When one is challenged, exposed and caught out about an issue, damage control procedure demands adopting one of three devices - dodge the issue, shift your grounds to throw a smoke screen or gloss over uncomfortable facts. RMB must have considerable experience in being challenged, exposed and caught out. For on this issue of whether Portuguese missionaries wore swords, he has resorted all three devices.

THE ISSUE.

The issue here is clearly whether Portuguese missionaries wore swords. There is no mistake about that. RMB said very positively and categorically in his first foray that they never wore swords. His very words were – "According to a historian of the Portuguese period there are no instances referred to in the historical records where priests carried swords, except on one occasion ---." He has not denied having said that now. The wearing of swords, therefore, is clearly the issue.

I responded by inquiring who the "a historian " was. I also pointed out that there were innumerable instances in the historical record where the Portuguese missionaries not only wore swords but used them. I also mentioned some instances as related by the missionaries themselves.

In his response what one sees is a dodging of issues, a shifting of grounds and a glossing over of uncomfortable facts.

DODGING ISSUES.

1. To my inquiry as to who the "a historian of the Portuguese period" cited as authority was there is no reply. Why is this dodged now? Why does he not say who this "a historian" is? Why is his name withheld? Why is the name of the historical work not revealed? Why is the relevant passage not cited? Why are this "a historian’s" credentials and sources hidden? What is the reason for this silence? Is it because, to put it politely, it is ‘a terminological inexactitude’ and the moral courage and intellectual honesty is lacking to confess to the sham?

2. The "a historian" cited had a single exception to the "no sword" rule. The sources I mentioned contradict this outright. Why is this not responded to? Or if not why are the alternate sources not cited? Why this silence? Why is this issue also dodged?

SHIFTING GROUND TO

OBFUSCATE ISSUES

1. In the beginning the issue was clearly stated to be "Did the Portuguese Missionaries wear swords". Now the ground is shifted, and shifted exponentially, although slipped in surreptitiously. Now the issue according to the title of the latest foray is not "Did the Portuguese missionaries wear Swords". No. It is, Did the Portuguese missionaries wear swords to convert people". No one talked of conversion so far. That is not what the "a historian" pronounced. The "a historian" very categorically said there were no instances "where priests carried swords". Period. "A historian" never referred to conversion. Why is it dragged in now? Why this sudden shift of issues? Is it because a smoke screen becomes vital when exposed? Is it because to obfuscate the issue, one has to draw a red herring across the trail by shifting one’s ground

From this point onwards RMB launches himself on a trip. And that exposes the bug that is really biting him. He is smarting about the recent International Conference on the Portuguese encounter and –

Is RMB making these serious charges out of his personal knowledge? Was he physically present at the conference? Did he personally hear these horrible ‘modern day Buddhist nationalists’ making these damnable ‘points’? Was it at the Plenary Sessions or at the Technical Sessions? What were the titles of the papers where these damnable ‘points’ were made? What are the names of these horrible ‘modern day Buddhist nationalists’ who made these damnable ‘points’?

The Abstracts of the papers presented at the Conference have been printed and are available. What are the citations and page references in these Abstracts where these ‘points’ were made? These questions demand an answer. The answer must be without prevarication - without dodging, without glossing, without shifting ground. Who said this and what is the reference? If he cannot do this he is proved to the readership as a – well, the readership knows that four-letter word I am not using. A man who makes charges he cannot substantiate should eat his own words, and that too, if he has the intellectual honesty and moral courage to do so.

RMB does not stop at hurling wild, baseless charges. After having thus castigated the nasty actions of these horrible ‘modern day Buddhist nationalists’ he then – amazingly – issues an imperious direction. And to me! He "calls upon" me! The imperial edict is that I should "provide the public with references to historical documents of such [forced] conversions". But why should I? It is not I who raised the issue of forced conversions. It is this RMB who dragged this red herring across the trail. So let he who asserts, prove. Let him "provide the public with references to historical documents" to substantiate his view that there were no forced conversions.

2. Still on shifting ground to obfuscate. I said in my article the sword was no part of the religious habit. Now RMB says, "This was my point as well".

But where was this point made?

GLOSSING OVER UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS.

I had mentioned a few of the many instances in the historical record where Portuguese missionaries not only wore swords but used them.

1. The first instance was where they "assisted at the Mass with swords at their side".

RMB has pointed out that the reference here is to soldiers and not priests. I realize he is absolutely right. I was wrong in assuming that only priests ‘assisted at Mass". But that is no excuse. I freely make a frank and unreserved admission of my error. I will not gloss over it.

2. But see how RMB glosses over the other instances I mentioned. He refers to my citation from Trinidade and says the Portuguese missionaries were "only mounting guard against any attack from the Dutch". Now to talk of Trinidade writing about Dutch attacks is one more symptom of the mi (monumental ignorance) syndrome. But let that pass. Trinidade distinctly says here "--- our Fathers taking up arms ---." How does that reconcile with that opening salvo "of no instances referred to in the historical record?" But even this glossing over is not the point. The real glossing over is that when presented with an actual instance, the man who pronounced so positively "of no instance" now actually justifies the Portuguese missionary carrying swords. Full circle! He says it is because the Portuguese soldiers were "sickly and starving". (Mi syndrome again – Trinidade never says this. But let this too pass.) Never mind the sickly starving Portuguese soldiers, are we agreed then the Portuguese missionaries actually "carried arms’ here and shall we therefore honourably eat our own words?

3. The glossing over of the next instance where a Portuguese missionary is actually described as using his sword to kill is even more hilarious. This time it is justified on the ground that he has a right to do so! This from the man who has earlier grandly asserted "no instances"!

Such then are the shifty methods resorted to in an attempted cover-up job.

Then there is a patronizing conclusion. Referring to my warning against both white-washing or bashing one is told –

"What Mr. Gaston Perera means, I suppose, is that we should understand things according to the spirit of the times ---."

I think my meaning is quite clear without any supposing or paraphrase. But it was intended as basis for an informed and honest discussion. For those with shifty methods and a m.i syndrome, a fixation against Buddhists nationalists and a penchant for wild charges I would repeat my earlier admonition from Wittgenstein (and not Kierkegaard as I erroneously stated then) – "Whereof one is ignorant, thereof one must be silent."