History is not what we find in books, but is constantly deciphered from new archaeological discoveries made from time to time. In this sense the history of Goa as found and taught in school and college textbooks leaves much to be desired. To many, even educated people, Goa’s history begins with the Portuguese conquest in 1510. But prior to that, Goa had a millennial civilization from the Mesolithic Era circa 8000 BCE. Thereafter the part of Goa that was under the sea was reclaimed by building bunds and sluice gates to create the fertile rice fields known as khazans. Several dynasties, especially the Shilaharas and Kadambas, held sway over a part of West India from Govapuri, the first capital of Goa. Christianity, it is said, was forced upon Goa by the Portuguese. This is far from the truth, as Christianity was brought to Goa not only by one but two apostles of Christ -St. Thomas and St. Bartolomeu. St.Thomas passed through Goa on his way to Kerala and St. Bartolomeu started from Kalyanpur in Mangalore and died a martyr in Maharashtra. Persian traders put up Pahalavi crosses, one of which was discovered at the Gopakapattana harbour. This paper seeks to examine these and other issues of myth surrounding the heritage of the land we know today as Goa.

This presentation is informed by an anthropological understanding of what it means to be local and cosmopolitan. This is discussed within the context of artistic practice, which today has come to be dominated by both, an aspiration towards universal value, as well as an acute awareness of political, economic and cultural differences. Within anthropology, the idea of locality as given, primordial and rooted has been critiqued. This has accompanied a similar exercise showing how modern cosmopolitan sensibilities too are often not as straightforward as they seem. The central and metropolitan context is not by default more cosmopolitan than a peripheral, non-urban one. Similarly one cannot assume locality to be a taken-for-granted term with a given, fixed set of variables defining it. Within such a theoretical framework, how does one respond to artistic practice in contemporary times, which is often locked within a grid of identity differences, as well as a persistent aspiration towards universal values? This study takes a position within this debate. It believes that the local has become a special site of conflict within a divided but highly connected world. It is even less accurate today to understand it as a counter-point to a global, cosmopolitan sensibility or conversely, to believe that the national or the global is somehow more attuned to universal aspiration.