When the Shiv Sena and other groups representing the Marathi colonial interests in the Concan claimed that Bombay was originally "Mumbai", and demanded a "reversion" to that name, there was — and is — no real objection, no real demand for historical evidence. Nearly everybody today has acquiesced in this "name change" — although in fact, the Marathi claims are pure fabrications!
Again, when one considers India’s claims made upon Goa, there is astonishingly no equivalent demand for strict historical evidence. Instead, the vicious slanders of the Indianists — that the Portuguese were just a bunch of pirates and freebooters, who imposed themselves gratuitously upon the Goans and who enslaved the Goans, and that the Goans resented the Portuguese, and sought and welcomed "liberation" at the hands of the Indians — are accepted as Gospel Truth.
It is not my purpose to provide strict historical evidence — nor do I perceive any need. I do not need to dig out and flaunt treaties and covenants and instruments of union or accession, and to prove that they were, indeed, signed by duly constituted representatives of the respective powers.
On the contrary, my claims are based on undisputed historical traditions — recognized internationally among historians. Of course, for the Indianists, any thing that is contrary to their pretensions is not undisputed. However, I do not trouble myself about Indianist pretensions — they have their source solely in hypocrisy and narcissism.
But upon reflecting on the objections that this Indian raised - which echo those of Krishna Menon — I wish to ask some counter-questions.
India was formed by the British by merging their contiguous conquests out of territories which — by and large — had traditionally and historically a very hostile relationship among themselves. As a result of the unity imposed by the British, the Indianists arose — a new class of people who claimed Indian unity. Nevertheless they did not and still do not represent all the peoples whose homelands were incorporated by the British into British India. Many of these peoples have resisted integration, whether under British auspices or those of the Indianists. And the Indianists have inherited these imperial conquests, these imperial enslavements, from the British.
Nor have the Indians acted in accordance with their stated beliefs by permitting these enslaved peoples to depart along with their homelands into independent nations. On the contrary, the Indianists have bludgeoned and bludgeon them, seeking to terrorize them into integration.
Taking these facts, we can summarize: These people DID NOT join India voluntarily. If Goa can be said to not have joined Portugal voluntarily, the same can be said, and with much stronger emphasis and with absolutely no doubts whatsoever, about peoples who have been included into the Indian Union against their wills.
Therefore, if it is to be accepted that Goa, because the Goans never formally integrated themselves into Portugal, ought not to be considered an integral part of Portugal, then those same principles should be applied by the Indianists
first of all to those peoples who have been dragooned into the Indian Union against their express wills.
And yet, the facts concerning Goa are rather unique. Facts which the Indianists like to deny, to falsify. And that is that while Goans never did formally integrate themselves as a people and as a state into Portugal, they did everything short of a rigidly legalist interpretation of what constitutes integration.
We sought the Portuguese to come to Goa and to liberate us from the tyranny of Islamic Bijapur. And when that had been accomplished, there was a free and liberal meeting of hearts between Goans and Portuguese — a Confluence of Affections — and we assimilated ourselves freely, barring a small minority of malefactors, into the Portuguese community.
While I admit freely that no treaty or formal agreement to that effect was ever signed by Goans with Portugal, I affirm that neither was there ever any need nor is it that every relationship between peoples whatsoever has been formal, written. The informal agreements far outnumber the formal ones.
Nor is this all. By and large, except, I repeat, for a small and demographically insignificant number of malefactors, the Goans stood stolidly and solidly with Portugal. That is true not only of Goans in Goa but also of Goans in the Indian Union or in any of the other lands and countries of the British Empire that were swept by the false — and deliberately fostered — ideology of "anti-colonialism".
There were more than 100,000 Goans in Bombay alone, during 1947-1961, and barely 200 to 300 of them fell in with the Indianists. This despite all of the mischief that Nehru could think of – including sending drunkards and thugs around to threaten and intimidate Goans in Bombay into supporting his shenanigans against Goa and Portugal.
Nehru also sent out his stool pigeons — like Lucio & Laura Rodrigues — overseas in order to work on Goans there, such as in British East Africa, etc., but there too the Goans scorned them and stood by Goa and Portugal.
But let us look at things from yet another angle. Goa is demographically dominated by the agriculturally more fertile Velhas Conquistas — the Old Conquests districts of the Isles of Goa, Bardez and Sasti. The Christians, who are thoroughly Lusitanised, dominate these. Outside this Pale is the hilly, less fertile, Novas Conquistas which is dominated by the pagan pro-Marathi Gentoos. If the spurious, alleged "Indianity" of the Goans is justification for tearing away Goa from Portugal, there is a much stronger case for tearing away the Novas Conquistas from Goa and integrating them into Maharashtra. The Gap between Inner Goa and Outer Goa is enormous while the Gap between Portugal and Goa is relatively insignficant. What is to stop the people of the Novas Conquistas standing up one day and demanding secession from Goa?
If there was a problem about Portugal’s takeover of Goa, it was purely and entirely a matter for the Goans. Yet, the Goans have historically never demonstrated that they have a problem.
The time gap between 1510 and 1961 is too long for the Goans not to have demonstrated that they did not approve of the establishment wrought by the Portuguese Liberators of Goa, Affonso de Albuquerque and Company.
Nor did the Goans, taken as a whole, acquiesce in the mischief and interference by India into its neighbour’s internal affairs, during the period 1947 — 1961. This much is admitted, even though grudgingly, even by the traitor and pro-Indian historian, P.P. Xirodcar, whose history of the Rape of Goa is the most serious and scholarly available.
Yet, the events of 1954 and 1961 did not have the Goan people as their author, but were purely and solely the work of the Indians, aided and assisted by a small number of Goan traitors, who’s number is so small that they can be listed on a single sheet of foolscap.
India is not a nation. It is a wide panorama of nations of diverse racial origins, historical and cultural traditions. India is more exactly the East Indies. The East Indies extend far beyond the boundaries of the Indian Union. It also includes the former Dutch East India, Indochina, the Philippines, etc. This is the area called "Farther India" — which is presently united as the ASEAN Block.
The Indian Union, as "India" does not levy claim upon these territories. It is not irredentist towards these territories. But not only is it not irredentist towards South-East Asia, it is also NOT irredentist towards Nepal or Pakistan or Bangladesh or Burma or the Maldives.
Yet each of these territories was part of the British East India Empire and was separated on spurious grounds.
And yet, while refusing to levy irredentist claims on these territories, and even on those of "Farther India", it pretends to "Irredentist" claims over Goa!
What can be the basis of such a claim?
As a matter of fact, despite its coy pretensions, India’s claim is not based really upon "Irredentism" (which would have been nonsensical, when one considers India and its founding philosophy, which aimed to establish, not an "Indianist" state, but a Hindu state) but upon the equally spurious and mischievous pretension that territory must be contiguous and not permit enclaves that disturb this continuity.
That is what Nehru meant when he called Goa a pimple on the face of India…
Who Are The Indianists?
The Aryans can be reasonably be described as the founders of India or Hindustan or Bharat. When the Aryans invaded the subcontinent, the name used by the natives was "Meluha". At least, this is the common agreement of archaeologists and historians. A minority claim that the name was "Dilmun", but that name is identified with the Island of Bahrain.
When the Aryans conquered and colonized the area, their conquest extended eastwards into what is today Afghanistan, Iran, Tadjikistan, Armenia and Kurdistan. The name Iran is derived from the name "Aryan".
However, there were deep social disputes among the Aryans. The hereditary caste of priests, the Brahmins, and the hereditary caste of rulers, the Kshatriyas, vied for domination, resulting in occasional bloodletting and attempts to overthrow the Brahmin Ascendancy.
One of these is identified with the Schism of the West under the auspices of Zarathustra. The Kshatriyas in the West successfully overthrew the Brahmins, suppressed the Brahminical faith and substituted it with a direct inversion of the Hindu scheme of things, putting down the devas as evil beings, and elevating the asuras — particularly Ahura Mazda, as good beings.
Brahminism apparently learnt from this fiasco, and accordingly made some changes in the Hindu scheme of things. Centralism and overall, global unity were eschewed and the Kshatriyas were taught that it is their Dharma (Religious Duty) to continually wage war among themselves, to vie for the supremacy among themselves. In this manner, the Kshatriyas in the East were kept off balance and thereby prevented from emulating their counterparts in the West, in overthrowing the Brahmin Ascendancy in the East.
It is for this reason that, despite the continual rise of large empires in the subcontinent, there was no real development of a deep and abiding idea of Indian Unity, equivalent to that that developed in China, for example. The Indians, by and large, were not possessed by the obsession, similar to that among the Chinese, of securing and maintaining, and restoring when broken, the universal unity of the Indian subcontinent.
As I have set out and proven, this is attributeable solely and entirely to the leaders of the Hindu peoples, the Brahmin caste.
Yet, when a great part of the East Indies was conquered and united by the English into one single political entity, these very same Brahmins have jumped to the forefront, after their attempts to throw out the English failed utterly, to pretend to Indian Unity as some kind of divine sacrament, one that cannot be excused or compromised with.
It is these hypocrites and fraudsters who are the parents of the false idea of "Indianism".