INVASION OF GOA - THE IMPOSSIBLE INDEPENDENCE by Paulo Mendonça

Since he raised the issue of Goa, that the possibility of Portugal grant independence to that territory has been advanced by various sectors, such as the way it should have been followed by Portugal, to prevent the events of 1961.

Most Portuguese politicians agree that the invasion of the territory of Goa by the Indian Union was illegal and in absolute contravention of the rules of international law, the Indian Union violated by invading Portuguese territory.

It happens that, after the revolution of April 25, 1974, the then government of Portugal recognized the possession of those territories of the Indian Union, accepting a situation domain 'De Facto' handing definitely - the legal point of view - to the territories invading country.

Among the evidence presented, is that now there was nothing left to do, since the regime out Revolution May 28, 1926 (New State) had persisted in its colonialist policy. Aventam the same sectors, the solution would have been to Goa's independence, especially during the 50s, which would have led to the Indian Union had no argument for invading the territory.

There are however a number of gaps in that reasoning, we can conclude that such a hypothesis, not only would have been possible to implement, as also could never have been accepted by the government of the Indian Union.

Hindu Nationalism

Hindu Temple: The revival of Ancient symbols was used as an argument to defend and justify Nationalism and Religious Fanaticism.

When Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi started his journey that would culminate in his assassination by Hindu nationalists, had several movements in the sub continent favorable to the independence of India. The problem is that the boundaries of this mythical India, were not clear to anyone, and the ultra-nationalist, considered the kingdoms that existed before the arrival of Muslims as the source of their right to independence.

In fact, between the second century BC to the twelfth century, when it establishes the first Muslim sultanate, the Indian subcontinent was ruled by a myriad of kingdoms and empires, whose dominions, though not coincident, if extendiam from the montranhas the Hindu-Kush to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).

The Indian nationalism, was therefore created with reference to this past and this geographic reality, that included territories corresponded to countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri-Lanka, Sikkim, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Burma and Naturally, Goa. India Hindu nationalists who wanted to create, was based empires of the past, and so, for many, appeared as an attempt to rebuild an empire.

The connection between the future India and this historical reality is, a purely rational point of view, an absurdity. From the standpoint of international law, is unacceptable, as manifestly illegal. Corresponded eg the Italian State demanded control of Libya in France or the UK, because for centuries the territories that occupy these countries belonged to the Roman Empire.

However, and regardless of not having a rational support or cool, Indian nationalism, Hindu-oriented, was gaining more strength. In 1920, Mohandas Gandhi was elected leader of the Congress Party. Gandhi was seen by the Muslim leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a dangerous nationalist Hindu.

The Muslim leader, defended the administrative autonomy of India, but he feared the rise of Hindu and independence, which he deemed dangerous to Muslims, given the content nationalist extremist that threatened to take.

Mohamed Ali Jinah: The leader of the Muslims of India, through Hindu nationalism as a threat to peace and not ever believed that India could be created as a plurinational state that respects minorities. The Islamic leader has always defended theses, which implied that the creation of the Indian Union, amounted in practice to create an empire. The non-acceptance by a Hindu nationalist state that Muslims and Hindus were in equality, led to the need for separation, as early as 1947.

Between 1930 and 1935, the restlessness of Muslims increases. Muslims consider as the main danger area of ​​Hindu nationalists, who have a risk of death for the Muslims of India. 

In 1937, the Congress of Mohandas Gandhi, refused a formal alliance with the Muslim League, thus reaffirming the intention to proceed with a Hindu state, which corresponds to the territories 'historic' of Hindus. At the same time, Nehru, as president of the Congress Party makes a speech in which he asserts that "... there are only two movements in India, Hindu Nationalism and British Imperialism ... '.
These statements are seen as a denial of the rights of countless minorities, stating opposition to British rule by Hindu movement, and denying all others the right to exist.
Regardless of your religious background, regardless of the incredible diversity of races, religions and languages, India's Congress Party, is Hindu, and nothing more.

The envisioned by India's Congress Party leader, looked up increasingly with an empire with a state-the NACA.

This movement and the positions of the leaders of the Congress Party, understand in the light of a certain nationalist vision that interprets the events of the last millennium and sees the emergence of India out of the British Empire, as a sort of resurgence of Hindu power prior to Muslim invasions, before the arrival of Europeans or prior to the establishment of the Mughal empire (Islamic), which dominated India until the seventeenth century.

The division was unacceptable, because it had been the reason for the decline. The output India of the British Empire, had to leave so unified and should seek to lift a country capable of developing its golden time.

The decolonization of British India, did not go well with the separation of a significant, but much could be lost if the countless territories that were under the control of the government in New Delhi took the bad examples of small states that remained on the borders of Indian Union. So everything had to be done to ensure that these bad examples potencial never would.

The destabilization of neighboring states 

The Principality of Sikkim: An example

When after World War II, the attempts of the British to keep the 'Pearl of the Empire »united under one government failed, began to be conducted throughout the territories, citizens referenda to ask, what is your option, and which country thought that its territory should belong.

In a referendum held in 1947, the small Principality of Sikkin, which was between Nepal, Bhutan, India and China, refused to join the Indian Union.

The existence of a small national reality, within what Hindu nationalists called India (or India historical, to better understand), however it was difficult to accept.

The Prime Minister of the Indian Union and Chogyal Chenpo, at the time leader of Sikkim, a country that kept its independence for centuries. Nehru did not accept that the Sikkim never establish embassies and imposed a policy disguised transmigration, which ultimately led to the disappearance of the small principality in 1975. The Sikkim, is often considered Tibet of India.

The Principality of Sikkim, constituted for the Hindu nationalists, an extremely negative, because it allowed a precedent that would lead to the emergence of other national realities or micro-states, which have always characterized the Indian sub-continent.

Small states, were seen as one of the weaknesses of India, and the reason that led to the beginning of its decline in the thirteenth century. The logical solution was to ensure that such national realities had no means or conditions to survive.

India tried to just start boycotting the process, but the fact that Sikkim has established special relations with the British, who prevented the principality was integrated into the Indian Union.
The Indian government assured however a system of suzerainty, in which foreign policy was directed by the government in New Delhi.

The Indian Union imposed a status of semi-independence, but failed to act against Sikkim. The country was slowly being colonized by the Indians. In 1968, RAW [1] initiates actions that will lead to overall destabilization of the country during the 70s. Terrorist attacks to succeed and ethnic hatreds explode suddenly.

In 1970, the Congress Party of Sikkim (arm party of the same name in India) and representative of the Hindu minority, begins a violent revolt against the monarchy of Sikkim, demanding greater representation for the growing number of Hindus.
Political instability and violence settled. The solution of the problem came conveniently through a request from a group of representatives from Sikkim, for the principality was accepted as a state of the Indian Union.

In 1973 India intervenes, claiming that fears that China considers the territory as part of Tibet and attach.
The prime minister, an ally of the Indians, we could not understand with the prince, and in 1975, presents a formal request to India for the country to be more attached as a state of the Indian Union.

The question was put and the population endorsed the dilemma of accepting part of India, or otherwise maintain the political instability and riots that had been organized by the Indian or be attacked by China. The country was formally annexed on May 16, 1975.

The ultimate annexation of Sikkim, is one of the clearest demonstrations that the independence of the Portuguese State of India, would never have been accepted by the Indian Union. Their fate could never have been different from the Sikkim. Nehru himself said that, by proclaiming in a speech in 1955:

"... We are not willing to tolerate Portuguese presence in Goa, Goans even want them there are ... »

The issue of Goa, could never therefore have any direct relation to the characteristics of the regime of Lisbon, which in this case stated with some property, that India just wanted to exchange a colonialism on the other.

Now, what led to the annexation of Sikkim, was the inability of the small state fighting terrorism sponsored by the Indian Union, through the RAW [1]

This type of destabilization was tempted as we know in Goa, terrorist attacks and small groups Satyagris [2]. The state of Goa, in the case of access to independence, would not be able (like Sikkim or Bhutan) to resist a wave of atantados against citizens.

If it had reached independence, the only way that Goa would fight instablidade be keeping some kind of connection with Portugal, whose military presence even though symbolic, was enough to quell terrorist activities.

Such a possibility, of course could not be accepted by the Indian Union and would be considered as neo-colonialism, leading inevitavalmente the invasion and annexation, later or sooner.

The case of the Kingdom of Bhutan

The government palace in Thimphu, capital of Bhutan: The small country's international isolation was imposed by the Indian Union, which demanded control foreign relations 

If the case of the Principality of Sikkim annexation led to the end and integration more or less forced Indian Union in the country, it is not the only exermplo demonstrating that Goa could never have been a state independent and autonomous.

Also in the case of Bhutan attaching the question has been raised. There, there was even less Hindu and Buddhist majority population was clear, and Bhutan was also recognized by the British, having a status of no-self.

But still, the Indian Union also demanded the right to manage the foreign policy of this small state, exactly as in the case of Sikkim.

When Sikkim was finally absorbed by India, a highly contested process, Bhutan tried to seize critical to India to pierce the Indian blockade that prevented the existence of foreign embassies.

Sri Lanka, the problem of larger

If small states of Bhutan and Sikkim, are those that we can more easily compare to Goa, you can not fail to mention the temptations annexationist Indian neighbor about Sri Lanka, also seen as part of Greater India.
If no conditions internationally to continue to defend positions more or less 'annexationist', the truth is that India has never ceased to regard the former Ceylon, as a territory should be under the elevation of the government in New Delhi.

Although no clear evidence, the truth is that the government of Sri Lanka has accused officially in 1983, the Indian Union in support of the rebel Tamil north of the island, in an alleged attempt to destabilize.

Even today (2009), purchases of military equipment by the Sri-Lanka are regularly the subject of criticism by Indian military, claiming that Sri-Lanka, standing in the Indian region should acquire equipment to India and not to other countries .
In response to pressure from India, Sri Lanka opted to establish special ties with China in terms of defense.

Sri Lanka, had the advantage of a position of prestige among the non-aligned movement, otherwise would be destined to the same destination Goa, where its size (the country with a population that currently reaches 21 million people) do not this possibility become unviable, even after the end of the Cold War.


[RAW - Research and Analisys Wing 

It is an office of research and strategic studies, sponsored by the government of the Indian Union, and depending on the prime minister himself, which was created in 1968. The organization maintains allegedly secret arms and aims to facilitate operations in neighboring countries of India, to allow Indian enjoy instability in their own favor.


The RAW, exercised its activities in Sikkim, and exercises present these activities in Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Bangladesh. Ie all territories Hindu nationalism believes that are historically part of India.

INVASION OF GOA - THE INDIAN UNION ULTIMATUM by Paulo Mendonça

The Portuguese prime minister, Salazar and the Prime Minister of India, Nehru. The characteristics of the autocratic  Portuguese regime helped Nehru in its international campaign against Portugal.

The need to guarantee of the Internal unit, channelling the energies of the country against an external enemy, led the Indian Union drove to Portugal an Ultimatum on the territories of Portuguese Estado da India.  The Indian Union demand was presented in the form of a letter from the Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru addressed to the Portuguese Government on February 27, 1950.

In that letter, even if requesting the opening of negotiations, were not presented a request for negotiations (plural), having barely an only question it discuss: The Departure of Portugal from the Indian Subcontinent.

Even not appearing , it was basically an Ultimatum, because the Indian Union provided only one condition: The 'Return' of the territory of Goa to the Indian Union.

Absence of any other country for that negotiation can, even if this implied that the independence theory of Goa was completely and utterly out of the question, already in 1950.

The possibility of an Independent Goa would not be acceptable under any circumstances, as proved by the actions of the Indian Union against the other small neighbouring States (Junagad, Hyderabad, Kashmir,Sikkim Etc)in the Indian Subcontinent. Moreover, on average (per capita), the territory of Goa was more rich and prosperous than the rest of the Indian Union. That difference in prosperity, increased during the 50s and became increasingly more and more urgent to end the danger Goa Represented to the Indian Union.

Given the conditions of the Ultimatum, the Lisbon government has a problem of solution difficult if not impossible.

The Portuguese Government also recognizes in 1954, by words of the Prime Minister, Oliveira Salazar, the territory of Goa is Militarily Indefensible.

But the problem in Portugal, is related to the Interpretation of the Portuguese National identity, which, are based on historical rights, believes that Portuguese Estado da India are indeed an integral part of the Portugal nation and not merely as coon happened to the possessions of French, British or Dutch.

This conception of the world also extended from Portuguese Africa, where one would expect the emergence of the pro-independence movements, usually sponsored by the Soviet Union, who sought thus create problems for Western countries .

Portuguese policy makers believed that the existence of Portugal as an Independent state, relied on their control over these territories. The negotiation on the control of the Portuguese Estado da India would set a precedent and force Portugal to negotiate the provision of other territories.

It turns out that for most of the Portuguese this option was simply impossible to accept.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli were not physically connected to Daman. In 1953, India banned the Portuguese to cross the territories and in 1954 invaded them. Portugal has accused India in the international tribunal in The Hague, and the court has reason to Portugal.

Although Indian Union for many years, advertising typically associated with the Soviet Union had propagated the plan that Portugal did not accept the International rules, in fact International law has always been on the Portuguese side. The violations were on the side of the Indian Union.

The first violation occurred in 1953 when Indian Union declared a blockade on the territories of Dadrá e Nagar-Haveli (nearby area of Damão and with which they had no geographical contiguity). In 1954 the Indian Union completed the blockade with an Invasion of that territory.

The issue was brought before the International Court of Justice in The Hague and that the Indian Union tried by all means avoid the outcome of the trial, it was absolutely clear:

The Hague Tribunal ruled that both the blockade and the subsequent Invasion of the territories of Dadrá e Nagar-Haveli By Indian Union in 1954 was illegal, and India Union should return the territories to Portugal. The Indian Union had secretly tried Portugal to withdrew the complaint in The Hague, promising to 'Forget' the question of Goa for some time. But as India Union was not willing to give up Goa, Portugal refused the deal.

Still, The Prime Minister of India Jawarhal Nehru, speaking on the Indian Parliament, affirmed that India should bow before the law (Strangely, he change the ideas a year and some months later).

Indeed, the Portuguese left little more than International law to defend territories of Estado da India.

International Court of The Hague: Unlike that for many years have tried to make us believe. Portugal always scrupulously respected international law and the decisions of IT are proof of that.

Lacking any legitimate claim to the territories of the Estado da India, the Indian Union went on the offensive in a field where it was easier to attack Portugal.

Country of Western European, although that were headed by a Conservative Government autocrat since 1926, had clearly chosen to align with the Western allies during the war, Portugal began to be charged by the Indian Union with a quantity of illegal and "crimes ", which should justify before the world, the demands and the eventual annexation of territories of Goa.

THE POSITION OF PORTUGAL AND THE INDIAN UNION

While universally recognized as one of the least racist people in the world, the Portuguese, were accused by the Indian Union and its main ally, the Soviet Union, the crimes of racism, oppression and exploitation of the people of Portuguese Estado da India.

Among the arguments used to justify the departure of the Portuguese from the Indian Subcontinent, we used the following main arguments, to which the Portuguese responded as indicated:

India Union claimed that the territories had been stolen in India, which made the illegal occupation!

Portugal said that when the first Portuguese arrived in the Indian subcontinent, there was no Indian Union state or anything like that. In fact, most of the territory was dominated by Muslims, and Portugal were legally at war with Muslims, for determining the Pope himself. The Portuguese conquests were therefore legal, and under the 'Right of Conquest', which was accepted until several centuries after the seizure of those territories.

This right was acknowledged even by the Indian Union itself, to have recognized the Portuguese, and has even appointed ambassador to Lisbon and a Consulate General in Goa from 1947 to 1955 in Panjim.

The Indian Union said it wanted to release its "Brothers" either in terms of ethnic or religious, oppressed by the Portuguese.

Portugal replied that there was the slightest indication that the Citizens of Goa in fact wanted to be 'Liberated'.

Portuguese in India since the time of the Marquis of Pombal, who was tried for example, dilute the huge differences imposed by the Hindu Caste system.

The Goan people of lower castes (especially the Sudras), people were very poor and humble, but over 300 years of Portuguese law enforcement, had acquired a modicum of dignity that the Hindu system continued to deny them even after Independence of the Indian Union .

To add to this, the religious argument made no sense because the Indian Union itself had illegally occupied the territory of Kashmir, which is mostly Muslim.

India claimed that the presence of Portugal was a threat to its existence.

The Portuguese responded by stating that they had always recognized the right of existence of the Indian Union, Our Country had recognized and guaranteed always the order in the territories of Goa, ensuring that they would never be used as a base against the Indian Union.

Portugal did not follow the winds of history, intending to keep the colonies in the world that do not accept them, and the colonies were foreign elements on Indian soil.

The Portuguese responded the argument that if the Portuguese were foreigners in Goa, after 450 years of presence, so also the entire Australian, Canadian and U.S. population were foreigners in thier Lands, Russia would have no rights to the territories it occupied after the sixteenth century, when it expanded beyond borders of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy.

The most critical periods of the Portuguese presence in the Indian Subcontinent, was under the pressure of the Maratha Empire, were Goans, who in the seventeenth century, had paid a ransom, which prevented Goa to be taken by them.

Unlike the territories Controlled and Colonised by other countries, the status of Goa was a Province of Portugal, and since 1822 Goans elected deputies to the Cortes of the Kingdom in Lisbon and later to the National Assembly, the Portugal Parliament. Nothing therefore could be inferred that Portuguese Estado da India was a colony of Portugal.

India claimed that Portugal battled so intolerable to the Indian Union, which had tried to negotiate peacefully with Portugal.

The Portuguese said it was absurd that Portuguese Estado da India population of 500,000 people, who lived 450 years ago in a peaceful way with the Portuguese was an affront to Indian Union with nearly 500 million.

In addition, it was India which has always refused to negotiate whatever it was. India wanted to negotiate only one point: The Timing of the annexation of the Portuguese Estado da India to the Indian Union.

India does not want to negotiate Autonomy, Semi-Independence, Co-sovereignty, or any other form of government for Portuguese Estado da India that could resolve the issue peacefully. The only thing that Indian Union wanted to negotiate, was the only that Portugal could never accept it because it would be a denial of their historical rights.

INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR PORTUGAL

Given this state of affairs, when it became clear that the Indian Union did not have any strong enough arguments to justify the transfer of Portuguese rights over the territory, little would be left to the Indian Union to do, aside from the Invasion of Goa, which would compel Jawarhal Nehru to leave the Dirty Image Worldwide as a pacifist.

Indian Union never asked in the International forum that there should be a Referendum held in Goa. Goa should be attached, whether or not what the Goans wanted , as the Nehru said '... We are unwilling to tolerate the Portuguese presence in Goa, even though the Goans want them there... "

Also unlike that have long been said, is absolutely not true that Portugal has been alone before the world in case of Goa.

Although nothing has been done, most European countries and states have shown themselves clearly in favor of Portugal. Countries like Spain and especially Brazil made several efforts to prevent the Annexation of territories by the Indian Union.

Pakistan, even ordered the mobilization of two of its divisions on the border with India Union and China, contacted by the Portuguese Government, came to show themselves interested in negotiating with Portugal some kind of cooperation involving Goa, although the Chinese probably did not consider that Indian Union would act militarily.

Beside Indian Union it was only the Soviet Union and its numerous satellites, many of them "undercover" of non-aligned countries.

Contrary to what was for many years via the media during the '50s and '60s, virtually no one in Portugal would gladly accept the possibility of returning the territories of Portuguese Estado da Indian to the Indian Union to which most citizens were in fact Portuguese. Even the Portuguese elites who opposed the regime of Oliveira Salazar, were not in favorable for the Independence of Portuguese African territories. That was clear, for example after the diversion of the Portuguese liner Santa Maria - a clear protest against the regime - most that when asked about the issue of settlements, the leader of the operation, Capt. Henrique Galvao made statements in which it became clear that did not make any sense to give independence to the Portuguese overseas territories.

This booklet, however, allowed the Soviet Union (to take just one example) a fierce and ruthless control over Eastern Europe and on the "colonies" of the Russian Caucasus to the eastern Siberia.

We must remember that the Hindu tradition divides the Hindu population into four major groups, called Caste System. One such group is divided in turn into two, so that sources in fact divide the varieties into five groups, namely:

Brahmins the most important, is the caste of priests and kings also (according to Hindu tradition, made from the mouth of Brahma).

Kshatriya (Kshatryas), or military caste of warriors (according to Hindu rule, made from the shoulders of Brahma).

Vaisya (Vaysias), which is the caste of traders and eventually rural workers (according to tradition, made from the belly of Brahma).

Sudras, which is the lowest of all, consisting of manual laborers, merchants and peasants mostly (according to Hindu tradition, made from the feet of Brahma).

Within the caste of Sudras, there is a fifth group known as Dalits or Panchamas (Hindu tradition says that the Dalits were made of dust under the feet of Brahma). The latter are called untouchables, and many aspects were not considered human beings.

Although the Portuguese Estado da India, continued to exist great divide between castes, she was criticized, however, much less intense than in the Indian Union. The Portuguese saw many Hindu customs as barbaric and banned several practices already since the sixteenth century. One of the practices prohibited by the Portuguese was the burning of widows, along with the corpse of her husband when he died know as SATI.

Where is noticed more the influence of the Portuguese was not among the wealthier castes (whose privileges held by the Portuguese conveniently self-interest) but more modest in castes, especially among Dalits.

The Portuguese banned Hindu practice of not letting the Dalits entering temples. This prohibition comes from the sixteenth century and was reinforced at the time of the Marquis de Pombal in the eighteenth century.

The problem of Caste was discussed by the ruling classes, but nothing was done to soften. Until 70 years, more than a decade after the Invasion of Goa, the system went into effect with all its Medieval features.

This will explain, why the Goan people rich and powerful caste of Brahmins and the Kshatriya were the first to hoist flags of the Indian Union, while the more humble Goans supported the Portuguese troops after the surrender of the Portuguese to the Indian Union troops and humble Goans parted with tears in their eyes after Portuguese Troops left Goa.

INVASION OF GOA - THE BACKGROUND by Paulo Mendonça

On December 17, 1961, the Army of the Indian Union Invaded – with No Declaration of War - the Portuguese Estado da India. The reasons for the Invasion of Estado da India are multiple, and all of them subject to several interpretations.

Se Cathedral : The Largest Church in Asia and symbol of Portuguese Presence

This brief analysis attempts to be just another contribution to facilitate the understanding of what happened. In a world where the Internet is increasingly important when accessing to the information, it is important to have a Portuguese version of what happened, purged of much of what we know today was just a propaganda used to justify the actions of the Indian Union.

Many Historians, in 2011 commemorate 50 years on the event, and consider the Invasion of the Portuguese positions in that territory was the beginning of a process of deconstruction of what some have called the Portuguese Empire. It should be, however, considered that various theses argue, with a valid argument, that the Estado da India was not part of any empire, but a National reality with almost five centuries of its existence.

BACKGROUND

The Portuguese Estado da India, being Goa its main territory, flourished into the twentieth century as the remnant of the large number of Portuguese squares and forts along the coasts of the Indian subcontinent.

It is important to remark that the concept of ‘INDIA’ for the Portuguese did not necessarily correspond to the Indian Subcontinent. In many cases, the designation ‘INDIA’ was used to refer to the Indian Ocean coast and the Portuguese fortresses of both the East African and Arabia Coasts or Persian coasts. The Indian Union just took the name of Indian Subcontinent or Indian Ocean when it was born on 15th August 1947.

Unlike other Portuguese possessions, the Portuguese Estado da India had a different status compare to other Portuguese Overseas territories. Goa had the right to elect its own representatives to the courts of the kingdom and had representation in parliament in Lisbon since 1822.

At the time of its conquest in 1510, Goa was a territory controlled by Muslims (called “Moors” by the Portuguese) against which the Portuguese were at war. Islam had begun its expansion on the west coast of the Indian subcontinent as early as the seventh century. The relationship between the Arabs and western coasts of Indian Subcontinent were indeed long before even the advent of Islam. The Portuguese control of Goa was the result of political alliances between Portugal and the Hindu kingdoms in the Indian Subcontinent, who also fought against Muslims.

The Portuguese possession of Goa, thus resulted from an act of war between Muslims and Christians, the latter having the support of Hindus. However, Portuguese possession of Goa has not been established since 1510, although Portugal had conquered the city at that time, making Goa one of the busiest Cities in the Indian subcontinent, the city would follow the Portuguese decline in Asia during the seventeenth century.

Already after the secession of Portugal's domination of the Filipe Habsburgs, the Dutch took possession of several Portuguese territories in the Indian Subcontinent. Portugal ceded Bombay to the British as a way to get support from them to defend what remains of Portuguese Asian possessions.

In 1683, the Marathas attacked the city of Goa, which comes to be occupied the following year. This leads to the Portuguese to move to the Mormugão peninsula, south of Old Goa, where the capital becomes Vasco da Gama. For ninety years a war with the Marathas was fought. Portugal regain Old Goa, as a result of much pressure and money from Goans.

But only after the conquest of Ponda to the Maratha empire in 1773, the northern part of the territory will pass into the possession of the Portuguese, also because of pressure from the British on several other fronts weakened Marathas tremendously .

One can therefore say that such ownership resulted from the "Right of Conquest”, Internationally accepted until many centuries after the conquest of Goa in 1510.

The Borders between the territories occupied by the Portuguese and the British in the Indian Subcontinent were delineated by Britain. Britain had given the possession of the various territories on the Indian Subcontinent which they controlled up to 40 years to new entities that meantime were formed, one of which would be known as ‘UNION OF INDIA’. This new Political entity, this new Country, ‘UNION OF INDIA’ will represent a problem for Portugal in the Indian Subcontinent.

The Partition of British India

The Disappearance of the British Empire

The British presence in the India Subcontinent began in the seventeenth century with the establishment of trading posts in various parts of the Indian Subcontinent. But the first city that the British effectively controlled was ceded to them by the Portuguese in 1661 as a wedding dowry to renew the bonds of alliance between Portugal and England.

After the end of World War II, Hindu Nationalism had shown that India would not accept the continuation of British rule and Britain, exhausted by the conflict had no possibility to ensure its continued possession of those territories.

The Catastrophic British Decolonization

Already in 1946, it was perfectly clear that the British Empire, would not be able to achieve their theses and maintain a Unified India.

The British usually used to delineate the boundaries without respecting ethnic cases and differences between their various Liegemen. When in 1946 Britain said that British India could be Independent, acceding to independence as a unified state, the resistance of the Muslims begins.

Across British India Muslims put black flags in the windows protesting against the denial of the right to Independence of Muslim India. The hatred came to a head with retaliation by the Hindus and the clashes resulted in 5,000 dead.

The situation was falling outside the control of Britain that showed be unable or unwilling to control British India.

On February 20, 1947, Britain decided the final withdrawal of British troops would take place in June 1948, a way to escape quickly to the problem.

After several attempts and remained deadlocked, Britain finally agreed in June 1947 the division of British India into two states: a Hindu majority ‘UNION OF INDIA’ and another Muslim majority ‘PAKISTAN’.

The process followed was pathetic, with referendums held in haste in many regions of Indian Subcontinent, with semi-literate people to be consulted about the country that they wanted to belong.

The British drew the borders of the two new states 'PAKISTAN' & 'UNION OF INDIA' based on completely outdated and antiquated maps, using the rivers as a basis for the borders, in areas where these same rivers completely change places every monsoon. The blundering actions of a British further increased the already a great confusion.

The resulting division in which many Hindus found themselves suddenly in Muslim areas and vice versa, resulted in the hasty escape of 14 million people between June and September 1947. Only during the exodus of those months, at least 600,000 people died, murdered by extremists on both sides. It is estimated that the number of dead rose to over 1,000,000.

Do not run the risk of ending up with India before starting!

When we try to understand the reasons that led to the most remote Indian Independence in 1947, in the terrible conditions under which it took place, it is not difficult to conclude that the Indian Union - or the Hindu Nationalists - interpreting the history and considering that the separation of the Hindu kingdoms and Hindu principalities in the past was the reason for their downfall, they did everything to prevent the fragmentation of the Indian Subcontinent that in thier view would weaken the very existence of the newly formed nation called ‘UNION OF INDIA’.

The Disunity among the various peoples in the Indian Subcontinent that the imagination of the Hindu Nationalists called Unified India - having created an officially designated State ‘UNION OF INDIA’, was a mortal danger to the country. There could be no more Unified India.

The fate of Goa, even against the desire of the people of Goa and against the principles of International Law, had been sketch.

FREEDOM TO GOA By Francisco Monteiro

I never have the opportunity to see in Goa any kind of struggle (manifestations, strikes, revolts, riots, disobedience, etc.).

How many Goans was in struggle in Goa, Damão and Diu ?

Can you tell me how many Goans asked to Indian Armed Forces to help us ?

Which kind of struggles happened in Goa, Damão and Diu between 1957 and 1961 ?

 

I only remember a coward attack to Betim Police Post when the policemen was eating.

Some day before the Invasion, Indians army "commandos" placed landmines in Poinguinim/Canacona road and your "freedom fighters" destroyed two statues (Mapuçá and Vasco da Gama).

Yes the ex-URSS used the veto to impede the Security Council resolution that condemned the Indian Government and asked to withdraw their forces from Goa, Damão and Diu.

Any time ex-URSS was a democratic country ?

Why ex-URSS was subjugating Polonia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic states and

others ?

The collapse of ex-URRS is a good example to the peoples of the world fighting to freedom.

Francisco Monteiro

RESOLUTION 998 ON GOA INVASION By Angnelo Gomes, Combakar

Goa was not liberated in 1961 by the Indians. Resolution 998 of the United Nations clearly states that it is an Invasion.

Resolution was introduced in the UN, however, it was vetoed by Soviet Union. US seventh military fleet was sent to Indian Ocean at the request of Portugal since Portugal was part of NATO, then. Portuguese ships with soldiers were on the way, they were stopped at the Suez Canal by Egyptian Leader Abdul Nasser at the request of Jawarhalal Nehru, Indian Prime Minister. It was all cold war time, then Egypt, India were aligned toward Soviet Union, although these nations claimed that they were non-aligned.

Portugal never accepted Goa as part of India, until 1970, the democratic government of Portugal officially recognized it.

Then, was the Portugal had its right to give away Goa to India, without the approval of Goan people? Goans were divided on religious lines, they were not patriotic towards their motherland Goa.

Goa had leaders like Dr. Jack Sequeira, Mr. Dayanand Bandodkar, etc.. These leaders were more interested for their own personal gains, than looking into interests of Goan people.

This sentiment Goa as an Indepedent Nation is kept well alive by persons like me with Goan Flag, and by much younger generation born after 1961. This younger generation have their own website called "freegoa.com" managed by Errol Rodrigues.

I consider Goa is an occupied territory of India. Because of my strong sentiment, I have lost many friends, and I'm sacked by TGF and Goanet lists.

The price tag is heavy, but freedom of making that statement must be sweet.

At the moment Goa and India are rated by UN as third world nations, its average citizen living below poverty line of Rs.20,000. It's sad. No one can make the difference except by the people together, if they have the capacity of being the patriots.

NRP AFONSO DE ALBUQUERQUE by Franco Fernandes

The NRP Afonso de Albuquerque was a warship of the Portuguese Navy, destroyed in combat on 18 December 1961, defending Goa against the Indian Armed Forces invasion. The ship was the first of the Afonso de Albuquerque class, which also included the NRP Bartolomeu Dias.

These ships were classified, by the Portuguese Navy, as avisos coloniais de 1ª classe (colonial aviso 1st class) and were designed to maintain a Portuguese naval presence in the Overseas territories of Portugal. They had limited capacity to combat other surface vessels, as they were intended, mainly, to support amphibious operations and troops on land. After the Second World War, the Afonso de Albuquerque class ships were reclassified as frigates.

In her career, the NRP Afonso de Albuquerque served, mainly, in the Indian and the Pacific oceans, protecting the Portuguese territories of Mozambique, India, Macau and Timor. In 1945, she was part of the Portuguese Naval and Military Force that regained the Portuguese sovereignty over East Timor, after that territory had been occupied by the Japanese, during the Second World War.

The ship NRP Afonso de Albuquerque was virtually the only military unit with minimal conditions to offer any resistance against the Invasion of Goa state carried out by troops of the Indian Union in December 1961.

Its final combat

In late 1961, the NRP Afonso de Albuquerque was based in Goa as the leading naval unit of the Portuguese India Naval Command, with Captain Cunha Aragão as her commanding officer. After repeated attempts by India to convince Portugal to relinquish its colonies in India failed, an armed conflict was imminent. In the early morning of the 18 December 1961, the Afonso de Albuquerque received information that the Indian Armed Forces had launched Operation Vijay (1961) to invade Goa, Daman and Diu. The crew entered battle stations. As the land communication infrastructure was bombed and destroyed by the Indian Air Force, the Afonso received the responsibility to maintain radio communications between Goa and Lisbon. At 09:00, the Afonso de Albuquerque sighted 3 Indian Navy ships, led by INS Betwa, just outside the Mormugao port. The 2 frigates and a minesweeper were an advance group of an Indian Navy task force which included the aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant and about ten cruisers, destroyers, frigates and minesweepers. At 12:00 noon, as the Portuguese commanders refused to surrender, the Indian frigates INS Betwa and INS Beas forced the entrance into the port, and opened fire on NRP Afonso de Albuquerque. The Afonso moved in the direction of the enemy ships and responded to the fire. At the same time, the final radio message was sent to Lisbon: We are being attacked. We are responding.

However, the Afonso was hit by the enemy fire. At the 12:20 when she tried to manoeuvre to a position in which she could use all its guns, the command bridge of Afonso was hit, killing the radio officer and seriously wounding Captain Cunha Aragão. The captain ordered the first officer to assume command of the ship with instructions not to surrender. Under heavy fire directed at the ship, some of the crew evacuated the injured commander to the shore, and transferred him by car to medical facilities at Panjim. At 12:35, under massive fire and, already, with the boilers and the machines destroyed, the Afonso crew ran it aground onto the beach to be used as a fixed battery. The crew continued to resist and fight until about the 13:10, after which they surrendered. The crew was then taken prisoner by Indian. During her last combat, it is estimated that the NRP Afonso de Albuquerque fired almost 400 shells. 5 of her crew died, and 13 crewmen, as well as some officers, were injured. The advantage of the enemy was significant, as their ships were more modern and armed with quick firing guns. The Afonso lay grounded at the beach near Dona Paula, until 1962 when it was towed to Bombay.

The ship was renamed Saravastri by Indians.

Parts of the ship were recovered and are on display at the Naval Museum in Bombay. The remainder of the ship was sold as scrap.

NEHRU THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE OF THE 20th CENTURY By Franco Fernandes

NEHRU ON INDIA

“The English gave Political Unity to India” – Union of India, Jawaharlal Nehru

NEHRU THE PACIFIST

August 7^th, 1952 in the Indian Parliament Nehru said “We want no people in the territory of India against their will and with the help of Armed Forces. We want no forced marriages or forced Unions. This Great Republic of India is free, friendly and affectionate Union of the States of India (Cheers)”.

September 17^th 1953 in the Indian Parliament Nehru said “Whether it is Kashmir or any other part, we are not going to hold it by the strength of arms. Mature Nations as we are. We have to show our maturity by trying to understand things, by saying and acting in a manner that helps, not Hinders”.

Time Magazine Jawaharlal Nehru 1955  “What are the basic elements of our policy in regard to Goa? First, there must be peaceful methods. This is essential unless we give up the roots of all our policies and all our behaviour. We rule our non peaceful methods entirely”.

NEHRU ON GOA

In December 1928 during the Indian National Congress session at Calcutta Nehru Said “Goa has a culture distinct from the rest of India and will be treated as a separate entity”.

Nehru, addressing the Congress Committee of Uttar Pradesh at Sitapur on 21^st August 1955 said “It is not true that we covet Goa. That small bit of territory does not make any difference to this great country. We do not desire to impose ourselves on the people of Goa against their wishes. It is definitely their responsibility to choose for themselves. We have assured Goans that it is for them to establish their own future and I further assure them on matters such as Religion, Languages and Customs”.

 Mr Nehru on 4^th June, 1956 “I want to explain myself. If the people of Goa, that is, minus the Portuguese Government, and when the Portuguese go and the people of Goa deliberately widh to retain their separate identity, I am not going to bring then by force or coercion or compulsion in the Indian Union. I want them to come, and I am quite certain they want to come too. But that is not the point. I merely say that my National Interest involves the removal of the Portuguese from Goa, not coercion being used in bringing about the Union of Goa with India although I wish it, I desire it and it is the only Solution.

“That is matter ultimately for the people of Goa to decide. I want to make perfectly clear that I have no desire to coerce Goa to join India against the wishes of the People of Goa, But the point is that we feel that Goa’s Individuality should remain and that whenever the time comes for any changes, internal or other, it will be for the people of Goa acting freely to decide upon them “.

NEHRU ON SIKHS

Jawaharlal Nehru’s Lahore Bulletin, 9^TH January, 1930 “The brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special consideration. I see nothing wrong in an area and a set-up in the North wherein the Sikhs can experience the glow of freedom”

NEHRU ON KASHMIR

All India Radio Broadcast, 3^rd November, 1947 Mr Nehru said “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir but to the World. We will not and cannot back out of it.”

Indian Constituent Assembly, 5^th March, 1949 Nehru said “Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum, We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular Government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a Plebiscite with every protection of fair voting and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir.”

Nehru’s Statement in Indian Parliament, 12^th February, 1951 “We have given our pledge to the people of Kashmir and Subsequently to the United Nations, we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide”.

On June 26^th , 1952 Jawaharlal Nehru’s statement in the Indian Parliament “If after a proper Plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘ We do not want to be with India ‘ ; we are committed to accept it though it might pain us. We will not sent any army against them. We will accept that however hurt we might feel about it. We will change the constitution, if necessary”.

NEHRU THE HYPOCRITE

August 1, 1946 Nehru in a Letter to Mr T Shakrie said “The Naga territory lies between two huge countries, India and China, Inevitably, therefore this Naga territory must form part of India and Assam”.

Nehru to Sikhs 6^th November, 1947 “The time has changed now. If you wanted to live freely then why didn’t you demand for a separate Country from British?”

Nehru broadcast to the Nation 5^th December, 1950 “We are not Pacifists. We keep an army and a Navy and an Air force and if danger threatens us we shall use them. But we seek no dominion over other people”.

YA (Diario) Madrid January 28^th, 1957 “Nehru has affirmed, Goa will become part of India, no matter what people think about it, including Goans themselves”.

6^th September,1955 Nehru said “Indian Union was not prepared to tolerate the presence of the Portuguese in Goa even if the Goans wanted them there”.

In August, 1955 Nehru said to Mr Zapu Phizo “Whether heaven fall and India goes into Pieces and blood runs red in the country, whether I am there or anybody comes in, Nagas will never become Independent”.

In March 1956 Nehru made a Public Declaration ruling out Plebiscite in Kashmir. This shocked the World.

In 1960 Nehru told Journalist Kuldip Nayar “Taking a small country like Sikkim by force would be like shooting a fly with a rifle”.

WORLD LEADERS & PRESS ON JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

Die Presse, Vienna, January 30, 1957 “One can only look upon the Great Nehru as a Hypocrite who played towards the U.N the role of Brutus”.

Richard Russell chairman of the U.S Senate Armed Forces Committee called Jawaharlal Nehru “Demagogue and a Hypocrite”.

Dawn, Pakistan “After a lifetime of Pacifist preaching, he may turn out to have been a champion breeder of Wars”.

Author Paulo Mendonca : Nehru, whose image of Pacifist completely fell apart. In United States, the press portrayed him as one of the “Biggest Hypocrites of the Century”.

The New York Daily “The Hindu Faker”.

Chicago Tribune : “Champion Political hypocrite of the Year”.

U.S President John F Kennedy “Priest has been caught in the Brothel”.

Italian Magazine from Milan, Corriere della Sera : “Nehru is two-faced: Warlike when facing the weak, submissive and Pacifist when facing the strong”.

Patna, January 6^th 1962 Nehru said “These newspapers described me as a double-faced man, a hypocrite. They said I was pretending to be an angel of peace on one hand and a tyrant on the other”.

INHERITING NEHRU’S HYPOCRISY

China dubbed Indira Gandhi a ‘Hypocrite’ in 1974, reveals WikiLeaks, China said “Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had “Inherited the Hypocrisy” of her father Jawaharlal Nehru”.

U.S President Richard Nixon considered “Nehru and his Daughter to be mere Hypocrites” Reference - Richard M. Nixon : A life in Full