GOAN CHRISTIANS, HINDU AND HINDUISM OF 1830 By Franco Fernandes

In September 2013 the Chief Minister of Goa Manohar Parrikar  said “ Catholics in Goa are culturally Hindu and India is a Hindu nation in the cultural sense”

Now the Deputy Chief Minister of Goa Francis D’souza say “ India is a Hindu Country. It is Hindustan. All Indians in Hindustan are Hindus, including I-I am a Christian Hindu”.

The BJP/RSS Government in Goa are trying to Brainwashed Goan Christians in believing that they are Hindus.

But the Ancestors of the Present day Goan Christians did not identify themselves as Hindus. Goan Christian Ancestors  belong to different tribes they followed their own Cult and Moral Code. Some were even followers of Islam.  They fought  each other until the Portuguese united them under one Umbrella “Goeses”,.

Hindu was exclusively the foreign Geographic term for Indus valley (Pakistan region) in ancient times. It had nothing to do with the present day religion of Hinduism nor the region of present day India. This is proven in the Persian Achaemenian inscriptions at Persepolis and Greek texts like those of Herodotus.

It was many centuries later that the term Hindu/Hind/Hindustan was used by Muslims to further encompass much of  South Asia, again as a Geographic term having no Religious or National meaning.

 (8 CENTURY  A.D ) PERSIAN ORIGIN WORD HINDU

According to Gavin Flood “The actual term ‘Hindu’ first occurs as a Persian geographic term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus. The term ‘Hindu’ then was a geographic term and did not refer to a Religion. Reference “An Introduction to Hinduism – Cambridge University Press,Gavin Flood 1996

According to Harjot Oberoi -  “It is most striking that people we now call Hindus never used this term to described themselves. The Vedas, the Ramayana and the Bhagavad Gita, which today are seen by many as the religious texts of the Hindus, do not employ the word Hindu. That term was first used by the Achaemenid Persians to described all those people who lived on or beyond the banks of the river Sindhu, or Indus. Therefore, at one stage the word Hindu as an ethno-geographic category came to englobe all those who live in India, without ethnic distinction. It was only under the Muslim rulers of India that the term began to gain a religious connotation. But it was not until British colonial times that the term “Hinduism” was coined and acquired wide currency as referring collectively to a wide variety of religious communities, some of them with distinct traditions and opposed practices. Communities like the Saivites, Vaishvanites and Lingyats, each with their own history and specific view of the world, were tied together under the blanket category “Hinduism.” Reference – The Construction of Religious Boundaries, Harjot Oberoi,  1994

According to Jawaharlal Nehru “the earliest reference to the word ‘Hindu’ can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eight century C.E, where the word means a people and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word ‘Hindu’ in connection with a particular religion is of a very late occurrence.” Reference ‘The Discovery of India’ p74-75, New Delhi

According to Sir Denzil Charles Jelf Ibbetson “ Every native who was unable to define his creed, or described it by any other name than that of some recognized Religion or of a sect of some such religion, was held to be and classed as a “Hindu” . This suggests that, until recently, Indians did not call themselves Hindus. In fact the term “Hindu” is a foreign appellation used initially by the Persians for the population living on the Indus River. With the penetration of the Muslims into Sindh (711-712 A.D), the word came to be used for the non-Muslim population. The Europeans followed this practice. Thus, in about 1830 A.D, the description of a population (all non-Muslims) became the description of a religion “Hinduism” but it did not exist as a unity in the consciousness of that population. – Religious life of Indian people : Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Amar Prakshan,1966

According to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan President of India (1962-67) “the term Hindu had originally a territorial and not creedal significance. It implies residence in a well-defined geographical area.”

(12 CENTURY AD) HINDUSTAN A GEOGRAPHIC WORD

The suffix ‘stan’ is an ancient Persian meaning land or place, for Example Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kabrastan etc.  It was Muhammad Ghori in 12 Century who first coined the word “Hindustan” and it denoted only the region of “North India” and not whole of India. The term came into common use under the rule of the Mughals who referred to their dominion centered in Delhi as “Hindustan”.

“The term Hindustan was first imposed on South Asian Nations by the Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12^th Century, this term was never used in South Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in early (pre-12^th Century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a term and concept has no historical dept in any social, religious, ethnic or national sense past the 12^th Century when Mohammed Ghori for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus.” Reference - Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p.20 By G.Singh.

(13 CENTURY A.D) ARAB TRAVELLERS

The Arabs adopted the Old Persian ‘Hindu’ as ‘Hind’. Neither of these words were used as applying to any Religion: they were purely Geographical terms.

According to Arab traveler Qazwini there were different Religions in the Indian Subcontinent , some even had No religion and he mentions Brahmanism as a separate religion. The Arab travelers never Mentioned any Religion as Hinduism during their Visit in the Subcontinent.

“ Qazwini (1203 AD-1280 AD) says that there are various sects among the people of Hind. Some believe in the creator, but not the prophet. They are the Brahmans. There are some who believe neither. There are some who worship idols, some the moon and some other, fire.” Reference -  ‘The Religious Sects of Southern India mention by Arab Geographers ‘ Bombay 1939 p.226-230 By S. Mahammad Husayn Nainar.

According to Arab traveler Muhammad Al Idrisi (1099-1166) there were 42 different religions in the Hind

“ Al Idrisi also observes that ‘Among the principal nations of Hind there are 42 sects. Some acknowledge the intercessory powers of graven stones, and others worship holy stones, on which butter and oil is poured. Some pay adoration to fire, and cast themselves into flame. Others adore the sun and considers it the creator and director of the world. Some worship trees, others pay adorations to serpents, which they keep in stables and feed as well as they can deeming to be a meritous work. Lastly, there are some who give themselves no trouble about any kind of devotion and deny everything.” Reference -  ‘India as described by the Arab travelers’ Gorakhpur 1967 p.57 By A.K Srivastava.

( 16 CENTURY A.D )PORTUGUESE AND GENTIOS

When the Portuguese arrived in Goa in 1510 they never used the word ‘HINDU’ or ‘HINDUISM” or any other variants to denote any Religion in Goa proving that Hinduism, did not exist as a Religion at the time of Afonso de Albuquerque. Instead they referred to the  various Pagans, Cults and Religions as Gentios

Duarte Barbosa  (1480-1521) was a Portuguese traveler and interpreter of Afonso de Albuquerque. Duarte Barbosa in his book “O Livro de Duarte Barbosa” refers the word Gentios and not Hindus for the Religions of present day Goa & Kerala.

PORTUGUESE DOCUMENTS

“And in this Kingdom there is another sort of Gentio who they call Baneanes.”  Reference - Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames Vol. I,p.109

“ And before this kingdom of Guzerate fell into the hands of the Moors, a certain race of Gentios whom the Moors called Resbutos dwelt therein.” Reference – Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames, Vol. I, p.109 cited in Asia, p.167.n3

“Os gentios do reino de Goa sao mais validos que os so reino de Cambaia.” Reference A Suma Oriental de Tome Pires.Ed Armando Cortesao, 1978.p.212-218.

“The original of this petition to Charles II is signed by 225 of the principalest inhabitants of this Island, viz.123: Christians and 84 : Gentuis, 18: Moores”- Reference  Anglo-Portuguese Negotiations relating to Bombay 1660-1677 (OUP) By S.A Khan,p.453

(18 CENTURY A.D) BRITISH AND GENTOOS

The British arrived in the Indian Subcontinent after the Portuguese and adopted the Portuguese word Gentios and anglicized it into Jentue, Gentoo or Gentues

“The first digest of Indian Legislation, which was complied under orders of Warren Hastings and published in 1773, has the title ‘ A Code of Gentoo Law.’ Reference ‘Influencia do vocabulario Portuguese m Linguas Asiaticas’ By Monsignor Sebastiao Rodolfo Daldado

“ The Gentues, the Portugal Idiom for Gentiles, are the Aborigines, who enjoyed their freedom till the Moors or Scythian Tartars.. undermining them, took advantage of their Civil Commotions.” Reference –Fryer, East India,Hak.Soc.Vol.I,p.81

“The late scarcity of provisions necessitating us to take some cows from the Jentue inhabitants to supply the fleet.” Reference – Forrest, Selections, Home Series, VOL.II, p.31

(19 CENTURY A.D ) THE ENGLISH INVENTION OF HINDUISM IN 1830 AD

The British added suffix ‘ism’  to ‘Hindu’ and it became ‘Hinduism’.

In 1830 the English census-compilers were assigned the daunting task of conducting the Indian head-count by the British Government. These people were not theologians and coined the term ‘ Hinduism’ as a blanket term to encompass several Religions in the Subcontinent. Thus a ‘Hindu’ was defined in the 1830 Census as anybody who was not a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jain. Goa was not part of this Census in 1830.

“Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the English Colonialists in the 1830’s. This remarkable circumstance is evidenced by the fact that none of the travelers who visited India before English rule used the word ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Sanatana’.”  Reference –Myth of one religion Exploded, p.5.1 by Dr Hadwa Dom.

“The-‘Ism’was added to Hindu in around 1830 to denote the culture and religion of the high-caste Brahmans in contrast to other religions” Reference “An Introduction to Hinduism – Cambridge University Press,Gavin Flood 1996

“The English census-compilers created Hinduism in the 1830’s as a blanket term for several communities” Reference –Myth of one religion Exploded, p.8.1 by Dr Hadwa Dom.

“The term Hinduism was introduced in about 1830 AD By British Writers” Reference  - Encyclopedia Britannica,20 Hinduism’519

“ The non-Muslim people of the South Asian subcontinent called Hindu had no precede word for their religions. They were, as they are, divided into thousands of communities and tribes, each having its own religious beliefs, rituals, modes of worship, etc. Finding it difficult to get the names of the Religions of these communities, the British writers gave them the word “Hinduism” to be used as a common name for all of their religions in about 1830.”  Reference ‘Basic Elements of Hinduism’ By Babri Masjid Archive, EB 20:581

“The word “Hindu” is as much geography as anything else. The word ‘Hinduism’ is a generic term and did not come into popular use until the eighteenth century, coined by the British to simplify the work of the census takers.”  Reference – ‘A History of Ancient Indian Before the Aryan Migration’ by Kenneth Shouler & Susai Anthony

(20 CENTURY A.D) DEFINITION OF HINDUISM

“Hinduism is both a Civilization and a congregation of Religions; it has neither a beginning nor a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy or organization. Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has proved Unsatisfactory in one way or another.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 20 ‘Hinduism’ 519-520

 “The people called Hindu have nothing common in their Religious affairs. ‘Hinduism’ therefore cannot give any precise idea as to what it means. Attempts were made to define the term but could not succeed.” ‘Basic Elements of Hinduism’ By Babri Masjid Archive 1998.

“Hinduism as a faith is vague, amorphous, many sided, all things to all men, It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word. In its present form, and even it the past, it embraces many beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often opposed to or contradicting each other.” The Discovery of India p.37 By Jawaharlal Nehru.

“Hinduism defies definition. It has no specific creed.” Reference – India an Introduction, New Delhi, 1990,p.19 By Khushwant Singh.

“The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to define it in a single phrase. A Hindu may have any religious belief or none.” Reference –  India : A Modern History, Michigan, 1961,p.40 By Percival Spear.

“Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered again and again by eminent Scholars and so far no satisfactory answer has been given.” Reference – History of Hindu Imperialism, Madras, 1992,p.178 By Swami Dharma Theertha.

CONCLUSION

The foreign word “Hindu” simply became the term for many different local Religions of South Asia. Hinduism is a meaningless term and concept in the sense that it can include anything or nothing. Contradictory or opposing aspects are quite common in it, and as quoted by many Scholars it cannot be truly defined. Hinduism as a “Civilization of Hindus” is another hollow definition in the same way “ Western Civilization” or “Eastern Civilization” can include many different Religions, People, Cultures, Nations, Regions etc. To say “ Hinduism” has been evolving since ancient times is a farce as the term/word itself has recent origins and Humans and their Ideas/Beliefs have been evolving since time-immemorial all over the World.

RSS/Brahmins sometime use the word Sanatan Dharma(eternal religion) and sometime Vedic Dharma (religion of the Veda) etc for their Religion. But as names of their Religion, these words are also untenable as they do not imply anything precise for all the people Hindu.

In Conclusion it proves that the Ancestors of Goan Catholics were not Hindus and were not followers  of present day Hinduism. They converted to Christianity from their  Indigenous  Religions and Cults 300 years before the British concept of Hinduism 1830. Present day Goa was never part of Muhammad Ghori’s “Hindustan” or Mughal Empire’s “Hindustan”. 

THE MYTH OF NEHRU'S AKHAND BHARAT By Franco Fernandes

(This Research is based on Historical Facts, Epigraphic Evidence and Scholars who refutes the Brahmanist claim that King Bharat conquered the whole of Indian Subcontinent)

 

The Dominion of India (15th August 1947-26 January 1950) was transformed into Bharat Ganrajya (Republic of India). New Delhi considers itself the successor state to Ancient Bharat. This is the only figure that the Indian Bigots can find to justify the unity of the conglomeration of more than 570 Princely states in the Subcontinent.

 

Nehru’s India Doctrine came from Nehru’s belief in the Undivided India (Akhand Bharat), Mohandas Gandhi mildly called it the “Ram Rajya”. Mr Nehru wrote several letters after 1947 reassuring the Indian Bigots that the ultimate goal of India was the reintegration of Pakistan, Goa, Sikkim, Bangladesh, Hyderabad, Tibet, Sri lanka, Nagaland, Afghanistan, Junagad, Nepal, Kashmir etc into the Mythical Bharat which stretches from the Hindu Kush (Afghanistan) to Bali (Indonesia).

 

In recent Years Indian Bigots have claimed that Countries like China, Russia, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan & Turkmenistan were also part of Ancient Bharat. May be in future they can also claim Venus & Mars etc were part of Akhand Bharat.

 

“Nehru wanted a creation of a Mahabharata inclusive of Afghanistan, from Oxus to Burma, down to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) inclusive of Tibet. Mother India or Bharat Mata is a figment of the fertile Brahman mind. Historically, such a state never existed in the annals of history” Reference – Dr. Naveed Tajammal, an American Educated and trained Scholar.

 

“In modern times, bigoted Brahmins have projected Bharatavarsha as the ancient Sanskrit name for the whole of India. This, however, has no historical foundation. Bharatavarsha did not include the whole of India and never did, but only denoted the kingdom of the Aryan invader Bharata, who was a chieftain of one of the Aryan tribes that invaded India. This small region comprised only a small part of the upper Ganges valley”. Reference - Subbiah Alagumalaiyan, “The Myth of Bharat”.

 

“Don’t you think that it is a big surprise that a nation can have two official names? One given by British and the next one derived from the legendary King Bharat who was the ancestors of the legendary Pandavas and Kauravas. Their nation of Hastinapur was not bigger than that of Kathmandu but the Legendary reportedly boasted that King Bharat ruled the Universe. On this ground this British Born India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru, a favourite of then British viceroy to India Lord Mount Batten and also his wife Pamela went on unabated to expand the territories of his British bestowed kingdom”. Reference - Madan Regmi, Political Analyst & International Observer.

 

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

 

The epigraphic evidence confirms that Bharata originally did not mean the whole of India but only a small part of North India. Kharavela who lived c.63 BC - c.23 BC ( C.R.Mishra, p.114 ), was one of the most famous kings of the Kolarian-Dravidian kingdom of Kalinga. His conquests ranged far and wide. They are celebrated in the Hathigumpha inscription. The nineth and tenth lines of this inscription clearly mention that he invaded Bharata from Kalingam thereby implying that Bharata at that time did not include the whole of India - Line 9 10 : "And, in the nineth year, (His Majesty) [ Kharavela ] caused to be built the great victory place – royal residence at the cost of thirty eight hundred thousand (coins). " Then, in the 10th year (His Majesty) who embodied the principles of politics, diplomacy and peace, caused (the army) to march towards Bharatavarsha for conquest ." -- ( C.R.Mishra, p.128 )

 

Prof. C.R.Mishra notes that Bharata did not originally denote India : " Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the regions of northern India " (C.R.Mishra, p.121). Elaborating this, he states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India - " In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha' is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the name denoted North India at that time." -- ( C.R.Mishra, p.130, n.79 )

 

A.L. Basham states that Bharatas was one of the invading Aryan tribes which settled in the region between the Satlaj and Jamna, which later became known as Brahmavarta (Basham, The Wonder that was India, p.30).

 

Thus, the first time that we have undisputed usage of the word Bharatavarsha, it denoted only North India. There is no evidence of Bharata's kingdom extending beyond Northern India.

 

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

 

Historical evidence refutes the Brahmanist claim that Bharata conquered the whole of India. Bharata's ancestors lived in the region of the Caspian sea in Central Asia; they were nomadic tribesmen of Aryan stock. Bharata's legendary capital lay in the Kabul valley, ie. Yusufzai territory of modern Afghanistan: " According to local tradition, the original seat of the empire of Bharata was much further to the north-west, namely, at the site now occupied by the ruins of Takh-i-Bahi, in the country of the Yusufzais to the northward of Peshawur." -- ( Wheeler, p.48n.2 )

 

From this base he descended with his hordes of Aryan horsemen onto the plains of India. There he defeated Indra ( Wheeler, p.45 ), a descendant of the first Aryan invader Indra, earning himself the title "most renowned of the Lunar race" ( Wheeler, p.47 ). He then conquered the Upper Ganges valley, exceeding Indra's dominion.

 

After the wars of annexation, the Raj of Bharata extended over the enitre doab between the rivers Ganges and the Jumna right up to the junction of these 2 rivers ( Wheeler, p.44 ). It is thus obvious that Bharata's empire, Bharatavarsha, only included a few provinces in the Ganges Valley.

 

His son Hastin founded Hastinapur further down the Ganges valley, after this second wave of Aryans had pushed on from the neighbourhood of Peshawar up to the banks of the Ganges ( Wheeler, p.48.n2 ). It is thus evident that even the lower Ganges valley was beyond Bharata's control. Hence, the Brahmanist concept of `One Ancient Bharat' under perpetual dominion of the Brahmin Aryans is a fallacy. In the words of Winston Churchill, `India is as much a nation as the equator' .

 

References

 

( C.R.Mishra ), `Kharavela and His Times' , in ` Comprehensive History and Culture of Orissa' , ed. P.K.Mishra, Kaveri Books, New Delhi 1997, Vol.I part I, p.108-131.

 

( J. T. Wheeler ), `India of the Vedic Age with Reference to the Mahabharata', J. Talboys Wheeler, Vol. I of `The History of India', 1973 reprint Cosmo Publications. New Delhi 1973.

 

 (A.L. Basham)  ‘The Wonder That was India', New Delhi 1954.

HINDUTVAS, THIEVES OF HISTORY By Robert Lindsay

This will continue a series of posts opposing the Hindutvas in India and the abject horror of (objectively fascist) Indian nationalism in general.

First of all, in its present form, the state of India has no right to exist. Prior to 1947, there was no India. Prior to British colonialism, there was no India. There was really no Hinduism either.

It was British colonizers who made note of the varying Indian forms of religions and collated them into a supposedly univariate object called “Hinduism”. It was British anthropologists, colonizers and cartographers who invented this thing called “India”.

The whole blasted Hindutva lie is based on the ludicrous notion of a “Bharat India”. This Bharat India is a fake nation that has supposedly existed for at least hundreds and usually thousands of years. Its borders vary, but always include all of Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to mention the entirely to the failed state of India.

Yes, you have it right, Hindutvas and Indian nationalism in general rejects the right of either Bangladesh or Pakistan to self-determination. Both are “organic” parts of the Indian nation torn loose from the bosom of the bloody soil of Bharat, in need of a fascist irredentist war of national consolidation to bring them back into the fold.

Surely they claim Sri Lanka too.

There are many other places that lack an independent history. Hindutvas claim Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia and sometimes the Philippines. Bharat India extends past Pakistan, through Afghanistan to Iran and all the way to Azerbaijan. Why Iran and Azerbaijan, you ask sensibly? Because “Hindu” fire temples have been found there, that’s why. Everyone else seems to think that these are Zoroastrian fire temples, but whatever.

One theory of the name of Azerbaijan is that jan is a word in Urdu, Farsi and Turkic meaning “fire”. In many Middle Eastern cultures (except Semitic), fire symbolized life. A burning fire meant a full, living life, and a dead fire meant death.

Azerbaijan had abundant oil and gas deposits even back before drilling was known. Apparently, the oil and gas bubbled to the surface and caught fire in places. Azerbaijan was “land of the fires”. This is also the area where Zoroastrianism was said to have originated.

None of these lands have a history of their own. Hindutvas, thieves of historical dreams, claim their histories for them.

In fact, it incredibly extends even further. Hindutvas actually claim to have built Greek and Roman civilization! Yet somehow these brilliant Indians were unable to transport this great knowledge back to India where it could have done some good.

Hindutva lies and propaganda are nasty things. There are over 1 billion people in India, and if the most brilliant of them fall for the Hindutva crap (And they do!) you can imagine what fertile soil the minds of average ignorant Indian is for this garbage.

Pakistan was created by Britain, the evil colonist, they scream. It must be returned to the bosom of Bharat! But no, Allama Iqbal coined the name and the idea, and Ali Jinnah pushed for it. But these two were Islamic fundamentalists, the Hindutvas screech, ready to put 50 million more Hindus to the flames and finish the job the Moguls started.

But no again. Jinnah, the whiskey-loving Muslim, and Iqbal, were secular men. Jinnah was committed to equal rights for all, especially the Hindus of Pakistan. That his successors shat on his dreams is no fault of the great man. Instead of being an evil British plot to tear the heart of Bharat from its bloody chest, the notion of Pakistan was opposed by the sober and worried British.

Yes, Pakistan is a new state, but it is an old civilization. Italy was formed in the 1800′s, but it is the inheritor of Roman civilization. The Greeks were not freed from the Ottoman yoke until the same century, yet they are children of Socrates and Plato. Iran did not become a state until 1935, yet it is properly recognized as the descendant of ancient Persian civilization.

Pakistan had a history before 1947 and even before Islam, and it was not necessarily entirely cognate with India’s history (however defined!) at all.

Let us keep in mind that in 1947, the colony of India was freed from the British. As a fake new country with no history at all, the parts of that country had a right to self-determination.

At that time, India was composed of about 3,000 princely states. This was the nature of the Indian region before British colonialism, and the British never entirely dismantled it. 3,000 princely states were never incorporated into any kind of non-colonial entity remotely called “India” at any time.

A number of these states refused to join India, and India immediately dragooned an army together and attacked every one of these states full force, causing many deaths and injuries. All recalcitrant states were dragged into the fake new state kicking and screaming.

Kashmir, 90% Muslim, wanted to go to the new state of Pakistan, but it’s governor was a Hindu who told the people to go to Hell and ordered Kashmir to stay in India. Kashmir had never been an integral part of any non-colonial entity called “India”.

In 1947, the UN ordered India to hold a plebiscite on Kashmir so the people could have the right to self-determination. To this day, India has refused to implement this resolution. India must be placed, alongside Turkey, Israel, Indonesia and Morocco, as a colonial international scofflaw.

The entire Northeast of India is made up for the most part of Asians or Mongoloids. Many are Buddhists and same are animists. In neither race, nor culture, nor history, nor religion do they resemble most Indians. The no-man’s land of the Northeast was forcibly incorporated into India by British colonialists in the late 1800′s, long after they first colonized India. The area is not even an original colony.

From the start, the entire northeast has refused to join India, and most of the region has been up in arms ever since. It’s clear that India has no right whatsoever to this entire region. I include the states of Manipur, Meghalaya,Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and even parts of Assam.

As the fascist Jewish nationalists run amok, turning their corner of Wikipedia into Judeopedia, so their fascist Hindutva allies run amok in their corner of Wikipedia, transforming it into Hindupedia. See this article on the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh for example. Who knew that the tracts, not to mention all of Bangladesh, are really part of India?

As Pakistani nationalists seek to assert their right to construct their own national identity free from fascist Hindutvas, so too to Bengalis from Bangladesh seek to assert their own history. Pakhub is a good spot for young Bangladeshi and Pakistani patriots, mostly secular, seek to ownership of their national narratives from Hindutva hegemony.

The liars of the Right are so wrong to marry fascism and Communism. The Left has always been about national sovereignty, cultural and linguistic freedom and even at the extreme, the right of self-determination.

The Bolsheviks were the originators of these themes, which now play out across our world, especially in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Colombia, where indigenous peoples and linguistic minorities are granted freedom ranging from cultural and linguistic freedom all the way to tracts of land where they have significant political rights of governance.

On the other side is the Right and fascism and imperialism. All nation-building and wars of national consolidation are objectively imperialist or fascist. Where the Left seeks autonomy of nations, the fascists and imperialists wish to consolidate them all into a single land, crush everyone but the most numerous, and force everyone into one organic nation-state, eradicating centuries of linguistic and cultural history.

Where the Left fights colonialism and imperialism, the Right wages endless rhetorical and actual irredentist and revanchist wars to reclaim the lost lands of yore and subjugate or toss out the new owners.

Where Stalin and Mao crushed nations and imposed Russian and Han hegemony on languages and cultures, they were veering into fascist territory. There can be no progressive claim to such things.

ROMANI KONKANI By Antonio da Costa

Romani Konkani is the very soul of Goa and its Goan people that had bonded Goans together as a strong and most unique homogenous society anywhere over the half a millennium, a formidable period of length of time in history in any mankind, until its deliberate destruction by the unwelcome invasion of India into Goa and its colonial manipulation of its people and their lives. An invasion that was all meant with sole objective to destroy the Goan, his language and his identity in order to snatch for itself his Goa, as its booty sans the Goan himself. 

The learned priest Fr. Gomes in his comments, by just lamenting over the insufficient sale of Konkani books and his dismissive trivial remark over the contempt shown by some ignorant section of Goans hyped into borrowed English, only conceals the crucial truth to the fact that it is India that has inflicted a colossal damage and devastation on Goa and the Goans and their way of life by officially banning the use of  Romani Konkani which was the mother tongue of the Goan majority which has been synonymous with Goa itself.

To inflict even further damage and obliterate Romani Konkani altogether, India has gone to the extent to extracted the original Konkani soul from the Goan body and stuff into it a falsified version of coined Konkani borrow from elsewhere to tell the Goan that it is his real original mother tongue !!

Can one imagine how inhuman it is that a human being is stripped of his mother tongue and left naked and soulless like an animal under the muzzle of the Indian gun? 
T
hat is what India has done to a Goan.

India has to be held solely responsible and guilty for this dastardly evil inhuman crime which in the version of UNESCO amounts to cultural genocide--a crime punishable under its convention of all nations as a crime against humanity of indigenous people, their land, language and identity.

Goa being geographically confined within its land-locked enclave between Western Ghats on the hinterland and the International border of Arabian Sea on the other, Romani Konkani was the sole language of communication and expression of the Goans both in oral and script content, and over centuries of its evolution has developed and has attained the highest level of literary and linguistic distinction and perfection of any modern language. 

It is one most unique languages in the world in the very sense that it has a base of combination two most classical languages of the world Sanskrit and Latin both languages being non-indigenous to India. In fact the Sanskrit content is more profound in Romani Konkani than in any other Indian language including Marathi.

It was the first language in history in all Asia to have been exposed to the modern printing press that had enhanced its widespread propagation besides being a church language of Christianity that formed Goa’s majority until its present systematic politically organized decimation by India.

Despite recognizable authority it can command among all world languages, India discredits and despises Goa’s only native language the Romani Konkani and does not recognize it by so banning it’s official usage in the very place it is originated from while it allows freely the official usage of Romani English the language of its former colonial master the British!

It only demonstrates that in a show of sworn anti-Goan posture India abuses, despises and ignores the good side of Goa and like a donkey praises and professes its own tail and the stench below for Goans to sniff!!!

With the Romani Konkani removed and destroyed it will be a uphill battle to regain its former glory. 
Presently, the fate of Romani Konkani hangs in the custody of handful helpless individual enthusiasts who be best advised to do the easiest thing, that is not to go India to plead nor to Modi, but to go directly to the door of UNESCO and knock on it and robustly demand their Universal Human Right to their indigenous traditional language Romani Konkani and they will surely be, as per their right, fruitfully rewarded! 

Or think and work intentionally towards total independence of their motherland Goa, where they can reinstate Romani Konkani on its highest pedestal as a first national language of Goa. 

That is where the Romani Konkani stands to bask Anton ioin all its lasting glory!!!

WOMEN OF GOA ..SPEAKS!!!

(GFG interviewed a cross section of women in Goa, and this is what they had to say to Sudhin and Muthalick.)

WE ARE GOANS FIRST!!!!. INDIA WAS FORCED UPON US.....THIS IS OUR LAND..OUR ANCESTORS HAVE LIVED HERE..AND I AM PROUD OF OUR HERITAGE AND CULTURE.
IF YOU AND YOUR KIND ... DONT LIKE OUR CULTURE,... WE TELL THEM... TO LEAVE GOA...OR SEPERATE US FROM INDIA....IF THEY CANT STAY PEACEFULLY....IN OUR LAND.

THEY BRING SHIT TO OUR CULTURE LIKE PAN, CRIMINALS AND GHANTIS...THEY HAVE ROBBED US OF OUR SAFTEY AND OUR PEACE....WE HAVE BEEN PATIENT.

THEY ANNEXED OUR STATE, DENIED US SPECIAL STATUS, MADE US FIGHT AGAINST MERGER, SPLIT US ON OUR LANGUAGE, AND NOW THIS NONSENSE..ENOUGH IS ENOUGH...PEOPLE OF GOA, HAVE REALISED THAT YOU'LL ARE TRYING YOUR BEST TO DISRUPT THE COMMUNNAL HARMONY PREVAILING IN GOA....for vote bank politics. WE will not fall for it.

SUDHIN SHOULD STRIP OF HIS WESTERN CLOTHING, AND WEAR A NEHRU OR GANDHI ATTIRE..AND DONT EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH...

IF YOU LOVE INDIA....BE INDIA... AND WEAR INDIA...AND THEN COME AND TALK TO US.!!! otherwise.. stop this hypocracy.

I WANT TO WALK IN THE STREETS OF GOA WITHOUT LOOKING OVER MY SHOULDER AS BEFORE..... I WANT TO WALK WITHOUT FEAR OF GETTING MUGGED AND RAPED BY INDIANS. IF I WANT TO ROAM IN A SWIM SUIT..I WILL..... YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO.

I WILL WEAR WHAT I WANT TO ON THE BEACH, TO THE PUB ....OR TO THE RESTAURANT.
IF YOU CANT ACCEPT THIS...PLEASE LEAVE....AS WE ARE GOANS FIRST.

AND WE ARE PROUD OF OUR CULTURE...

(GOANS FOR GOA FORUM) GFG salutes these women of Goa...