claiming Konkani as their language.
This reclamation, however, deepened caste divisions. Non-Brahmin bahujan communities, alienated by the Sanskritized, Brahmin-centric Konkani, gravitated toward Marathi, which was perceived as more inclusive. The Saraswat project, supported by Cunha Rivara and Dalgado’s scholarly interventions, thus introduced a new discourse that tied Konkani to caste privilege, undermining its earlier plurality.
Shenoi Goembab and the Nagrization of Konkani
The early 20th century marked another rupture with Shenoi Goembab (1877–1946), who sought to unify Konkani speakers across caste and religion. His advocacy, however, leaned heavily on “Nagrization,” promoting the Devanagari script as Konkani’s sole legitimate script. Influenced by Hindu nationalist currents and Herder’s ideology, Goembab’s efforts standardized and Sanskritized Konkani, further distancing it from its Roman-script Catholic variants and other regional scripts like Kannada and Malayalam. His works, such as Konkani Bhashechem Zoit (1930), framed Konkani as a language of cultural pride, but the emphasis on Devanagari marginalized non-Hindu and non-Brahmin speakers.
Goembab’s Nagrization shifted Konkani from the missionary vision of “one language, one people” to “one language, one script.” The Konkani language agitation, culminating in its recognition as Goa’s official language in 1987, cemented Devanagari’s dominance, sidelining Roman-script Konkani and other dialects. This homogenization erased much of Konkani’s plural heritage, aligning it with Saraswat and Hindu nationalist identities.
Foucauldian Archaeology: Power, Ruptures, and Exclusion
A Foucauldian archaeological approach reveals Konkani’s history as a series of discontinuities shaped by power relations. Early missionaries unified Konkani to resist Portuguese imperialism, creating a plural yet cohesive linguistic identity. The 17th-century colonial suppression fractured this unity, relegating Konkani to a subaltern status. Cunha Rivara’s 19th-century revival, influenced by Herder’s ideology, resisted Marathi’s dominance but initiated a Sanskritization process, furthered by Dalgado’s scholarly work. The Saraswat reclamation, led by figures like da Cunha, tied Konkani to caste privilege, while Goembab’s Nagrization standardized it under Devanagari, excluding non-Brahmin and Catholic voices.
These ruptures reflect Foucault’s concept of discourse as a site of power and exclusion. Konkani’s plural dialects and scripts were progressively homogenized as colonial, caste, and nationalist agendas privileged certain forms (Sanskritized, Devanagari, Saraswat) over others (Roman, Catholic, non-Brahmin). The construction of the Saraswat caste as Konkani’s stewards underscores how language became a battleground for identity and power.
Conclusion
Konkani’s history under colonial rule is a story of resistance, suppression, and reinvention. Early missionaries unified Konkani to counter Portuguese imperialism, while Cunha Rivara and Dalgado resisted Marathi’s dominance, laying the groundwork for its Sanskritization. The Saraswat reclamation, driven by caste-based insults and led by da Cunha, tied Konkani to elite identity, alienating bahujancommunities. Goembab’s Nagrization further homogenized Konkani, aligning it with Devanagari and Hindu nationalism. Through a Foucauldian lens, these shifts reveal how power dynamics—colonial, missionary, caste, and nationalist—transformed Konkani from a plural linguistic landscape into a singular, scripted identity, reflecting broader struggles over culture and belonging in colonial Goa.
