CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 18 1963
ANNIVERSARY OF A 36-HOUR WAR—THE ARMED SEIZURE OF GOA
Mr. BEERMANN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Keith] may extend his remarks at this point In the Recess and Include extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Speaker, today is the second anniversary of a flagrant and shameful act of armed aggression against a virtually defenseless people, an act more to be deplored because its perpetrators struck from behind the of nonviolence, neutrality, and a self-proclaimed nonaggression policy. On December 18, 1961, India’s “Man of Peace,** Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, gave the orders that set in motion a three-pronged attack against the tiny Portuguese trading centres of Goa, Damao, and Diu. To overwhelm Goa’s 3,500 Portuguese defenders, a modern force of 46,000 troops, jet bombers and fighters, and a fleet that Included a cruiser various destroyers was used.
The defenders put up a gallant but hopeless fight. One small Portuguese sloop,for example, took on the cruiser and two Triton destroyers in a 45-minute gun-battle before the little vessel was hit and beached by its captain. By military conquest, in complete violation of the Charter of the United Nations, Nehru abruptly ended 451 years of Portuguese rule. The effect was more far-reaching, however, than the conquest of the three tiny Portuguese enclaves. It put an end to the myth that Nehru\'s India opposed aggression, as we had so often been told, and It threatened the very existence of the United Nations.
Newsweek, on January 1,1962, had this comment:The blows dealt by Nehru\'s attack on Goa last week fell not on the Portuguese colony and Its tiny sister enclaves, but on two far more substantial Institutions: The symbol of India as a nation of peace, and the symbol of the United Nations as an Instrument for preventing war.
While India was being congratulated by Russia and Red China for the liberation of Goa, Newsweek noted. President Sukarno drew the most direct inspiration from the attack—he mobilized 500,000 troops to Invade Netherlands New Guinea.
The implication was obvious, Mr. Speaker, when the U.N. failed to counteract, in anyway, this blatant aggression. If this world organization, created to establish and foster world peace, sanctions by Inaction such an act, then there will be no basis In precedent for future action by the U.N. should armed attacks occur elsewhere In the world. Mr. Nehru tried to justify his war on Goa and India’s claim to this ancient Portuguese territory by the fact that It was geographically a part of India. The extension of this principle, apparently accepted by the United Nations, would permit Panama, for example, to occupy the Canal Zone, or Spain to seize Gibraltar. There is little doubt that the inaction of the U.N., in this case, served as an Inducement to President Sukarno.
On this occasion of the second anniversary of the attack on Goa, it seems to me most appropriate to call attention to India\'s unlawful conquest and to note that to 700,000 Goans this did not mean liberation but only a change from the long-accepted rule of Portugal to the unwanted control by India. This change did not come with their consent, as indicated in the recent rejection of Nehru’s handpicked candidates for the proposed local assembly.
Ever since the forcible occupation of Goa, Goans all over the world have been deeply concerned about the fate of their fellow countrymen In the occupied territories of Goa, Damao, and Diu. They have been reduced from the status of free citizens in a free country to that of displaced persons in their own land. This concern crystallised earlier this month at a conference In Paris, where Goans from all over the world met and unanimously resolved to send a delegation to the United Nations, which has a special committee to hear petitions from oppressed peoples—the Trusteeship Committee of the General Assembly.
A four-man delegation appeared before the Committee on December 10. The following story from the December 11 edition of the New York Times will explain that they were denied an audience before the Committee and that an effort was even made to expunge their initial remarks when the Committee discovered they were not there to condemn Portuguese colonial policy, but in fact to protest that Goa was now a colony of India:
[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 1963 ] Four silenced in UN. In Protest on Goa—
Committee Restricts Debate* to Portuguese Colonialism (By Thomas J. Hamilton)
United Nations, N.T., December 10.—
African delegate silenced four petitioners today after the petitioners had protested India\'s seizure of Goa, a Portuguese colony, in December 1961. A motion to expunge their testimony from the record was dropped, how-ever, as a result of opposition by the United States and other Western members and Liberia.
The petitioners, all former residents of Goa or of Goan descent, apparently had received a hearing In the Trusteeship Committee of the General Assembly In the expectation that they would denounce Portuguese colonial rule.
All four were silenced by the Committee Chairman, Achkar Marof of Guinea. He cut their statements short on the ground that they had been given a hearing solely to express their views on Portuguese nonself-governlng territories Included on the list approved by the United Nations. Goa, which was annexed by India after occupation by Indian troops, Is not on the list.
PROPAGANDA AIM SEEN
Dlallo Seydou, the Guinean representative, said that the Committee’s sad experience” of yesterday, when another petitioner, Henrique M. Galvao. declared that Angola and Mozambique were not ready for Independence, showed that It was being used for propaganda purposes.”
Meanwhile, Ghana, Morocco, and the Philippines Introduced a resolution In the Security Council criticising Portugal’s non-compliance with a resolution, adopted last July 31, that urged Portugal to give Immediate recognition to the right of the people of her colonies to self-determination and Independence.
The earlier resolution also called on Portugal to withdraw all military forces employed for “repression” in her colonies and urged all states to stop exports to Portugal of arms and
military equipment for such use.
Today’s resolution urges all states to comply with the previous resolution, but does not call for additional measures against Portugal. However, It says that recent talks between African representatives and Dr. Albert Franco Noguelra, the Foreign Minister of Portugal, has not succeeded because of dis-agreement over the meaning of “self-determination.”
THE 1960 DECLARATION CITED
It cites the definition of self-determination contained In the General Assembly’s antl-colonlal declaration In 1960:
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.”
The resolution asks the Secretary General, U Thant, to report on developments by next June 1.
The first petitioner heard by the Trustee-ship Committee. Antonio da Fonseca, started by saying that self-determination could never be compatible with armed invasion of a territory, referring to Goa. He was interrupted by the Chairman when he was about to ask what guarantee there would be that other non -self-governing territories would not be Invaded If the United Nations did not condemn such action.
Mr. Marof allowed Mr. da Fonseca to say a few more sentences, but he cut short the three other petitioners, Wolfgang Does de Souza, Leo de Souza, and Remeo da Silva, as soon as it became clear that they also were protesting against the seizure of Goa. Having been silenced in the United Nations, the delegation hoped to earn the sympathy of the American people in their resolve to win self-determination forGoa. They wrote me on December I5 from New York, asking If I would meet with them to hear their story and help arrange for them to talk with officials of the State Department. The following is a copy of that letter:
New York, N.Y.,
December 13.1963.
Hon. Hastings Keith,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sen: Three representatives of Goan communities around the world and myself appeared before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations on December 10, 1988. to ask help In getting self-determination for the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu. As you know, our homeland Is now under the military domination of the Government of India.
The Chairman of the Fourth Committee, Achkar Marof, of Guinea, refused to permit us to speak about Goa. Mr. Keith, we are official representatives of communities of people of Goa, Damao, and Diu. A conference of representatives of all these communities, held In Paris on December 3, 1963, Issued a declaration of rights, demanding self-determination for the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu. The conference vehemently condemned the Indian aggression and occupation of our homeland and asked the United Nations, and all governments who believe In the charter of the United Nations, to help us attain self-determination.
We know, sir, that you represent many Portuguese people In the United States. We know of your great interest In and sympathy with the Portuguese people. Printed copies of the articles about Angola by the great American correspondent, Robert Estabrook, which you placed In the Congressional Record, have been circulated among Portuguese people around the world. We also have seen In this record of the American Congress editorials from the Standard-Times newspaper in New Bedford—articles that are sympathetic to the captivity of the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu and articles that you put In the Record.
We therefore request an audience with you In Washington on December 18th, which Is the day of infamy to us. It Is the day the Indian army Invaded our homeland. We feel we must keep alive the conscience of the world about the conquest of a free province of Portugal. We solicit your help In presenting our communique of the declaration of rights to the State Department of the United States, so the great American people will realise that the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu still sorrow and are resolved to secure the right of self-determination which Is being granted elsewhere around the world.
Please receive our request favourably
Respectfully,
Antonio dr Fonseca,
Secretary General, Goa Freedom Movement.
I felt the Indian attack went far beyond a question of colonialism and was an act that should not go unchallenged. I notified the delegation I would be glad to meet with them and do whatever I could to bring their cause to the attention of my colleagues In Congress and appropriate officials In the Department of State.
Three members of the group met with me in my office today: Prof. Leo Anthony de Sousa of Karachi, Pakistan; Antonio da Fonseca, a Goan who now lives in Lisbon, and Romeo de Silva, a former resident of Goa who now lives in Nairobi, Kenya.
I would like to include in the Record at this point, an excellent statement prepared by Professor Sousa for delivery at the United Nations—a statement which the so-called Committee on Colonialism refused to hear. It is an eloquent statement in defence of the principles of self determination and due process of law, which the Indian Union contemptuously flouted when it sent troops into Goa, Damao, and Diu 2 years ago today:
Statement of Prof. Leo A. de Souza
Mr. President and distinguished delegates, members of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations, I Join my colleagues in thanking you for having permitted us to appear before you. You would like to know my credentials. I present them to you. By race I am a Goan. My dear father hailed from the village of Assagao, nestling amidst the hills of Goa. By birth, I am a Slndhl. I was born In Karachi, when It was the capital of Sind in pre partition India. By law established, I am a citizen of Pakistan. By the grace of God, I am a Roman Catholic.
Please don\'t ask me the reasons for my coming here. The heart has its own reasons which the head may not understand. I have come here to address you on the accepted principle of the Right of self-determination for all peoples Including those listed in the permission very kindly granted to us as petitioners. I have come here because I have been greatly perturbed by the manner In which this principle is being applied In various cases. I do believe that the small countries and peoples In the world live In the hope that the United Nations is there to guarantee their safety against the appetites of bigger nations, who might engage with Impunity in land-grabbing escapades.
It Is true that colonialism is done for. It is a remnant of the past. But this does not mean that the law of historical evolution should be allowed to obviate the International law represented by the UN. Charter. History may consign colonialism to oblivion but the charter provides that the remains be disposed of according to due process of law. We are witnessing today a new form of anti-colonialism which can have disastrous consequences and serious repercussions on world peace.
Sir, I respectfully submit that whatever may be the mechanics of self-determination there can be no doubt that the principle of self-determination emphasise the right of such distinct groups, Irrespective of whether they be large or small, to determine their own future freely and without pressure from any other group.
I submit that the UN. can survive the baffling twists and turns of its fortunes in the protected territories. It can survive the almost paralysing use of the veto by a certain great power. It can survive its present financial crisis. But the greatest threat to its existence is the fact that It Is becoming more and more frequent that world peace is being subordinated to national self-interest that the use of force Is being condoned in the seizure of colonial territories.
If this continues and I have grave apprehensions that It will, it will sound the death-knell of the UN. I appeal to you, sir, and to the distinguished members of this august Committee that the peoples of the territories listed as being under Portuguese administration and which have been the subject of debates here since 1967 must be given the right to determine their own future freely, without let or hindrance from any other people.
I have great faith and confidence in the UN. and mankind has placed high hopes In its charter. If, however, nations bound together by this charter follow those nations who have, as they claim, liberated their smaller neighbouring peoples from their erstwhile masters by recourse to force of arms, they shall thereby renounce their charter pledge not to use force save In the common interest. This charter, sir, was designed to save men from the scourge of war and not to condone the enslavement of one people by another in the name of self-determination.
If the UN. can condone such grave violations of the rights of man then the very purpose for which the UN. was established shall have ceased to exist. I have said all this because I am still deeply mindful of what happened In the case of Hyderabad, Manavade, Junagadh and Kashmir and recently in Goa, Damao and Diu. which were annexed by armed invasion by a member of the United Nations.
I am unable to believe how the UN. could have acquiesced in the manner of its annexation. If the principle of self-determination Is accepted as sacrosanct by the peoples of the United Nations I appeal to you to help the peoples of not only Goa, Damao and Diu, but all those territories annexed by force of arms to achieve their freedom to decide their own future. This applies equally to the Portuguese territories listed in the permission given to us.
I thank you.
Mr. Speaker,
I have seldom read a finer plea in defense of the principle of self-determination or a sounder warning against the consequences of disregarding the law of nations as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations—principles and laws that were coldly rejected in favor of greed and self-interest and of bolstering a faltering domestic political situation 2 years ago by India.
I would like to Include in the report at this point a copy of a communique issued by the Goan Conference in Paris earlier this month, which calls for the withdrawal of Indian occupation forces
and the right of self-determination for Goa, as well as a copy of the statement the delegation issued on its arrival in Washington today.
Communique of the Goa Freedom Movement Delegates representing the various groups of the peoples of Goa, Damao and Dui met on the 3rd day of December 1963 at Hotel de Palais d* Orsay in Paris, to consider practical steps to meet the situation which has arisen as a result at the armed Invasion and occupation at these territories by the Indian Union. The Conference convened by the Goan Association of Nairobi, Kenya was attended by delegates representing the communities of peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu in Macau, the Far East, Ceylon, Pakistan, Indian Union, Arabian Gulf area, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanganyika, Mozambique, Angola, Iraq, United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, Brazil, and Kenya.
The Conference Issued a Declaration of Rights of the peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu vehemently condemning the Indian aggression and occupation and notifying the Goverment of India to quit the occupied territories on or before the 18th day of December 1963 by withdrawing all Its civil and military personnel as well as Indian civilians who entered the territories after the respective dates of Invasion. The declaration calls upon the United Nations to uphold the Inalienable right enshrined in the Charter and Resolutions of the United Nations Organization by virtue of which the peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu are entitled to the right of self-determination. The declaration further appeals to all governments to support the just cause of the peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu. Finally\' this declaration serves notice upon the Government of India that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of the declaration, the peoples concerned will use all means to secure this right.
The preamble of the declaration stresses that the people of Goa, Damao and Diu are a distinct community In the Indian subcontinent and Inhabit territories with well defined and universally respected frontiers. Over the centuries of European Influence these peoples have evolved a distinct and unique culture. It also emphasises that the peoples of these territories always repudiated and resisted Interference of the Government of India In their way of life.
The conference adopted a constitution and set up an organisation called the GOA freedom movement to carry on the struggle for the liberation of the territories under Indian occupation. Membership of the organization Is open to all persons born In Goa, Damao and Diu or to their descendants in the male line, provided they repudiate Indian rule and stand for free and unfettered self-determination.
The organization will have a secretariat and as many other branches as may be deemed necessary in the different parts of the world. The organisation will be run by a supreme council of seven members elected by the conference. The council has been vested with powers to co-opt two other members.
The names of these persons may be kept In strict confidence for reasons of their personal safety. The supreme council has unanimously elected Mr. Antonio da Fonseca to hold the appointment of the Secretary-General of the organisation. The venue of the head-quarters of the organisation will be made known shortly.
The conference also adopted several other resolutions among them one on the unity and solidarity of the peoples of Goa, Damao. and Diu and another protesting against the high-handed methods of social, cultural, and economic strangulation adopted by the Indian authorities with the calculated design of rapidly exterminating the peoples of Goa, Damao, and Diu.
The conference passed a resolution condemning the failure of the Indian Union to obtain a mandate from the peoples of Goa, Damao, and Dlu to rule these territories on the assumption that those peoples acquised in the Integration of those territories with the Indian Union. This resolution further condemned the proposed elections to be held In these territories as a calculated attempt to vest aggression with respectability and further reiterates an unswerving resolve to demand the right of self-determination.
The conference decided to light a torch in the Castle of Navarre, the home of St. Francis Xavier, patron of Goa. Damao, and Diu and Invoked his blessings on ths Just cause of the movement.
M. Da Gama Rose, President.
S. L. Sirvoikar Vice President.
Statement of the Delegation of the Goa Freedom Movement
As representatives of ths Goa Freedom Movement, we are asking for the United Nations and the United States to support self-determination for the people of Goa. Damao, and Diu. We appeared before the Fourth Committee (on colonialism) at the United Nations on December 10, but we were Not permitted to discuss Goa. The Fourth Committee Chalrman, Achkar Marof of Guinea. Objected because he said our homelands were no longer considered non-self-governing territories.
We apparently were permitted to appear before the Fourth Committee because the Chairman thought we planned to speak against Portugal. When he discovered we were seeking self-determination for Goa,Damao and Diu , he denied us the right to be heard.
We have come to Washington today to ask the United States to help place the subject of Goa, Damao. and Dlu before the United Nations. The United States has consistently supported the principle of self-determlnation and this right has been denied to the people of our homeland. We have been made a colony of India.
Today December 18, 1963, marks a Day of infamy in International relations and human rlghts. It is the second anniversary ofthe brutal and unprovoked Invasion of Goa,Damao, and Diu by the armed forces of the Indian Union. Since then, these areas have remained under subjugation.
On the third day of this month in Paris, France, delegates representing Goa, Damao, and Diu, met and formed the Goa Freedom Movement. The conference was attended by representatives of the peoples of Goa, Damao,and Diu and also of Goan communities in Macao the Far East, Ceylon, Pakistan, the Indian Union, Arabian Gulf area, Ethiopia,Uganda, Tanganyika, Mozambique, Angola, the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, Brazil, and Kenya.
The attached communique outlines the Declaration rights and the decisions taken at theParis Conference.
Following the Paris meeting, a delegation was chosen to appear before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations at its current session In New York. The delegation cameto plead the rights of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations,for the peoples of Goa, Damao, and Diu.
The delegation was promptly and brutally shut off from speaking on the grounds that Goa, Damao. and Diu—which had been a part of the Portuguese world for over 400 year? and had developed their own distinctive culture and civilisation—were no longer considered non-self-governing territories.
This ruling was made despite the fact that our homeland was conquered by the Indian Army and has been under the colonial rule of the Indian Government ever since. The people of Goa, Damao, and Diu never were given an opportunity to choose under what principles they want to live. This act is colonialism at its worst.
This subjugation is contrary to the charter of the United Nations, and to the noble principles for which the United Nations stands. We were grateful when the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlal Stevenson, gave his verbal support to Goa at the time of the aggression 3 years ago. We appreciate the spirit of his condemnation of this most aggressive act, and we recognize that, India would have been condemned in the Security Council except for the veto by Russia. However, we cannot let the world forget this tragic violation of human rights guaranteed by the United Nations Charter.
The world recognizes that the people of the United States have helped a great many peoples to attain freedom in and since the past World War. They have helped make it possible for United Nations member states to grow from 61 to 113.
The people of Goa hope that the people of America will not forget them, even though 3 years have passed since our homeland felt the conqueror’s heel.
Doubtless our country and our people are small In the context of world problems, but the moral and political issues involved are those on which the United Nations was founded—the protection of the weak and poorer peoples of the world.
In the name of our people, we demand a free plebiscite. We ask a plebiscite in the name of the same moral and political concepts which gave birth to the United Nations.
We request the United States to rescue us from alien oppression. We ask that the United States, as a champion of Justice for free men in the world, insist that the rights of the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu be recognized In the United Nations. The whole world is aware that the United Nations Is already obsessed by colonial problems. But let us not forget that colonialism by the Indian Union is Just as oppressive as any other type of colonialism.
Not only did the Indian Union forcibly subjugate the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu by violent means, but it is actually forcing on them political, economic, social, cultural, and religious institutions which they detest and which they wish to repudiate.
We reject the false contention that Goa should become a part of India because of geography. If geography should pertain, why should not Pakistan, Ceylon, and other nations of the Indian subcontinent also be annexed? Why should not Alaska be a part of Canada? Politically, Goa. Damao, and Diu had nothing to do with the old British Indian Empire except to live as good neighbors.
Economically, we were far ahead of the Indian Union. We have never depended on her patronage and, on the contrary, we have prospered In every way. And now India has wrecked our economy and ended our prosperity.
We do not speak in behalf of Portugal. We do not predict what the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu would choose under a free plebiscite. But we do Insist that it is our right as human beings to choose how we shall live, whether as an Independent nation, as a part of the Portuguese nation, or as a part of India. The people of Goa should make the choice.
Having failed to gain a hearing or a forum before the United Nations, this delegation appealed to Members of the Congress of the United States to hear their case so they could make an appeal to the conscience of the free world. This time we were not disappointed. True to the traditions of your great country, which is looked to as the champion of freedom by all mankind, representatives of your Congress answered our appeal, and that is why we are here today.
We wish to express our deep thanks to Congressman Keith and the representatives of the press who have honoured us by coming here.
The day following the attack on Goa, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlal Stevenson, made clear the reaction of the United States: It is a question of the use of armed force by one state against another and against Its will, an act clearly forbidden by the Charter (of the United Nations). We have opposed such action in the past by our closest friends as well as others. We opposed It in Korea In 1950, In Suez and in Hungary in 1956, in the Congo in 1960, and
we do so again In Goa In 1961.
When Russia, the same day, vetoed a U.N. resolution calling for cease-fire, Indian withdrawal from Goa and peaceful negotiations, Ambassador Stevenson warned that “we are witnessing the first act in a drama which could end with its—the UN’s—death.”
The United Nations has not died, but its voice could only have been seriously weakened and Its high purpose undermined by the failure to challenge India\'s aggression.It Is my sincere hope that this Government will come to the assistance of the people of Goa. Damao, and Diu in helping bring this matter before the United Nations. The passage of 2 years has not lessened the crime. To allow Goa to be forgotten would not be consistent with our role as the leader of the free world and could only breed a further contempt for the peace and order.
ANNIVERSARY OF A 36-HOUR WAR—THE ARMED SEIZURE OF GOA
Mr. BEERMANN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Keith] may extend his remarks at this point In the Recess and Include extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Speaker, today is the second anniversary of a flagrant and shameful act of armed aggression against a virtually defenseless people, an act more to be deplored because its perpetrators struck from behind the of nonviolence, neutrality, and a self-proclaimed nonaggression policy. On December 18, 1961, India’s “Man of Peace,** Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, gave the orders that set in motion a three-pronged attack against the tiny Portuguese trading centres of Goa, Damao, and Diu. To overwhelm Goa’s 3,500 Portuguese defenders, a modern force of 46,000 troops, jet bombers and fighters, and a fleet that Included a cruiser various destroyers was used.
The defenders put up a gallant but hopeless fight. One small Portuguese sloop,for example, took on the cruiser and two Triton destroyers in a 45-minute gun-battle before the little vessel was hit and beached by its captain. By military conquest, in complete violation of the Charter of the United Nations, Nehru abruptly ended 451 years of Portuguese rule. The effect was more far-reaching, however, than the conquest of the three tiny Portuguese enclaves. It put an end to the myth that Nehru\'s India opposed aggression, as we had so often been told, and It threatened the very existence of the United Nations.
Newsweek, on January 1,1962, had this comment:The blows dealt by Nehru\'s attack on Goa last week fell not on the Portuguese colony and Its tiny sister enclaves, but on two far more substantial Institutions: The symbol of India as a nation of peace, and the symbol of the United Nations as an Instrument for preventing war.
While India was being congratulated by Russia and Red China for the liberation of Goa, Newsweek noted. President Sukarno drew the most direct inspiration from the attack—he mobilized 500,000 troops to Invade Netherlands New Guinea.
The implication was obvious, Mr. Speaker, when the U.N. failed to counteract, in anyway, this blatant aggression. If this world organization, created to establish and foster world peace, sanctions by Inaction such an act, then there will be no basis In precedent for future action by the U.N. should armed attacks occur elsewhere In the world. Mr. Nehru tried to justify his war on Goa and India’s claim to this ancient Portuguese territory by the fact that It was geographically a part of India. The extension of this principle, apparently accepted by the United Nations, would permit Panama, for example, to occupy the Canal Zone, or Spain to seize Gibraltar. There is little doubt that the inaction of the U.N., in this case, served as an Inducement to President Sukarno.
On this occasion of the second anniversary of the attack on Goa, it seems to me most appropriate to call attention to India\'s unlawful conquest and to note that to 700,000 Goans this did not mean liberation but only a change from the long-accepted rule of Portugal to the unwanted control by India. This change did not come with their consent, as indicated in the recent rejection of Nehru’s handpicked candidates for the proposed local assembly.
Ever since the forcible occupation of Goa, Goans all over the world have been deeply concerned about the fate of their fellow countrymen In the occupied territories of Goa, Damao, and Diu. They have been reduced from the status of free citizens in a free country to that of displaced persons in their own land. This concern crystallised earlier this month at a conference In Paris, where Goans from all over the world met and unanimously resolved to send a delegation to the United Nations, which has a special committee to hear petitions from oppressed peoples—the Trusteeship Committee of the General Assembly.
A four-man delegation appeared before the Committee on December 10. The following story from the December 11 edition of the New York Times will explain that they were denied an audience before the Committee and that an effort was even made to expunge their initial remarks when the Committee discovered they were not there to condemn Portuguese colonial policy, but in fact to protest that Goa was now a colony of India:
[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 1963 ] Four silenced in UN. In Protest on Goa—
Committee Restricts Debate* to Portuguese Colonialism (By Thomas J. Hamilton)
United Nations, N.T., December 10.—
African delegate silenced four petitioners today after the petitioners had protested India\'s seizure of Goa, a Portuguese colony, in December 1961. A motion to expunge their testimony from the record was dropped, how-ever, as a result of opposition by the United States and other Western members and Liberia.
The petitioners, all former residents of Goa or of Goan descent, apparently had received a hearing In the Trusteeship Committee of the General Assembly In the expectation that they would denounce Portuguese colonial rule.
All four were silenced by the Committee Chairman, Achkar Marof of Guinea. He cut their statements short on the ground that they had been given a hearing solely to express their views on Portuguese nonself-governlng territories Included on the list approved by the United Nations. Goa, which was annexed by India after occupation by Indian troops, Is not on the list.
PROPAGANDA AIM SEEN
Dlallo Seydou, the Guinean representative, said that the Committee’s sad experience” of yesterday, when another petitioner, Henrique M. Galvao. declared that Angola and Mozambique were not ready for Independence, showed that It was being used for propaganda purposes.”
Meanwhile, Ghana, Morocco, and the Philippines Introduced a resolution In the Security Council criticising Portugal’s non-compliance with a resolution, adopted last July 31, that urged Portugal to give Immediate recognition to the right of the people of her colonies to self-determination and Independence.
The earlier resolution also called on Portugal to withdraw all military forces employed for “repression” in her colonies and urged all states to stop exports to Portugal of arms and
military equipment for such use.
Today’s resolution urges all states to comply with the previous resolution, but does not call for additional measures against Portugal. However, It says that recent talks between African representatives and Dr. Albert Franco Noguelra, the Foreign Minister of Portugal, has not succeeded because of dis-agreement over the meaning of “self-determination.”
THE 1960 DECLARATION CITED
It cites the definition of self-determination contained In the General Assembly’s antl-colonlal declaration In 1960:
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.”
The resolution asks the Secretary General, U Thant, to report on developments by next June 1.
The first petitioner heard by the Trustee-ship Committee. Antonio da Fonseca, started by saying that self-determination could never be compatible with armed invasion of a territory, referring to Goa. He was interrupted by the Chairman when he was about to ask what guarantee there would be that other non -self-governing territories would not be Invaded If the United Nations did not condemn such action.
Mr. Marof allowed Mr. da Fonseca to say a few more sentences, but he cut short the three other petitioners, Wolfgang Does de Souza, Leo de Souza, and Remeo da Silva, as soon as it became clear that they also were protesting against the seizure of Goa. Having been silenced in the United Nations, the delegation hoped to earn the sympathy of the American people in their resolve to win self-determination forGoa. They wrote me on December I5 from New York, asking If I would meet with them to hear their story and help arrange for them to talk with officials of the State Department. The following is a copy of that letter:
New York, N.Y.,
December 13.1963.
Hon. Hastings Keith,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sen: Three representatives of Goan communities around the world and myself appeared before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations on December 10, 1988. to ask help In getting self-determination for the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu. As you know, our homeland Is now under the military domination of the Government of India.
The Chairman of the Fourth Committee, Achkar Marof, of Guinea, refused to permit us to speak about Goa. Mr. Keith, we are official representatives of communities of people of Goa, Damao, and Diu. A conference of representatives of all these communities, held In Paris on December 3, 1963, Issued a declaration of rights, demanding self-determination for the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu. The conference vehemently condemned the Indian aggression and occupation of our homeland and asked the United Nations, and all governments who believe In the charter of the United Nations, to help us attain self-determination.
We know, sir, that you represent many Portuguese people In the United States. We know of your great interest In and sympathy with the Portuguese people. Printed copies of the articles about Angola by the great American correspondent, Robert Estabrook, which you placed In the Congressional Record, have been circulated among Portuguese people around the world. We also have seen In this record of the American Congress editorials from the Standard-Times newspaper in New Bedford—articles that are sympathetic to the captivity of the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu and articles that you put In the Record.
We therefore request an audience with you In Washington on December 18th, which Is the day of infamy to us. It Is the day the Indian army Invaded our homeland. We feel we must keep alive the conscience of the world about the conquest of a free province of Portugal. We solicit your help In presenting our communique of the declaration of rights to the State Department of the United States, so the great American people will realise that the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu still sorrow and are resolved to secure the right of self-determination which Is being granted elsewhere around the world.
Please receive our request favourably
Respectfully,
Antonio dr Fonseca,
Secretary General, Goa Freedom Movement.
I felt the Indian attack went far beyond a question of colonialism and was an act that should not go unchallenged. I notified the delegation I would be glad to meet with them and do whatever I could to bring their cause to the attention of my colleagues In Congress and appropriate officials In the Department of State.
Three members of the group met with me in my office today: Prof. Leo Anthony de Sousa of Karachi, Pakistan; Antonio da Fonseca, a Goan who now lives in Lisbon, and Romeo de Silva, a former resident of Goa who now lives in Nairobi, Kenya.
I would like to include in the Record at this point, an excellent statement prepared by Professor Sousa for delivery at the United Nations—a statement which the so-called Committee on Colonialism refused to hear. It is an eloquent statement in defence of the principles of self determination and due process of law, which the Indian Union contemptuously flouted when it sent troops into Goa, Damao, and Diu 2 years ago today:
Statement of Prof. Leo A. de Souza
Mr. President and distinguished delegates, members of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations, I Join my colleagues in thanking you for having permitted us to appear before you. You would like to know my credentials. I present them to you. By race I am a Goan. My dear father hailed from the village of Assagao, nestling amidst the hills of Goa. By birth, I am a Slndhl. I was born In Karachi, when It was the capital of Sind in pre partition India. By law established, I am a citizen of Pakistan. By the grace of God, I am a Roman Catholic.
Please don\'t ask me the reasons for my coming here. The heart has its own reasons which the head may not understand. I have come here to address you on the accepted principle of the Right of self-determination for all peoples Including those listed in the permission very kindly granted to us as petitioners. I have come here because I have been greatly perturbed by the manner In which this principle is being applied In various cases. I do believe that the small countries and peoples In the world live In the hope that the United Nations is there to guarantee their safety against the appetites of bigger nations, who might engage with Impunity in land-grabbing escapades.
It Is true that colonialism is done for. It is a remnant of the past. But this does not mean that the law of historical evolution should be allowed to obviate the International law represented by the UN. Charter. History may consign colonialism to oblivion but the charter provides that the remains be disposed of according to due process of law. We are witnessing today a new form of anti-colonialism which can have disastrous consequences and serious repercussions on world peace.
Sir, I respectfully submit that whatever may be the mechanics of self-determination there can be no doubt that the principle of self-determination emphasise the right of such distinct groups, Irrespective of whether they be large or small, to determine their own future freely and without pressure from any other group.
I submit that the UN. can survive the baffling twists and turns of its fortunes in the protected territories. It can survive the almost paralysing use of the veto by a certain great power. It can survive its present financial crisis. But the greatest threat to its existence is the fact that It Is becoming more and more frequent that world peace is being subordinated to national self-interest that the use of force Is being condoned in the seizure of colonial territories.
If this continues and I have grave apprehensions that It will, it will sound the death-knell of the UN. I appeal to you, sir, and to the distinguished members of this august Committee that the peoples of the territories listed as being under Portuguese administration and which have been the subject of debates here since 1967 must be given the right to determine their own future freely, without let or hindrance from any other people.
I have great faith and confidence in the UN. and mankind has placed high hopes In its charter. If, however, nations bound together by this charter follow those nations who have, as they claim, liberated their smaller neighbouring peoples from their erstwhile masters by recourse to force of arms, they shall thereby renounce their charter pledge not to use force save In the common interest. This charter, sir, was designed to save men from the scourge of war and not to condone the enslavement of one people by another in the name of self-determination.
If the UN. can condone such grave violations of the rights of man then the very purpose for which the UN. was established shall have ceased to exist. I have said all this because I am still deeply mindful of what happened In the case of Hyderabad, Manavade, Junagadh and Kashmir and recently in Goa, Damao and Diu. which were annexed by armed invasion by a member of the United Nations.
I am unable to believe how the UN. could have acquiesced in the manner of its annexation. If the principle of self-determination Is accepted as sacrosanct by the peoples of the United Nations I appeal to you to help the peoples of not only Goa, Damao and Diu, but all those territories annexed by force of arms to achieve their freedom to decide their own future. This applies equally to the Portuguese territories listed in the permission given to us.
I thank you.
Mr. Speaker,
I have seldom read a finer plea in defense of the principle of self-determination or a sounder warning against the consequences of disregarding the law of nations as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations—principles and laws that were coldly rejected in favor of greed and self-interest and of bolstering a faltering domestic political situation 2 years ago by India.
I would like to Include in the report at this point a copy of a communique issued by the Goan Conference in Paris earlier this month, which calls for the withdrawal of Indian occupation forces
and the right of self-determination for Goa, as well as a copy of the statement the delegation issued on its arrival in Washington today.
Communique of the Goa Freedom Movement Delegates representing the various groups of the peoples of Goa, Damao and Dui met on the 3rd day of December 1963 at Hotel de Palais d* Orsay in Paris, to consider practical steps to meet the situation which has arisen as a result at the armed Invasion and occupation at these territories by the Indian Union. The Conference convened by the Goan Association of Nairobi, Kenya was attended by delegates representing the communities of peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu in Macau, the Far East, Ceylon, Pakistan, Indian Union, Arabian Gulf area, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanganyika, Mozambique, Angola, Iraq, United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, Brazil, and Kenya.
The Conference Issued a Declaration of Rights of the peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu vehemently condemning the Indian aggression and occupation and notifying the Goverment of India to quit the occupied territories on or before the 18th day of December 1963 by withdrawing all Its civil and military personnel as well as Indian civilians who entered the territories after the respective dates of Invasion. The declaration calls upon the United Nations to uphold the Inalienable right enshrined in the Charter and Resolutions of the United Nations Organization by virtue of which the peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu are entitled to the right of self-determination. The declaration further appeals to all governments to support the just cause of the peoples of Goa, Damao and Diu. Finally\' this declaration serves notice upon the Government of India that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of the declaration, the peoples concerned will use all means to secure this right.
The preamble of the declaration stresses that the people of Goa, Damao and Diu are a distinct community In the Indian subcontinent and Inhabit territories with well defined and universally respected frontiers. Over the centuries of European Influence these peoples have evolved a distinct and unique culture. It also emphasises that the peoples of these territories always repudiated and resisted Interference of the Government of India In their way of life.
The conference adopted a constitution and set up an organisation called the GOA freedom movement to carry on the struggle for the liberation of the territories under Indian occupation. Membership of the organization Is open to all persons born In Goa, Damao and Diu or to their descendants in the male line, provided they repudiate Indian rule and stand for free and unfettered self-determination.
The organization will have a secretariat and as many other branches as may be deemed necessary in the different parts of the world. The organisation will be run by a supreme council of seven members elected by the conference. The council has been vested with powers to co-opt two other members.
The names of these persons may be kept In strict confidence for reasons of their personal safety. The supreme council has unanimously elected Mr. Antonio da Fonseca to hold the appointment of the Secretary-General of the organisation. The venue of the head-quarters of the organisation will be made known shortly.
The conference also adopted several other resolutions among them one on the unity and solidarity of the peoples of Goa, Damao. and Diu and another protesting against the high-handed methods of social, cultural, and economic strangulation adopted by the Indian authorities with the calculated design of rapidly exterminating the peoples of Goa, Damao, and Diu.
The conference passed a resolution condemning the failure of the Indian Union to obtain a mandate from the peoples of Goa, Damao, and Dlu to rule these territories on the assumption that those peoples acquised in the Integration of those territories with the Indian Union. This resolution further condemned the proposed elections to be held In these territories as a calculated attempt to vest aggression with respectability and further reiterates an unswerving resolve to demand the right of self-determination.
The conference decided to light a torch in the Castle of Navarre, the home of St. Francis Xavier, patron of Goa. Damao, and Diu and Invoked his blessings on ths Just cause of the movement.
M. Da Gama Rose, President.
S. L. Sirvoikar Vice President.
Statement of the Delegation of the Goa Freedom Movement
As representatives of ths Goa Freedom Movement, we are asking for the United Nations and the United States to support self-determination for the people of Goa. Damao, and Diu. We appeared before the Fourth Committee (on colonialism) at the United Nations on December 10, but we were Not permitted to discuss Goa. The Fourth Committee Chalrman, Achkar Marof of Guinea. Objected because he said our homelands were no longer considered non-self-governing territories.
We apparently were permitted to appear before the Fourth Committee because the Chairman thought we planned to speak against Portugal. When he discovered we were seeking self-determination for Goa,Damao and Diu , he denied us the right to be heard.
We have come to Washington today to ask the United States to help place the subject of Goa, Damao. and Dlu before the United Nations. The United States has consistently supported the principle of self-determlnation and this right has been denied to the people of our homeland. We have been made a colony of India.
Today December 18, 1963, marks a Day of infamy in International relations and human rlghts. It is the second anniversary ofthe brutal and unprovoked Invasion of Goa,Damao, and Diu by the armed forces of the Indian Union. Since then, these areas have remained under subjugation.
On the third day of this month in Paris, France, delegates representing Goa, Damao, and Diu, met and formed the Goa Freedom Movement. The conference was attended by representatives of the peoples of Goa, Damao,and Diu and also of Goan communities in Macao the Far East, Ceylon, Pakistan, the Indian Union, Arabian Gulf area, Ethiopia,Uganda, Tanganyika, Mozambique, Angola, the United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, Brazil, and Kenya.
The attached communique outlines the Declaration rights and the decisions taken at theParis Conference.
Following the Paris meeting, a delegation was chosen to appear before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations at its current session In New York. The delegation cameto plead the rights of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations,for the peoples of Goa, Damao, and Diu.
The delegation was promptly and brutally shut off from speaking on the grounds that Goa, Damao. and Diu—which had been a part of the Portuguese world for over 400 year? and had developed their own distinctive culture and civilisation—were no longer considered non-self-governing territories.
This ruling was made despite the fact that our homeland was conquered by the Indian Army and has been under the colonial rule of the Indian Government ever since. The people of Goa, Damao, and Diu never were given an opportunity to choose under what principles they want to live. This act is colonialism at its worst.
This subjugation is contrary to the charter of the United Nations, and to the noble principles for which the United Nations stands. We were grateful when the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlal Stevenson, gave his verbal support to Goa at the time of the aggression 3 years ago. We appreciate the spirit of his condemnation of this most aggressive act, and we recognize that, India would have been condemned in the Security Council except for the veto by Russia. However, we cannot let the world forget this tragic violation of human rights guaranteed by the United Nations Charter.
The world recognizes that the people of the United States have helped a great many peoples to attain freedom in and since the past World War. They have helped make it possible for United Nations member states to grow from 61 to 113.
The people of Goa hope that the people of America will not forget them, even though 3 years have passed since our homeland felt the conqueror’s heel.
Doubtless our country and our people are small In the context of world problems, but the moral and political issues involved are those on which the United Nations was founded—the protection of the weak and poorer peoples of the world.
In the name of our people, we demand a free plebiscite. We ask a plebiscite in the name of the same moral and political concepts which gave birth to the United Nations.
We request the United States to rescue us from alien oppression. We ask that the United States, as a champion of Justice for free men in the world, insist that the rights of the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu be recognized In the United Nations. The whole world is aware that the United Nations Is already obsessed by colonial problems. But let us not forget that colonialism by the Indian Union is Just as oppressive as any other type of colonialism.
Not only did the Indian Union forcibly subjugate the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu by violent means, but it is actually forcing on them political, economic, social, cultural, and religious institutions which they detest and which they wish to repudiate.
We reject the false contention that Goa should become a part of India because of geography. If geography should pertain, why should not Pakistan, Ceylon, and other nations of the Indian subcontinent also be annexed? Why should not Alaska be a part of Canada? Politically, Goa. Damao, and Diu had nothing to do with the old British Indian Empire except to live as good neighbors.
Economically, we were far ahead of the Indian Union. We have never depended on her patronage and, on the contrary, we have prospered In every way. And now India has wrecked our economy and ended our prosperity.
We do not speak in behalf of Portugal. We do not predict what the people of Goa, Damao, and Diu would choose under a free plebiscite. But we do Insist that it is our right as human beings to choose how we shall live, whether as an Independent nation, as a part of the Portuguese nation, or as a part of India. The people of Goa should make the choice.
Having failed to gain a hearing or a forum before the United Nations, this delegation appealed to Members of the Congress of the United States to hear their case so they could make an appeal to the conscience of the free world. This time we were not disappointed. True to the traditions of your great country, which is looked to as the champion of freedom by all mankind, representatives of your Congress answered our appeal, and that is why we are here today.
We wish to express our deep thanks to Congressman Keith and the representatives of the press who have honoured us by coming here.
The day following the attack on Goa, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlal Stevenson, made clear the reaction of the United States: It is a question of the use of armed force by one state against another and against Its will, an act clearly forbidden by the Charter (of the United Nations). We have opposed such action in the past by our closest friends as well as others. We opposed It in Korea In 1950, In Suez and in Hungary in 1956, in the Congo in 1960, and
we do so again In Goa In 1961.
When Russia, the same day, vetoed a U.N. resolution calling for cease-fire, Indian withdrawal from Goa and peaceful negotiations, Ambassador Stevenson warned that “we are witnessing the first act in a drama which could end with its—the UN’s—death.”
The United Nations has not died, but its voice could only have been seriously weakened and Its high purpose undermined by the failure to challenge India\'s aggression.It Is my sincere hope that this Government will come to the assistance of the people of Goa. Damao, and Diu in helping bring this matter before the United Nations. The passage of 2 years has not lessened the crime. To allow Goa to be forgotten would not be consistent with our role as the leader of the free world and could only breed a further contempt for the peace and order.
No comments:
Post a Comment