RTI: Rights and Wrongs - For the Eyes of Goans Only

Very Beautiful Letters to the Herald.

Church out of RTI scope By Joaquim de Souza

The reported move by Antonia Michelle Abel to seek to bring the office of the Archbishop under the preview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act appears to be out of lack of understanding of the purpose behind the Act.

First and foremost, one must understand that there are civil laws for the enforcement of which there are several bodies appointed and financed by the central and state governments. The Church, on the other hand, is governed by Canon laws regulating the spiritual needs of its faithful. The central or state governments have no say whatsoever in the formulation or enforcement of the laws of the Church.

The Church is an independent body with its own rules and regulations, and transparency is part of its religious teaching. Any attempt to bring the provisions of the RTI Act to the Office of the Archbishop would amount to unwanted interference in the religious affairs of the Church.

********
Absurd suggestion by Col Cyril P D'Souza (Retd), Calangute
This is with reference to the news report on bringing the Bishop’s office under the RTI Act (Herald, 28 July). It is surprising that Mapusa MLA Francis D'Souza, who heads the panel, should have even entertained Antonia Michel Abels' strange request, which is absurd, insulting and recommends an invasion into the independent and secular functioning of the Church in Goa.
Ms Abel has made ridiculous suggestions about Portuguese laws, culture and customs, which we Goans have so uniquely imbibed and follow for centuries together. We are very proud of our culture and traditions. In fact, it is our unique culture which binds and brings us Goans together, no matter what faith or creed we belong to, unlike other states that constantly experience communal riots and tensions instigated by communal outfits and parties.

Thankfully, by clarifying that neither his panel nor his party want to bring the Church under RTI, Mr D’Souza has set the record straight. I hope the Mapusa MLA realises that he also represents a sizeable number of Catholics and other Goans from his constituency, and shouldn’t give in to mischievous suggestions like that of Antonia, maybe because she is his constituent. Instead of directing such queries to the Law Department, he can guide and direct such those who make such silly suggestions to the Commission for Social Communications set up by the Goa Archdiocese.

With reference to the letter by Francis A Soares (Herald, 31 July) claiming it is wise to bring the Bishops ' office under the RTI Act, he claims that old churches are renovated with funds from the government, which is absolutely wrong. Only those churches, temples and other heritage sites that have been acquired by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) are entitled to repairs and maintenance. The Bishop cannot move a stone from these structures without permission from the ASI. All other churches have their own governing bodies to look after the affairs of the church.

People like Mr Soares should take more interest in church affairs, to see how they function. He too can get all the information he wants from the Commission for Social Communications of the Goa Archdiocese.

**********
Embarrassment! By Ayres Sequeira, Salvador do Mundo

The Ad hoc Legislature Committee on Law and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have stated clearly that they are not interested in bringing the Office of the Archbishop Patriarch of Goa and Daman under the purview of the RTI Act, in a press release. However, the suggestion by Antonia Michelle Abel to the ad hoc committee appears to be in self interest.

Exactly a year back, a politician of yesteryear had attempted to bring Church properties under the purview of state law. He later backed out realising his mistake. Interestingly, both interested parties are from the same religious background, but probably not aware of the functioning of the Church. They have needlessly embarrassed the Catholic community.


*************
Who is Antonia? By Schubert S Vaz, Guirim

One Antonia Michel Abel has requested that the Office of the Archbishop should be brought under the purview of the RTI Act. Her request does not make sense. The Bishop has nothing to do with the Law and Judiciary Department.
Why is this lady interfering in Church affairs? If she has the guts, let her go directly to the Bishop’s Palace and talk. Nobody has stopped her from approaching any Church authority. She can even approach any Catholic priest for guidance. Going directly to the Legislative Assembly suggests hidden motives. But why did some of our Hon’ble MLAs buckle at her suggestion? We Goan Catholics wish to know who this lady is. What are her credentials, what are her real motives, and why is she so obsessed with the Church in Goa? Who is she instigated by? Is she the same lady who was last seen moving around with a famous historian-turned-agnostic who constantly writes hate literature on the Catholic Church from his cosy flat in Lisbon? Will the real Antonia Michel Abel please stand up!

Why not close Khajuraho? By Damodar Mauzo, Majorda

The objection to the paintings of Dr Jose Pereira raised by the Hindu JanJagruti Samiti is highly deplorable. The organisation does not represent the Hindu community as such, and has no right to talk on behalf of Hindus. A professor of theology, Dr Jose Pereira is a scholar, musicologist, researcher and polyghot, besides being a great painter.

He is a Sanskrit pundit who can speak chaste Sanskrit, putting many a Sanskrit scholar to shame. He is a philosopher who has digested the essence of the world’s religions. Though he lives in the US, he has Goa and India at heart. This is evident from his writings, which centre around Goa, Konkani and Goan traditions.
Dr Pereira is an icon whose artistic genius is beyond question. An intellectual of his calibre can never portray anything condescending or derogatory. His recent series of paintings – ‘Epiphanies of the Hindu Gods’ – is the result of a deep study of Hindu Gods and the faith. It is a pity that the self-styled leaders of the so-called Hindu JanJagruti Samiti do not have the intellectual depth to assess or evaluate the beautiful depiction of our deities by this great son of the soil. If at all the HJS objects to nudity in religious art, let them first go to Khajuraho and shut down those timeless temples, where nudity and ‘shringaar’is the focus of the art. Let them delete ‘Raas-krida’ or ‘Raas-leela’ from the Hindu religious scriptures before they target others.

BAN FUNDAMENTALIST COMMUNAL ELEMENTS by Praxy Fernandes, Sanquelim

Hats off to Floriano Lobo, Goa Su-Raj Party (Talking to the HJS, Herald dt 30th June) and Damodar Mauzo, Majorda (Why not close Khajuraho? Herald dt 31st June) for taking up the cudgels on behalf of the renowned Sanskrit scholar, Dr Jose Pereira and asking HJS/Sanathan to desist from violence and threats. I have always said and I maintain what Mr Floriana has rightly pointed out that these unruly self-styled keepers of morals and so-called religious watchdogs are all non-Goan ghantis staying in housing board colonies built by the selfish rogue Goan politicians by developing plots and flats on lands of our poor farmers. Even in my religion we have groups who do not believe in Our Lady and who are driving wedges within us. Such fundamentalist and communal elements should be driven away and banned from Goa as they are nothing but a bunch of non-Goan people with criminal intent fermenting trouble here in Goa. If they really having morality then they should demonstrate their might in their own states as there are similar carvings on caves at Hampi and other places in Karnataka & Maharashtra. These non-Goan self-styled preachers don’t know our Goan culture nor do they respect our communal harmony and on the contrary they are trying hard to drive a wedge between Goan Christians and Hindus and our age old traditions. None of my Goenkar hindu brethren has taken offense to such paintings by Dr Jose or Dr Subodh as they don’t have negative mindset.

Talking to the HJS by Floriano Lobo, Goa Su-Raj Party

Brave Goan FLORIAN LOBO

On Wednesday 29 July, my colleague Adv Antonio Lobo and I visited Xavier Centre for Historical Research (XCHR) to listen to Dr Jose Pereira’s recital of ancient khell tiatr in Konkani. As the function came to a close, we were informed that a delegation of the Hindu JanJagriti Samiti (HJS) was waiting to accost Dr Jose Pereira. Earlier, the XCHR had received anonymous phone calls threatening to cut off Dr Jose Pereira’s hands as well as to decapitate him.

We requested the audience to stay while the HJS delegation quizzed Dr Pereira. The delegation was asked to question Dr Jose Pereira before the audience and a video camera, which they did not anticipate. Immediately their hostility evaporated and they asked their questions in a decent manner, citing their hurt sentiments and thanking the Institute for withdrawing the three paintings they objected to earlier. They said six other pictures were “sensitive”, and wanted them removed too.

When they questioned Dr Pereira as to how he could depict Lord Krishna in the manner he did, Dr Jose relapsed into authoritative Sanskrit recital, which took the audience as well as the HJS group completely by surprise. Then, the leader of the group – a lady in a white sari – admitted that she was not at all learned in the scriptures but still felt they were wrongly interpreted. Professor Rafael explained that there is no such thing as singular interpretation in literature, and multiple interpretations give colour and vigour to literature, striking a healthy balance. XCHR head Fr Delio Mendonca asked the group to put their further demands in writing. Adv Antonio Lobo made it very clear that threats would not be tolerated and that the group had made a mistake by publishing the XCHR phone numbers on its website and newspaper so that the Institute could be subjected to anonymous phone threats. The audience dispersed only when the group had left the Institute.

A very strong signal has been sent to these unruly self-styled keepers of morals and so-called religious watchdogs that they cannot threaten their way through goondagiri and must resort to civility and transparent social norms. Adv Lobo started his interaction with the group in Konkani, but relapsed into English when they could not respond. If he had persisted, the non-Goan status of most of the group would have become clear. Can these self-styled religious policemen come from outside Goa and tell Goans what they can and cannot do?

PRAXY FERNANDES (Sanquelim) ADDS:This letter to the Editor' in Herald newspaper dt 30th July 2010, written by Mr. Floriano Lobo, a true Goan at heart. I have always said that it is the non-Goan ghantis who have come to Goa to forment trouble for us niz-Goenkars. These is due to our cruel and selfish politicians who have imported them from Karwar and kumta to build their votebanks. The housing board corporation of Goa has built houses and developed plots from fertile land of our poor farmers for these ghantis who don’t even understand or speak a bit of Konkani. Rightly Mr Lobo has pointed out that the HJS is nothing but a union of outsiders fermenting trouble in Goa. They don’t know our culture nor do they respect our communal harmony and on the contrary they are trying hard to drive a wedge between Goan Christians and Hindus.

NIZ GOENKAR ADDS: This was a brave act on the part of Mr. Florian Lobo. A brave Goan.

Goan & Their Opinions - For the Eyes of Goans Only

Archbishop under RTI? By Carmo D’Souza, Calangute

In the news report ‘Bishop’s office under RTI?’ (Herald, 28 July), my curiosity was aroused by this sentence: “‘The Archbishop patriarch of Goa, Daman and Diu was bound to repeal the Portuguese constitution, laws, customs, culture and traditions and report to His Holiness, the Pope to come under the constitution of India, Indian laws, customs, culture and traditions for the survival of the Catholic church in Goa,’ Abel said.” When and by what provision was the Portuguese Constitution repealed in Goa? Was it express or implied by local administration, central administration, local legislature, central legislature, Portuguese government…?

Targeting Catholics by James Moraes, Cuncolim

How can one bring the Office of the Archbishop under RTI? This is not a government office, nor supported by the government in any way. Church matters are very open and always made public. The Catholic Church, right from the beginning, runs its affairs as per law. The politicians have used some person to target Catholics in Goa. Though Goans are cool minded, they are not foolish. The outcome of all these tactics will be seen in the forthcoming elections. We should realise who will be the beneficiary of this bid to divide and ruin Goans.

Church and State by Joaquim de Souza

The move by Antonia Michelle Abel to seek to bring the Office of the Archbishop under RTI appears to be out of lack of understanding of the purpose behind the Act. It is for bodies appointed and/or financed by the central and state governments.
The Church is governed by Canon laws; the central/state governments have no say in the running of the Church. It is an independent body with its own rules and regulations, and transparency is a part of its religious teaching. Any attempt to bring it under RTI would amount to unwarranted interference in religious affairs.

State within a state by Anthony Pinto, Valpoi

The Law Department’s reply about the Church and RTI can only take us back to the controversial question of the ‘Church being a state within a state’. If it is true that the records of the Vatican have not been updated since the liberation of Goa with regard to its changed status from 1961, then the ‘saudadists’ can still claim that Goa is a part of Portugal. The Law Minister might do better if he consults the Portuguese Consulate and updates his department.

Karnataka bans iron ore exports to curb illegal mining - Brought to you by Saturnino Rodrigues

BANGALORE: Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa on Thursday announced a ban on export of iron ore from Karnataka , saying that it was the only way to stop illegal mining in the state. He also clamped a ban on transport of iron to other states. Yeddyurappa told reporters here that the ban will be in force till the completion of a state Lok Ayukta (ombudsman) probe into illegal mining in the last 10 years, between 2000 and 2010. He had on Wednesday banned issue of permits for transporting iron ore for exports.

The chief minister's decision comes against the backdrop of a raging controversy in the state over illegal mining and export of iron ore. Between 2000 and 2010, over 30 million tonnes of iron ore was illegally mined and exported from Karnataka, according to data provided by Yeddyurappa to the state assembly.

The Congress has dubbed it a 'scam of the century' involving up to Rs.600 billion (Rs.60,000 crore). The Congress is on a march from Bangalore to iron ore rich Bellary, 320 kms away, demanding a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into illegal mining. Bellary is the political base of Reddy brothers, powerful mine owners and ministers in Yeddyurappa's cabinet.

The Congress began the march on July 25 and will reach Bellary on Aug 9 for a rally. The party leaders and workers are walking 20 kms a day to cover the 320 kms in 16 days. Yeddyurappa has rejected handing over the probe to CBI saying it will only delay the findings and credibility of the agency is in doubt. The Congress and the other opposition party in the state Janata Dal-Secular alleged that the Reddy brothers are involved in largescale illegal mining and export of iron ore.

The Reddys, Tourism Minister G. Janardhana, his elder brother Revenue Minister G. Karunakara and younger brother and assembly member G. Somashekara have denied the charges. The brothers, who own the Obulapuram Mining Company, on Thursday launched 'swabhiman' campaign in Bellary to counter what they called Congress and JD-S attempts to malign not only them but the district also.

Their loyalist, Health Minister B. Sriramulu on Wednesday tonsured his head and announced he will walk barefoot and eat only fruits till Aug 26 when senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj is expected to visit Bellary. The Reddy brothers and Sriramulu call Swaraj as their 'thayi' (mother). She had brokered a compromise in October-November last year when the Reddy brothers led a revolt against Yeddyurappa.

The Reddys became close to Swaraj when she contested the 1999 Lok Sabha election against Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Since then Swaraj has been visiting Bellary almost every year to perform 'Varamahalakshmi pooja' (worship of wealth goddess Lakshmi). The festival, a major one in Karnataka, this year falls on Aug 26.

MUTATION – A GOVERNMENTS TOOL TO HARASS AAM ADMI SPECIALLY GOANS by Praxy Fernandes, Sanquelim

It is becoming evidently clear that we original Goans have lost our rights to Non-Goans and are being treated as second class citizens in our own land. Today I am highlighting just one form of hardship faced by aam admi at the hands of our government staff, specially if he is a Goan.

My neighbour had submitted a mutation request in the 1st week of May 2009 to the office of the Talathi of Raia Panchayat to include his name in Form I & XIV as per the judgement pronounced by the Hon’ble Court. Now as per mutation procedure the Talathi has to send a notice to the person(s) whose name already exists in Form I & XIV. But just to issue notice to the one and only concerned person, my neighbour was forced to make 5 trips to the Panchayat office. And inspite of extracting Rs 1500/- from my neighbour, the Talathi insisted that he be paid more. However at my intervention the notice dated 4th june 2009 was finally issued after more than a month. While my neighbour himself sent the notice to the concerned by registered A/D post on 10th June 2009, the Talathi subsequently and till date has denied receiving back the acknowledgement card. After one month my neighbour was informed by the talathi that the mutation files have been transferred to the Talathi of Mutaion in Salcete Mamlatdar’s Office at Margao.

The Talathi in Mamlatdar’s office admitted having received the file and on my 2nd vist asked me to complain to the Postmaster of Raia as per the prescribed form he gave me. He also asked me to resend the notice by registered AD and both these directives were complied with by my neighbour on 16th July 2009. After 4 days the Talathi confirmed having received the duly acknowledged card. 12 days after he called me on 3rd August 2009 I was informed by the Talathi that my file has been put to the Circle Inspector for verification which as per record showed the file was sent to the Circle Inspector only 5th August. But after a couple of visits I was told that the file is still pending with the Talathi as all Circle Inspectors’ were loaded with work. Finally on 21st August the file was handed over in my presence to the Circle Inspector who promised me that he would conduct the verification and return the file back to the Talathi within 2 to 3 days for further needful. But when I visited the office again on 7th September the file went missing and neither the Talathi nor the Circle Inspector could tell me the status of the Mutation request.

Realising that I am being taken for a ride (a modest way to express the corrupt practices of our aam admi government staff) I have sent a RTI application to the Mamlatdar to know the fate of the mutation request, for which I will have to wait for the 30 days reply period. These are the sufferings created by the government during the time of survey number allocation way back in the 7o’s and 80’s.

INSANITY By Praxy Fernandes, Sanquelim

Our modern catholics in Goa are in the habit of loosing grip over their minds and venting their personal frustration on the Church and its institution. There are even some priests who have held high position earlier but now have been debarred from professing and there are politicinas including some ex-union minister who are using every opportunity to put down the Church and its institution. These same very people have used the church to propel them into postions they held but have turned ungrateful and I dont know how Goa will ever forgive them. The ex-union minsiter has now started eyeing Church properties and with the help of one keralite ex-judge has been trying to poison the minds of the Catholics from Goa to come out against the church and take over these properties with a clear intention to enjoy rob them. When the communidades cannot control illegal structures and illegal sale of the lands in Goa, do you think these rogues will be able to look after the properties of the Church, they just want to sell them to their relatives and followers/disciples and subsequently sell them to outsider ghantis from delhi/other indian states and mint money. I hope Goa curses them and maims their minds. Yesterday I read one news item that a Goan Catholic lady by name Antonia Michelle Abel. wants the government of Goa to bring the office of the Bishop under the purview of the RTI Act. If that is so why should we not ask the government to bring her identity and personal life under the provision of the RTI Act. Only Antonia Michelle Abel can tell us what made her put up a suggestion to bring the Bishop’s office within the ambit of RTI Act. RTI Act as mentioned in the news item is to audit the functioning of Government offices, departments, corporations, etc where the pathetic ministers and politicians make merry at public’s cost. Does Antonio think the Bishop’s house is a government office or does Antonio think the Bishop’s office is a circus like almost all our government establishments? Have we not experienced enough problems in our lives after becoming a part of India through illegal invasion, as per judgement of Supreme Court? What have we gained by being a part of India, nothing but added miseries while the constitution has made a mockery of our life by providing for reservations on the basis of caste, creed, class and religion and by providing guidelines for laws which promote corruption, criminal activities, goondagiri and communalism? We should consider that we have some Portuguese laws governing our lives even today otherwise we would have to act as slaves to outsiders and to some of our own politician crooks who are acting as kings and destroying our lives and our future. Would these modern day crooks have the guts to stand against the able administration of our ex-rulers, think Antonio the repercussion of your selfish greed and your deeds, your suggestion to me is nothing but insanity? Bring the life and mental status of Antonia Michelle Abel under the domain of the RTI Act so we know what a human she is

HC refuses to review order in Vishwajeet’s case

The Bombay High Court at Goa on Tuesday refused to review its order in Health Minister Vishwajeet Rane case. The Division bench comprising of justice A S Oka and F M Reis today heard the review petition filed by Advocate Aires Rodrigues drawing the High Court’s attention that there wee two errors apparent on the face of the record in the order.

Failing to get justice from the High Court, Rodrigues has now decided to move a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the entire High Court order which had ruled that section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was non-cognizable while quashing the chargesheet against Rane.

High Court on July 21 held that the offence under Section 506 (threat to kill) of the Indian Penal Code was non-cognizable and had directed the Old goa Police to proceed in the matter under section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The 73 page chargesheet was filed by the Old Goa Police against Health Minister Vishwajeet Rane under section 506 of IPC for allegedly having threatened to kill social activist Adv. Aires Rodrigues on July 31, 2007. Incidentally section 506 was made cognizable by a notification issued by the goa Government in 1973 when Vishwajeet Rane’s father Pratapsing Rane was the Law Minister.

However when section 506 was invoked against the Health Minister, the Goa Government suddenly tood a stand that the section is non-cognizable

GOA: The Merger Issue and the Opinion Poll of 1967 brought to you by Praxy Fernandes

After Goa's Liberation in 1961, a section of Goan society sought to merge Goa with Maharashtra. Several years later in 1966 the Government of India authorised a plesbicite on this issue that is now referred to as the Historic Opinion Poll

Long before the Liberation and annexation of Goa, the Government of India had made it clear on several occasions that the people of Goa would be consulted in any decision about the future status of their territory. After Goa’s liberation on December 19, 1961, several pronouncements indicated that the Government of India would do its best to maintain Goa’s inherent Portuguese culture, similar to the French culture established in Pondicherry. The 1962 Election Manifesto of the Indian National Congress stated that whether Goa merged with Maharashtra or not would be decided by the Goans themselves. Addressing a public meeting in 1963, the then Indian Prime Minister, Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru stated that Goa would remain a Union Territory for ten years after which Goans would decide the future status of Goa by way of a referendum.

The first elections in the newly formed Union Territory were held in 1963. The Maharashtra Gomantak Party (MGP) that was established six months prior to the elections won a majority. The elections were fought mainly on the party’s advocacy of merging Goa with Maharashtra.

Contrary to what the then Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru stated, the MGP did not want to wait for those 10 years to decide Goa’s fate. The party tried to engineer the merger of Goa with Maharashtra. This attempt was stalled largely on account of the Government of India’s preoccupation with the 1965 war with Pakistan.

As soon as the war ended the issue of Goa’s merger was raised in Goan political circles. The Congress Party’s Central Working Committee in its meeting of September 3, 1966 deliberated on this issue and decided to hold a plebiscite to decide the fate of Goa. Subsequently, the Indira Gandhi-led governing Congress party of the Government of India introduced the Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act in the Indian Parliament. The Bill was first passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower House) on December 1, 1966. Next, the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) passed the bill on December 7, 1966. The President of India gave the Bill his assent on December 16, 1966. The Bill, with its 34 clauses, was enacted and specified that a poll would determine whether Goa should merge with Maharashtra, and Daman & Diu with Gujarat, or continue to remain a Union Territory. The Indian Parliament recommended that the Opinion Poll be conducted prior to the fourth General Elections in the country. Accordingly, January 16, 1967 was fixed as the date for the Opinion Poll.

“The Opinion Poll Act” faced severe criticism from within the territory of Goa. The United Goans Party demanded a separate referendum for the institution of an independent legislature and wanted to eliminate the idea of a merger. This led to a splinter in the party: four members of the Legislative Assembly, headed by Mr. Alvaro Deloyla Furtado left the party since they did not favour the idea of the Opinion Poll. Thus, The United Goans Party had two groups — the Sequeira group and the Furtado group named after the leaders, Dr Jack de Sequeira and Mr Alvaro Deloyla Furtado. The Goa Congress Committee initially wanted to boycott the Poll, but later agreed to participate and bonded together with both factions of The United Goans Party to vote down the Maharashtra Gomantak Party.

In order to ensure a free and fair election various demands were made. One was that every adult Indian citizen of Goa, Daman & Diu origin, wherever s/he might be residing, had a right to vote in the Opinion Poll. Other demands included the dismissal of the Bandodkar Ministry, the transfer of the Lt. Governor Shri K. R. Damle, the return of the ‘deputationist’ from Maharashtra, and debarring the State Reserve Police officials and personnel from casting their vote in the Opinion Poll since they were not deemed residents of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu. The Government of India conceded only one of the demands - the resignation of the Bandodkar Ministry.

The Pro-Merger View
The Pro-Merger View was spearheaded by Bhausaheb alias Dayanand Bandodkar, Chief Minister of Goa and leader of the MGP. A pro-merger group comprising of dissenting members of the Goa Territorial Congress Committee, the Communist Party of India, the Maharashtra Vilinikaran Agadhi, the Praja Socialist Party and the Jan Sangh Party lent their support to the cause of merger of Goa with Maharashtra and supported the pro-merger view of the MGP.
Those favouring merger of the territory argued that Goa had strong historical, cultural and religious ties with Maharashtra that dated back many centuries. At the time of the Opinion Poll, thousands of Goans lived and carved their careers in Bombay. Goans shared their worship of religious deities and religious practices and festivals with the people of Maharashtra. Besides religion, the affinity further extended to a common language, script, mythological heritage, literature, folklore and social customs. Even the Catholics in Goa had many customs in common with Hinduism and practiced the caste system, a unique feature not found anywhere else in Christian society.
The MGP listed several promises in their election manifesto. Goa would be granted special status until Goa was brought on par with the rest of Maharashtra. Special provisions would be granted to Goa vis-à-vis prohibition, employment opportunities and other development work, including the industrial and agriculture sectors. Government staff was promised better openings, quick promotions and no large scale transfers.
The Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Shri Vasantrao P. Naik, reassured the people of Goa and supplemented the promises of the MGP. The warranties included issuing posters and handbills, promising development of the Konkani language, setting up of a University for Goa, establishing a separate branch of the Bombay High Court in the capital city of Panjim, protecting pay scales and service conditions of Government employees, guaranteeing free education until the College level, providing grants to educational institutions, giving concessions to backward classes, and above all certifying that there would be no prohibition in the territory of Goa.
Maharashtra’s political leaders of every political persuasion supported the merger and tried to sway the people of Goa. Even prolific singer, Shahir Amar Shaikh of the Communist Party of India visited Goa with his entourage, Lal Bawta Kala Pathak (Red Flag Artistes Troupe), and performed in several villages of Goa.
Gomantak – Goa’s first Marathi daily newspaper, owned by the Chowgule family, was at the forefront of promoting the pro-merger view.
To study this point of view several sample public opinion polls were conducted.
Goa cannot be maintained as a separate administrative unit because of its smallness and as such its merger with the adjoining states is essential.
Table 1. Agreement on Merger proposal
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 228 (28.5) 269 (67.3) 497 (41.4)
Disagree 476 (59.5) 112 (28.0) 588 (49.0)
Neutral 75 (9.4) 14 (3.5) 89 (7.4)
No Responses 21 (2.6) 5 (1.2) 26 (2.2)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)
Outside political influences and pressures created greater confusion regarding merger issue
Table 2. Agreement on the role of outside pressures
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 595 (74.4) 280 (70.0) 875 (72.9)
Disagree 89 (11.1) 67 (17.8) 156 (13.0)
Neutral 87 (10.9) 30 (7.5) 117 (9.8)
No Responses 29 (3.6) 23 (5.7) 52 (4.3)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)

Table 3. Agreement on the statement: “The fear of the minorities
is utterly unjustified
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 233 (29.1) 260 (65.0) 493 (41.0)
Disagree 403 (50.4) 75 (18.8) 478 (39.9)
Neutral 136 (17.0) 62 (15.5) 198 (16.5)
No Responses 28 (3.5) 3 (0.7) 31 (2.6)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)
The integration of Goa with its parent country (India) gives its citizens opportunities to better their prospects not only inside their territory but also within the span of a very big country.

Table 4. Integration with India is beneficial
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 735 (91.9) 398 (99.6) 1133 (94.4)
Disagree 14 (1.8) 1 (0.2) 15 (1.3)
Neutral 33 (4.1) 1 (0.2) 34 (2.8)
No Responses 18 (2.2) nil 18 (1.5)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)

The Anti-Merger View


The Anti-Merger View was spearheaded by Panjim's Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and leader of the United Goans Party, Dr. Joao Hugo Eduardo de Sequeira alias Dr. Jack de Sequeira and his son Erasmo Sequeira. They were assisted by both groups of The United Goans Party, the Goa Territorial Congress Committee, the Anti-Merger Front and the United Goans Party in Bombay, all of whom opposed the merger of Goa with Maharashtra.
They contended that Goans would be reduced to a minority, and that their rights and privileges would not be safeguarded. To counter the MGP-fuelled propaganda, this group raised a slogan: "Merger means slavery and Union Territory means Freedom". They advocated the view that Goa remain a Union Territory and not be deprived of her own Legislative Assembly where her own elected representatives could address issues related to Goa and Goans. The merger would spell the end of the Panjim Secretariat and the High Court resulting in considerable delays in disposal of cases.
An important feature of their discord was the preservation of Goan cultural heritage. A merger would lead to a significant loss and decadence of the Goan culture. Pre-eminent in the minds of Goans was that Goa would lose its identity – its unique blend of East and West. Goa would be reduced to a backwater district of Maharashtra just as Sawantwadi or Ratnagiri districts in the State were losing all their cultural singularities. People were alarmed also that a merger would result in the demise of Goa’s language, Konkani, which would be surreptitiously displaced by Marathi.
Another fear was the imposition of prohibition that would prevent Goans from imbibing alcohol. This would also adversely affect the toddy tappers in Goa who would lose their livelihood and income.
A major worry was the lack of employment opportunities if the merger was successful. In Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena was already advocating jobs for ethnic Maharashtrians only. This policy would negatively impact Central Government employees whose higher remuneration for working in a Union Territory would be first to draw their ire. Goan employees would have to compete with non-Goans with the possibility that Goans could be transferred to remote corners of Maharashtra.
Support also sprouted from the cultural arena. Entertainer, Ulhas Buyao, who was 23 at the time, established Jai Gomantak Kala Pathak. This included young writers like Dr Manoharrai Sardessai, Shankar Bhandari and Uday Bhembre (a passionate orator, whose father belonged to the opposite camp). The group composed songs and participated in 75 public meetings advocating the Anti-Merger combine in pro-merger constituencies. Ulhas Buyao, affectionately called “Goem Shahir,” composed and sang the anthem, Goenchea Mhojea Goenkaramno in support for the Anti-Merger view that inspired thousands of Goans to sing-along.
In addition, a daily Marathi newspaper, Rashtramat, was set up to counter the pro-merger camp. Chandrakant Keni was appointed editor and Uday Bhembre penned a supportive column, Brahmastra.
Once again, to study this point of view several sample public opinion polls were conducted.

Table 5. It would be in the interest of Goa if it is treated as a
centrally administered State for some years
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 572 (71.5) 183 (45.8) 755 (62.9)
Disagree 158 (19.7) 198 (49.5) 356 (29.7)
Neutral 51 (6.4) 15 (3.7) 66 (5.5)
No Responses 19 (2.4) 4 (1.0) 23 (1.9)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)

Goans have a legitimate fear of being totally absorbed, if Goa is merged with
Maharashtra, and thus lose its individual character.
Table 6. Agreement on loss of cultural identity
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 490 (61.3) 156 (39.0) 646 (53.8)
Disagree 222 (27.7) 226 (56.6) 448 (37.3)
Neutral 63 (7.9) 16 (4.0) 79 (6.6)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)

Table 8. Agreement on loss of cultural peculiarities on Merger
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 486 (60.8) 159 (39.8) 645 (53.7)
Disagree 233 (29.1) 220 (55.0) 453 (37.8)
Neutral 61 (7.6) 15 (3.7) 76 (6.3)
No Responses 20 (2.5) 6 (1.5) 26 (2.2)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)

Table 9 Agreement on the statement : "Opposition to merger of Goa with any
of the neighbouring states is justified because it will lead to loss of employment or
inadequate salaries for the Goans. They will also not be able to withstand the
competition from the non-Goans inside their long protected and sheltered fields."
OLD GOA NEW CONQUESTS TOTAL
Category of Responses Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Agree 511 (63.9) 173 (43.25) 684 (57.0)
Disagree 220 (27.5) 205 (51.25) 425 (35.4)
Neutral 48 (6.0) 19 (4.75) 67 (5.6)
No Responses 21 (2.6) 3 (0.75) 24 (2.0)
Total 800 (100.0) 400 (100.0) 1200 (100.0)

The Opinion Poll
This was the first Opinion Poll ever held in India. The campaign began in earnest a month prior to the vote. The outcome of the Poll would decide once and for all the status of Goa, and Goans recognized the significance of this event. The Election Commission allocated two symbols to the rival platforms. They were not associated with any political party of India: "Flower" for merger and "Two Leaves" to retain the Union Territory status. The voter had to mark his choice with a "X" mark against either of the two symbols. The poll campaign was largely peaceful with minor altercations that were broken up by the Goa Police. This unprecedented event drew the attention of people not only from India but overseas too. Local and Foreign Press correspondents and cameramen descended on Goa in the days preceding the Opinion Poll.
January 16, 1967 was set as the date to mark this historical occurrence. Nearly 400,000 voters of Goa cast their ballot to decide whether their territory should join the State of Maharashtra or continue as a centrally administered unit. Supporters from both sides worked hard to get people to the booths. Goans answered with a vehement enthusiasm for this process. Lengthy queues were seen long before polling had commenced. All strata of Goan society participated in the process. Farmers and office-goers joined the long queues and discussed the political issues involved. Knowledgeable merchants joined simple labourers, illiterate drivers, and other humble industrial workers in bonhomie as they rubbed shoulders in the queues. Goans from all communities - Hindus, Christians and Muslims - participated. Women turned out in great numbers as well to participate in this momentous decision. Of the total 388,432 eligible voters, 317,633 Goans turned up to vote at the 442 polling stations in 28 constituencies in Goa. Considering the bitter and rancorous campaign that had just ended, the local law enforcement was pleased to see the people of Goa display an unbelievable air of discipline, order and dignity. At the end of the polling day, the question uppermost in the minds of the people was the outcome of voting.
Both contending parties were equally confident. Dr Jack de Sequeira said, "We will get a smashing victory. We will get 70 to 75 per cent votes". His opponent, Shri D.B. Bandodkar, chief proponent of the merger declared, "I am completely confident of victory. We expect to get 60 to 65 per cent votes."
The Opinion Poll Results
The counting of the votes was scheduled to occur over three days. Interest in the outcome of the poll was so high that people abstained from going to work and students converted the event into a public holiday. Newspapers deployed staff at the counting hall to snap up to the minute updates. Some shopkeepers put up their own signs to keep score of the votes.
On the first day, votes were counted in the constituencies of Pernem, Mandrem, Bicholim, Pale and Satari – all strongholds of the Maharashtra Gomantak Party, the champions of Goa’s merger with Maharashtra. Although they led the count by 11,000 votes it was evident that the lead was far from what was expected. Besides, the voting did not go along expected religious lines.
On the second day, the MGP lead increased to 20,000 votes. However, in the course of the day it became evident the pro-merger camp had not polled as many votes as expected. By the end of the day the anti-merger camp came from behind to lead by 8888 votes.
Margao, Curtorim, Cortalim and Mormugao constituencies drove the lead of the anti-merger camp to 33,000 votes on the third day. By the end of the day the choice of the Goan people was very evident. They had rejected merger of their state with Maharashtra in the historic Opinion Poll. The final results were as follows:
Results of the Opinion Poll
Total No. of Eligible Voters 388,392
Total No. of votes polled 317,633 (81.78%)
Votes polled for Union Territory 172,191 (54.20%)
Votes polled for Merger 138,170 (43.50%)
Invalid Votes 7,272 (2.30%)

Goans were ecstatic! Thousands of fire crackers boomed across the Mandovi, Goans embraced each other and danced in the streets, they smeared colours on each other, and cried tears of uncontrollable joy.

Voting Pattern
The voting pattern that emerged clearly demonstrated that the blueprint had been more or less on the lines of the first general elections of 1963 in the whole territory of Goa. It showed similar caste and communal factors which had entered into the politics of the first general elections. The Maharashtra Gomantak Party, which was committed to the cause of merger with Maharashtra, was largely supported by the Bahujan Samaj (lower castes) whereas the United Goans Party who led the Anti-Merger View were largely supported by Catholics and upper caste Hindus. It is of particular significance to note that Hindus, the majority community, did not favour the merger, but were all in favour of maintaining the status of the Union Territory. The pro-merger faction gained in at least eight constituencies, while anti-merger combination was successful in making inroads in 20 out of 28 constituencies.
This clearly indicates that the voting trend in the Opinion Poll was not as rigid as in the first general elections but had cut across communal barriers contrary to the general expectations.
In the contemporary times, successive governments have failed to celebrated Goa’s tryst with destiny on that fateful day, January 16, 1967, now celebrated as Asmitai Dis (Goan Identity Day). It is a special day in Goa’s history when irrespective of Religion, Caste, Education and Wealth, Goans from all walks of life defeated a move to forfeit Goan identity.

GOA: AN AFRICAN WRITER'S PERSPECTIVE by Bonnie Lubega brought to you By Menino Fernandes

THE REAL HISTORY OF GOA - NOW MANIPULATED BY INDIANS

By Bonnie Lubega
(submitted, courtesy author, by Francisco Monteiro 19 Dec 2001)
[Francisco Monteiro: This article was written on 6th March 1964 by Bonnie Lubega. The author of this article is an Ugandan journalist in his home country. He was educated at Holy Family Seminary, St Henry's College and St Joseph's Teacher's Training College in Uganda. In his capacity as journalist he came to England in 1958 at the invitation of the Colonial Office. He was also a guest of the Republic of Sudan in 1962 and until recently of the Federal Republic of Germany. A faithful seeker of truth, he is fearless in expressing his opinions. In his own words, he "chose to stick to truth, however bitter it may be".]
I want the reader to know from the beginning that my intention to write this is from a purely curious point of view of the political situation regarding Goa, from which part of the world I have had an opportunity to meet many friends.
There are many Goans living in Uganda and before I was journalist I worked with many of them in various occupations. I learned from them and from various writings that Goa was in the Indian subcontinent well settled, developed and through centuries became undebatably prosperous. This prosperity has never escaped the eye of the world press, which had to connect it with Indian Union's intentions to annex it. The few examples from the world press are as follows:
"Der Spiegel" a well-known German political news magazine, issued an article on 10th January 1962: "Behind the violent occupation of Goa by India stands the economic interest as Goa's export of iron will yearly add 250 million DM into the Indian Treasury to build up its money reserves from only 982 Million Rupees (825 million DM)."
"Miami Herald" of 19th December, 1961, reports of an American who spent a week in Goa negotiating the sale of three transport planes and who said back in America: "Iron is so plentiful in Goa that they use for building farm fences. Goa abounds in rich iron and manganese mines. While the Goanese may be poor compared with US standards, they are certainly not, compared with the peoples of the Middle and Far East. India's steel mills had reached their capacity and needed more iron ore."
"The Daily Telegraph" of 5th December, 1961, reported: "Goa earns more than 10 Million pounds a year at present from her mining operations by exporting mostly to Japan and west Germany. This incidentally is a good reason for grabbing the colony so far as hard-currency hungry India is concerned."
And on the 14th of the same month the same paper repeated:
"Until 1956 direct rail connections between Goa and the Indian Union and free interchange of passenger and goods traffic such as manganese from Mysore and Bombay States in India, and from Goa to India; coal for Indian railway; oil products for places in South of Bombay State, passed through the port of Mormugão".
"At the end of 1955 for political reasons, the Indian Government closed the frontier and a portion of the railway on the Indian side of the border was dismantled and the interchanges of traffic ceased. The action had a reverse effect. The mining of iron ore, which is of excellent quality and which was only on a small scale before 1956, was rapidly developed. By the resources and enterprises of mine-owners in Goa, ready markets were found in Japan and Europe".
"During the twelve months ending March 31st, 1961, no less than six million tons of Goa-mined ore were exported through Mormugão, bringing great prosperity to Goa and its people".
"It is therefore not surprising, perhaps that India casts envious eyes at Goa and would be pleased to incorporate it into the Union. Last year, 1960, Japan bought nearly three million tons of ore from Goa and have stated that they would like to take at least six million tons".
These are just a few examples I wanted to bring to the mind of the reader so that he may be well acquainted with little Goa and its dependencies (Damão and Diu) if he should know its political situation and its economic standpoint which, I am sure, if Goa were left to administer itself, she gives the country a good chance to develop its economy.
There should still be good relations, political and economic between Goa and India, as aforesaid, and India would only be proud to use her neighbour's mineral and tell the world how proud she felt of the little sister country, free from Portuguese or any other colonial rule.

Nehru in Bombay June 4, 1956!
"I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no desire to coerce Goa to join India against the wishes of the people of Goa... but the point is that we feel that Goa's individuality should remain and that whenever the time comes for any changes, internal or other, it will be for the people of Goa acting freely, to decide upon them."

"India's armed invasion of Goa will be viewed with shocked surprise by the nations of the free world. Mr. Nehru, who had become the embodiment of pacifism, with the policy favouring peaceful negotiations before the International Court of Justice, has shed his role of peacemaker, and now, against a roar of Indian aircraft and the thunder of their bombs, says India felt she had 'no alternative' but to move into Goa." - News Chronicle, 20th December, 1961.
The above statements which, by sheer coincidence, I came across in a library in Germany, aroused my curiosity and attention and, as an African individual among the rest of my fellow Africans who hate any sort of colonialism in any form it may appear, decided at my leisure time to dig a little bit into these interesting affairs connected with the eminent man who himself played a big role in the world peacemaking, and the turbulent angry voices raised against him and accusing him of dictatorship and colonialism, which he was known to hate so much.

But was Mr. Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, really a colonialist and a dictator as far as these three territories are concerned? Did he not liberate them in the true sense of the world from the colony-hungry Portugal which still has African territories suffering under the yoke of its colonial rule?

According to historical notes concerning India and Goa, I have found that - facing truth and facts - although small in size, the three territories of Goa, Damão and Diu - all together 175 sq. miles, and with a population today of over 600.000 - existed officially 437 years, long before the gigantic Indian Union existed only 16 years ago, with her immense population of 450 million.
History tells us that a Portuguese captain named Afonso de Albuquerque arrived in Goa in March, 1510, only to face a great welcome from the natives who were then under a tyrant ruler styling himself as "Lord of Goa", the Adil Khan, an all-powerful ruler in western Deccan. On arrival of Albuquerque, the Adil Khan was absent being engaged in a war with the neighbouring lands.
When he heard of this Christian newcomer, the Adil Khan reacted by recruiting a large army of mercenaries from the Moslem Middle East. Albuquerque had only 1,681 men who faced a force said to have been ten times stronger but which, owing to lack of strategy on its side, he conquered in the battle on 25th November 1510.
"He then improved and developed Goa after the western Portuguese fashion. His intentions were to spread Christianity; to transmit a culture and establish a trade post for Portugal; otherwise he could have extended and set up a greater colonial empire in India had he wished to do so." We are also told that "the power of the Portuguese authorities over the Indian Christians sprang from two special circumstances: first, the Holy See in Rome had given the Kingdom of Portugal special rights over the dioceses within its overseas possessions, the Christians of India asked and received special Portuguese protection from their powerful non-Christian neighbours."
Professor J. B. Trend, of the Cambridge University, in his book "Portugal" says: Four hundred and fifty years afterwards, the Portuguese enclaves in India still have a Portuguese look a Portuguese mentality.... They have had, for centuries of their history, a type of rule and culture which has given them an affection for the European side of their ancestry; they think like Portuguese though they speak to each other in an Indo-European language of their own, the Konkani.
The Goans are not a creation of the New Indian Union. They are the creation of Albuquerque; indeed the differences in mentality from any of the inhabitants of the India of Dr. Nehru is always becoming greater, for the national characteristics of the Goans, whether they live in Goa, Bombay, are very different from those of the Union."
Now my arguments are based on my firm belief in freedom for all peoples and in the inalienable right of all peoples to choose, without let or hindrance, their own way of life. When the Indian Republic took over Goa and other Portuguese territories in the Indian subcontinent, I honestly felt that things had turned out, as they should. For the territories in question were undoubtedly colonial occupations.
I decided to brush aside as of secondary importance the uncomfortable questions of the use of force by India, after Mr. Nehru's repeated pledges not to attack Goa, and the Soviet veto in the United Nations debate on Goa, compared to the advantages of freedom which would accrue to the liberated people of Goa, Damão and Diu.
Nor was my faith in the liberation shaken when I learnt that the territories had been annexed to the Indian Union Republic by an act of the Indian Government. For years I had been reading and hearing that the Goan people were anxious to sever themselves from the Portuguese colonial rule and join to India. After all were they not, in a broad sense of the meaning, Indian too? And on the day of the liberation I happened to be one of the many invited guests for the celebrations thereof in the city of Kampala, by a community of Goans living in Uganda. I could not imagine what would be the later effects, for I took all this in good faith.
But the Goan Conference in Paris and their efforts to petition the United Nations for the right of self-determination, and the angry voices from the world press, of which I had hitherto never been aware, were the results to my doubts following my former complacent belief in the liberation of Goa. Could it be that the case of Goa was not exactly as I had figured it to be? Could it be, after all, that the Indian annexation of Goa and its dependencies was really a denial of the principles of self-determination?
We are told that the non-violent Gandhi, whose disciple Mr. Nehru has all the time been known to have been, once said: "The Goans have no problems to discuss like Hindus have with the British." But then we are also told that since India gained her independence from the British, Mr. Nehru has been very uncomfortable about the presence of Portugal in Goa, the solution to which problem had to be discussed many a time in his speeches, suggesting peaceful ways and means to see that Goa "joins Mother India."
The New York World-Telegram issued on 18th December, 1961, tell us among other things that ".... when he (Mr. Nehru) was Mohandas Gandhi's disciple, he accepted the master's doctrine of non-violence as a political weapon simply because it happened to be the right policy at the time India was seeking freedom from Britain. It was not something he believed in absolutely. He explained once: "The majority of us, I take it, judge the issues not on moral but on practical grounds, and if we reject the way of violence it is because it promises no substantial results."
On the question of Goa, the same paper says: "In 1955, when some Indians suggested taking Goa wasn't much a military problem, Mr. Nehru drew back from the thought of war and said: 'THE FACT THAT A WAR IS A LITTLE WAR DOESN'T MAKE IT LESS WAR.'"
Now let us see the argument advanced by the Indian Government resulting in its drastic action "to drive out the colonialist Portuguese":
• Goa and its dependencies, Damão and Diu, were foreign pockets on Indian soil. They are part of Indian territory;
Colonialism is permanent aggression;
• The Goan people, the majority of whom are Hindus, wished to be liberated from Portuguese rule.
Now considering these arguments in the light of facts, and admitting that the three pieces were foreign pockets on Indian soil, does it necessarily mean that we are given to believe that they are parts of Indian territory?
I personally suggest that defining the term "Indian territory" implies the notion of a state to which the territory belongs, which is in this case the Republic of India which came into being in 1947, many, many years after Goa had existed as a different territory in 1510. Here one finds it absurd to believe the inference that Goa, whether as a Portuguese territory or whether as a completely independent territory, should be deemed as part of the Republic of India which did not exist.
To me the Indian argument seems to imply that the Republic existed potentially perhaps since the Vedic times, as I understand it claims to represent a culture, which originated in the remote area.
If this line of thought, were to be accepted, one would have to admit that the whole Indian subcontinent should be the territory of the Republic of India or of some other Hindu State representing Vedic culture. But when one glances at the history of the Indian subcontinent, one knows that the geographical region known as India received in the course of time more than one cultural influence.
For instance, this subcontinent was for a long time dominated politically and culturally by Mohammedans; then later came the Portuguese, the French and the British, who took to the subcontinent the values of the western culture and of Christian civilization.
On the other hand, at no time in history was the subcontinent politically united, because history tell us that there were Hindus empires and kingdoms just as there were Mohammedan empires and kingdoms, and lastly there was the empire of British India, none of all these empires and kingdoms extending at a time over the entire geographical region known today as India. And during the rise and fall of all these empires and kingdoms, we hear of none of them affecting Goa which was well under way after the Western Culture and political institutions.
My argument in this field leads me to believe the fact accepted by the political leaders of the Republic of India that the subcontinent was the home of more than one nationality, and therefore agreed to the division of British India in two independent States as lately as 1947; and thus Pakistan came into being, although it is situated in the Indian subcontinent, it is not a part of Indian territory, that is, of the Republic of India, much the same as one would say of the old Hindu kingdom of Nepal and the princedoms of Sikkim and Bhutan.
The Republic of India as we know it today, if I'm right, grew out of a part of the former British India which was itself held a part of the Indian subcontinent which counts in Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Pakistan and, if you will, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Burma (Myanmar) as well. And does not the very description of Goa as a "foreign pocket" as often pointed out by Mr. Nehru, show that the territory was all the time regarded by the people of the Republic of India and their political leaders as a foreign territory and not a part of India?

Let us face the following facts, for instance:
(1) Before India severed her diplomatic ties with Portugal, as any sensible anti-colonial country would undoubtedly do in protest to see another country free from a colonial yoke, just as Uganda severed the diplomatic ties with Portugal in protest to see that all Portuguese possessions are given their freedom, she (India) through her then Charge d'Affaires in Lisbon, in aide-memoire, presented a request to Portugal to transfer sovereignty in Goa, Damão and Diu. Did this not mean that India had no political jurisdiction favour any claim whatever over Goa?
(2) From 1947, the year of India's Independence, until 1955, New Delhi kept a Consul-General in Goa, which means that from the day India came into being as a nation, for the next eight years, she recognised that Goa and its dependencies were not "Indian territories."
(3) I understand that on the 12th April, 1960, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, giving judgement on what is known as the Right of Passage Case, in which the Government of India was the defendant, ruled that India had no right of claim on the enclaves of Dadra and Nagar Aveli, parts of the district of Damão, and one of the dependencies of Goa.
(4) In the United Nations General Assembly India was among those members who voted for Resolution 1542(XV) listing Goa and its dependencies under a foreign administration.
(5) Here, to go back to the speech delivered by Mr. Nehru on 4th June, 1956, we find these words spoken publicly by the eminent man known to be playing a big role in the world peace arbitration:
"I want to explain myself. If the people of Goa, that is, minus the Portuguese Government, and when the Portuguese go and the people of Goa deliberately wish to retain their separate identity, I'm not going to bring them by force or coercion or compulsion in the Indian Union. I want them to come, and I'm quite certain they want to come too. But that is not the point. I merely say that my national interest involves the removal of the Portuguese from Goa, not coercion being used in bringing about the union of Goa with India although I wish it, I desire it and it is the only solution....
"That is matter ultimately for the people of Goa to decide.... I want to make perfectly clear that I have no desire to coerce Goa to join India against the wishes of the people of Goa.... But the point is that we feel that Goa's individuality should remain and that whenever the time comes for any changes, internal or other, it will be for the people of Goa acting freely to decide upon them."
From the forgoing statement it is therefore to my conviction that the Government of India and its political leaders; the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, recognised that Goa and its dependencies were NOT Indian Territories.
COLONIALISM A PERMANENT AGGRESSION
I fully agree with the Government of India that "Colonialism is a permanent aggression." Colonialism, in my belief and conviction, is just that; whether a territory is directly colonised by a distant foreign power, or whether it is "liberated" by a fellow continental or sub-continental power that turns out to annex it to itself and make it its own conquered booty, instead of setting it free to administer itself, according to its own way of choice, without being forced to do things according to its "liberator."
We are aware of the United Nations' principles already laid down in Resolution 1541(XV), should such colonial possessions become free, that:

Principle vi: "A non-self-governing territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
• Emergence as a sovereign independent state;
• Free association with independent state; or
• Integration with an independent state.

Principle ix: Integration should have come about on the following circumstances:
a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions, so that its people would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;
b) Their integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory's people acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. The United Nations could, when it deems it necessary, supervise these processes."

According to the foregoing conclusions concerning the relationship between Goa and Mr. Nehru's India, and concerning the above-mentioned principles in the United Nations, which she, India, herself helped draft and accepted as the democratic means of cooperation and understanding between territories and nations, I just wonder whether India on the question of Goa did not disregard them, especially where means of armed forces were used.
Admitting that "Portuguese presence as a colonial power in Goa threatened the security of the Republic of India" and that even if there were no resolutions passed in UN applying to Goa and its dependencies, I fail to see why an armed action by India should have been used "to drive out the Portuguese" when the two powers, as members of the UNO, bound by Article 2 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the UN Charter, should not stick to that.
Article 2(3) tells us that "All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered."
Article 2(4): "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
The Houston Press issued an article on 18th December, 1961, with the heading: "THE GOA INVASION" and said among other things: "It is deplorable that Indian Prime Minister Nehru has resorted to the use of force to try to take over Goa and the other small Portuguese possessions on the Indian subcontinent... Mr. Nehru - the alleged pacifist - chose to ignore the suggestion made by Portugal itself that: the principle of self-determination be invoked, with the people being allowed to decide by plebiscite whether they wanted to remain Portuguese or join to India..."
The New York World-Telegram of the same date said: "He (Mr. Nehru) ranged from critical to indignant when Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt; when Russia crushed the Hungarian revolt, and when the United States backed the rebel invasion of Fidel Castro's Cuba... The Prime Minister in this invasion of Goa, ignored President Kennedy's plea to avoid the use of force... He has now adopted the philosophy that might makes right... Portugal has no more right to Goa than Britain has to India or France to Indochina. All three took territory because they had power to and held the natives under thumb. That was imperialism. Mr. Nehru has been a life-long foe of it. But action against Goa also is imperialism, although he may call it "liberation".
The New York Times also issued on the same date had this to say: "Prime Minister Nehru has abruptly answered peace appeals from President Kennedy and from UN Acting Secretary-General U Thant, by sending troops into the little Portuguese enclave of Goa...
"The explanations that Gandhi's former associate gives for this action are not compelling. Apparently the Portuguese have been strengthening their forces in Goa and Mr. Nehru speaks of 'provocative attacks' but it is hard to see what damage the tiny Portuguese units could do to anything except India's pride...."
The paper went on to say: "It is true that Portugal's claim that Goa is a Portuguese province is unconvincing. Goa is a colony, no matter what legal fiction has been contrived in Lisbon, and, if the Goans agreed, it should have been amicably transferred to India years ago, as were the small French enclaves that remained on Indian soil after India became independent.... It is nevertheless inexcusable that India - a self-styled champion of peace - should now resort to military invasion of Goa."
The New York Journal-American issued another attack on 19th December, 1961, saying: "How are the US, the United Nations and the 'neutralist' nations going to handle this case of bare-faced aggression by a nation which hypocritically has arrogated for itself the role of moral judge of other nations? Are we going to let this become another case where the UN is stymied by Soviet vetoes or ganged-up 'neutralist' votes, if those parties find the aggression to their self-interest? After the debatable US support for crushing anti-Communists in the Congo, can we this time do more for our self-interest than merely 'deplore' or 'regret' aggression?
"There is no question but that India is acting purely in self-interest, gobbling a neighbour. And this is not the first time; Nehru grabbed Kashmir from Pakistan and has defied UN resolutions for a plebiscite since 1948.... Americans reports from inside Goa gave the lie to India on the eve of invasion. There was no Portuguese military build-up, as the Indians claimed."
We read from records that all the time before the invasion India had refused any kind of negotiation short of her claim of a transfer of sovereignty, and that from Portugal's obstinacy to do so, India lodged attacks to the effect that Portugal was threatening the security of the Republic of India, and so had herself to resort to the use of force.
But if her accusations were true and convincing, the Republic of India, in my perhaps unqualified way of argument, as a member of the United Nations, should have referred the matter to, and left it entirely in the hands, of the Security Council, and so without violating the Charter of the UN and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.
I find that indeed significant were the words uttered by Indian representative when the Security Council met, at Portugal's request after the invasion had started. He is reported to have said: "It must be realised that this a colonial question. It is a question of getting rid of the last vestiges of colonialism in India. That is a matter of faith with us. Whatever anyone may think, Charter or no Charter, Council or no Council, that is our basic faith which we cannot afford to give up at any cost."
But the question that still hangs high over every freedom lover is. "Was it necessary then for the 'liberated' territory to be annexed to the 'liberator' rather than be left completely free choose its way of administering itself? Or by means of a plebiscite asked whether it preferred the annexation to India?
GOAN WISH FOR LIBERATION
The third argument advanced by the Government of India was that the Goan people, the majority of whom being Hindus, wished to be liberated from the Portuguese colonialism, and join the secular State of the Republic of India. But a well-known Indian citizen and advocate of Bombay High Court, Mr. B. K. Bohman-Behram, seems to refute this argument in his book "Goa and Ourselves", when he said: "One finds that a true Goan feels a bond of kinship with distant Portugal, which (bond) de does not share with his great neighbour on the other side of the frontier...."
The same writer goes on to say: ".... The Hindus of Goa, linked by centuries of political tradition, are a Portuguese type. A particular system of Government and certain environments prevailing for centuries naturally changes the character of a people; and the Hindus of Goa definitely differ from the Hindus inhabiting the adjoining territories."
The Bombay weekly, "The Current" issued on 21st December, 1963, in an article under the heading: "For the Congress a Trouncing to remember", commenting on the elections held in Goa by the Indian Administration, had this to report: "In any case, the fact a large number of Hindus voted for the United Goans, made it clear that the strength behind the United Goans was not just Christian strength. It was equally Hindi strength. Whatever the Goans might decide, their future is not in their hands. It will be Mr. Nehru who will be deciding the future of Goa."
But what was the outcome of the elections in Goa? The answer is simply given in seven words: "For the Congress a trouncing to remember!" The elections did not succeed. The Indian Administration was trounced.
From the notes compiled and issued in "Diário de Notícias" on 9th January, 1962, from the city of Rio de Janeiro in South America, we read: "The Goans to be found in India, especially in Calcutta and Bombay, consider themselves to be foreigners on Indian territory. They complain of the discrimination to which they are subjected, principally because of their tongue and religion. Well-trained members of the liberal professions, educated at the University of Bombay, alleged that they live in poverty because their own clients came from the Goan territory, while the population in general in India will have nothing to do with them. They emigrate to all countries, even to Great Britain, where they think their situation will be less difficult.
Perhaps one can best draw a line from the operation of what we hear today scattered all over the world: The Goan Freedom Movement, which I have been given to understand that is not anti-Indian, but that it claims the right of free and unfettered self-determination for Goa and its dependencies.
This organisation, I understand, has repeatedly written to the Secretary-General of the UNO claiming that here was a rising tide of overwhelming Goan reaction to the failure of the Republic of India to hand over Goa to Goans to decide their political status.
"Our Organisation may have a very recent past, but it is grounded on a universal and age-old desire of Goans to be independent to nurse their unique traditions in the sub-continent of India. Our primary object is the attainment of an Independent Republic of Goa, and we earnestly request you to bring to bear your international influence and reputation on the Government of India to place Goa under UNO Trusteeship with a view to plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the Goans."
The Movement says again: "We are convinced by far and large that the people of Goa and the Goans overseas have more than an overwhelming desire to be free from outside rule, whether of Portugal or India....In the political turmoil of world affairs, your organisation, the UNO, is being drawn in the role of protector of the weak. It is this spirit that we submit and we ask you to appeal to the Government of India, which professes to be and indeed is a democratic State, to allow us this fundamental right of self-determination."
The communiqué issued by the delegates of the movement who met in Paris on 3rd December 1963, tell us that there were other conferences at the same time in other parts of the world. It named conferences in Nairobi, in Kampala and in Tanganyika, all three in East Africa; Then in Mozambique and in Angola, the two big possessions still suffering under the Portuguese colonial paw; then in Macao in Far East; in Ceylon; in Pakistan and in the Indian Union itself; in the Arabian Gulf area; in Ethiopia; in Iraq; in the United Kingdom; in Germany and in Brazil.
All conferences vehemently condemned "the Indian aggression and occupation", demanded immediate acquittal of their territories and called on the United Nations to uphold the inalienable right of the people of Goa, Damão and Diu to self-determination and appealed to all Governments in the world that "should the latter fail to comply with the terms of our declaration, the people concerned will use all possible means to secure this right."
It is said to hear that on 10th December, a week after these conferences a four-men delegation went before the Front Committee of the United nations intending to defend in the world organisation, their cause, but that they were not allowed to mention Goa and the reasons which prompted them to petition the United Nations.
Nevertheless the Republic of India should refute the world press accusations by only emerging with enhanced prestige if it made the gesture which justice and the accepted principles of international democracy demand.
After closely looking into these affairs and carefully reading from various writings, my conclusions I draw on this subject are:
1. I will never be convinced, like any other freedom-lover, that the Republic of India had any valid claim to annex Goa and its dependencies to herself, merely because these territories were situated in the Indian peninsula or because they had a Hindu majority;
2. The only best way there was to reach the solution for the liberation of Goa from Portuguese colonialism was through the terms of Resolution 1541(XV) of the United Nations General assembly;
3. While the use of force is outlawed by the Charter of the UN, the unilateral annexation of Goa and its dependencies still reflects a denial of the right of self-determination;
4. The strong pleas made by the world-wide Goan Freedom Movement on behalf of the annexed people of Goa should be justified in an honest way, however unpleasant it may be for the friends of the Republic of India to admit that the latter made a gross mistake. I personally as an African am a friend of India, that is why I constructively have to criticize her, democratic as we know her to be, so that she get out of the same boat in which she is with those she repeatedly condemned of colonialism or imperialism or neo-colonialism and the like.
To me it seems unfair to force upon a differentiated community another way of life and other political and social institutions, which have not been done with the free choice of such a community. And if I may put it more clearly, until and unless the Goan people are allowed to exercise their birth-rights of deciding for themselves the future of their country, they will always become strangers in their own land.
5. As soon as the newly elected consultative assembly met, elements of the Maharastrawadi party tabled a motion thanking the Indian Government for invading Goa, Damão and Diu, No one can be so naive as to believe that the Goan people, so proud of their traditions and so jealous of their distinct personality as a community, would be so abject as to express gratitude for an act of force by which they were subjugated without having the least say in the matter. But with the Anti-Secession Act and Defence of India Act hanging like a Damocles' sword over their heads, the members of the consultative assembly found no alternative but to vote for this motion, although some did it with reservations as to the form. For this attitude, the members have been accused by the "Chief Minister" of Goa of being 'secessionists' to be dealt with in accordance with the above-mentioned laws.
6. These are the plain, unvarnished facts. No more need be said to qualify the elections, which the Indian Union Government has widely advertised as free and democratic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It should be noted that the Indian Union invaded, occupied and declared Goa, Damão and Diu annexed without consulting the people of the territories in violation not only of the Charter of the United Nations but also in defiance of General Assembly resolutions, notably resolutions 1541(XV) and 1542(XV). Further in order to hold elections in those territories, it adopted the extraordinary measure called the Anti-Secession Act. If the Indian Government still claims to command the loyalty of the people of Goa, Damão and Diu, instead of proceeding unilaterally, it could clear its name be agreeing to hold a FREE AND UNFETTERED PLEBISCITE in those invaded territories.
Will the Indian Union Government Accept This Challenge?

CONCLUSIONS:
Now after these arguments, which I believe will portray a clear, unbiased picture of the situation in hand, I would like to end my writing with perhaps a few more words that: according to unrestlessness of the Goan people in Goa and all those scattered all over the world, Goa and its dependencies may some day turn up to be like Kashmir, from which we often hear of uprisings and instability.
From the various newspapers in the world press, I very often came across bitter attacks on India in which she was painted in the same colours as Nazi actions to invade small countries around. One can only deduce from India's principles that France would have to find some excuse to march on the small Principality of Monaco, much in the same way as Germany would have today to claim Luxembourg or Spain to seize Gibraltar.
In the same way also the giant Congo in Africa would not find any difficulty to make it is duty to annex Angola nor would Tanganyika in East Africa following the same suit fail to annex Mozambique, since these African free states want and intend to see all the Portuguese colonial possessions in Africa are released from colonial bondage.
In such cases as these, I find that here UNO would have to exercise its power of attorney over India and Portugal instead of having to dance to the tune of some powerful countries. If human rights in the United Nations Charter mean anything, self-determination of small countries for self-determination would and must be defended, otherwise the PEACEFUL WORLD COEXISTENCE sought by this world organisation and preached by some hypocrite countries would mean nothing, and we would at once be seeking RESTLESS WORLD COEXISTENCE.

JUDICIARY MUST STEM THE ROT IN GOA by Praxy Fernandes, Sanquelim

There were times when the Hon’ble Courts used to take cognizance of views expressed by the public regarding the malpractices by the government. With so much of rough-shodding carried on by the panchayats and other government bodies isn’t it time the courts step in to dissolve them including all government corporations which are nothing but white elephants. When it is a known fact that there is considerable water shortage and electricity short supply and no proper sewerage and garbage infrastructure, how can the TCP and panchayats give permission to mega structures which are built nowadays only for the benefit of non-Goans, as the builders very well know that Goans in general cannot afford the price. Just the way a probe is being conducted on whether properties in Goa have been purchased by foreigners using money from drug related activities, so also a sincere probe should be conducted on whether these non-Goans are using black money to buy properties in Goa. And how is it the forest dept and TCP grant permissions for hill cutting and structures with improper setbacks. Why should illegal structures on government and communidade properties be permitted and regularized later on. Secondly all the loss making government corporations like GTDC, KTC, EDC, etc which in reality do not serve the social cause they are meant to but have been purely used by politicians as employment generation facilities should be scrapped as they are a drain on the tax payer’s money. Thirdly all those departments involved in granting permissions to casinos should be made accountable as most of the ships used don’t seem to be sea worthy and also most of the employees are outsiders, some of whom are even Nepalese. I wonder how a society can be progressive by making life miserable for the locals and the sons of the soil.

Valpoi abduction and death case

Accused Snehal in Valpoi Police Custody PANJIM, JULY 26: Yielding to the pressure of Opposition Leader, the Chief Minister, Digambar Kamat on Monday assured the House to order an independent inquiry and to take decision within two days about two cops attached to Valpoi police Station who allegedly did not investigate rightly into kidnapping of 16-year-old, Utkarsha Parab, who died of poising, in GMC, on Sunday morning.

Leader of the Opposition, Manohar Parrikar raised the subject during “Zero Hour” and demanded that Police Inspector (PI) Shivram Vaigankar and Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) Terence Vaz should be immediately placed under suspension for prima facie negligence of duty.

Utkasha, a resident of Brahma Karmali in Valpoi was abducted from her school, Bhumika Higher Secondary School, Poriem on July 16 by her aunt Sneha Gaonkar. She alleged to have forcibly fed the girl with sweets laced with poison.
Questioning the credibility of two policemen in-charge of investigating, Parrikar questioned why the accused was not arrested earlier. He also pointed out that minor girl was not medically examined reflects casual approach of the police. Responding to the demand of the Opposition’ that two cops be placed under suspension, the Chief Minister said he has asked DIG to look into the issue and ask for proper report.

However Parrikar said it is futile exercise as it means officer who is accused of negligence of duty is asked to give report about himself with a full scope to suppress information that might go against him. A least, the government can do it is to transfer two cops to reserve force and reinstate them if found non-guilty, said aghast Parrikar as Kamat did not respond to his demand with equal seriousness.

The Speaker Pratapsing Rane also said there has to be enquiry.
Agitated Leader further said during last session of the Assembly he had complained against Vaigankar’s involvement in illegal mining. A written complaint was filed against the PI for threatening a councilor of Bicholim municipal council but no action was taken, he said indicating nonchalant approach of the government.

Investigation is on -- The Chief Minister Digambar Kamat told the House that investigation into assault on National Students Union of India (NUSI) President Sunil Kauthankar is underway and police has released sketch of assailant had been issued by the police. Fatorda MLA Damu Naik had raised the issue during Zero Hour on Monday saying police has been totally ineffective in controlling incidence of crime in the State.

GOA'S LIBERATON OR UNFAIR CONQUEST by Paulo Colaco Dias

AN ARTICLE A MUST FOR ALL GOANS

Portuguese citizens (including Goans) throughout the world suffered under the dictatorship regime of Salazar. Nobody can deny that. The Portuguese people in Portugal suffered a lot more than many in the overseas provinces. How many Portuguese lost their sons and husbands in colonial war in ex-Portuguese Africa?

Salazar had an idea of an extended map of Portugal. That is why he converted all colonies into overseas provinces and made sure that everyone by 1952 had exactly the same rights and full Portuguese citizenship regardless of residency. In Goa we had a 95% self autonomy with all the high government posts headed by Goans, except the post of Governor. However, that was done a bit too late. The damage was done centuries earlier and people did not forget. In Africa (especially Mozambique and Angola), the Portuguese army had great loss of lives trying to keep up to Salazar's dream. By the end of 1960s, the dictatorship regime (then headed by Marcelo Caetano) had so many opponents, including in the army high command itself, that it was clearly reaching the end. They finally achieved democracy through a democratic revolution of 25 April 1974. Salazar was dead by then and Caetano was forced into exile in Brazil.

The map of the Republic of India was invented by the British. It was the British who brought India together under a same political entity. Before the British India was a sub-continent composed by princely states and ruled by different monarchs. It was never ever one political entity as we know the Republic of India today. Goa was invented by the Portuguese much before the British invented their version of British India. It was the Portuguese that brought Goa together under a same territorial map following the old conquests and the new conquests.

Given the above facts, and after explaining that Goa and the Republic of India had different origins and that the map of territorial Goa 1961 precedes the map of territorial Republic of India 1947, what right did the Republic of India have to conquer the territory of Goa in the XX century, after both Republic of India and Goa/Portugal accepted that they were neighbouring countries and maintained diplomatic representations from 1947 up to 1954? And both countries were members of the United Nations Organisation. The republic of India first called the operation Dec 1961 a Police Action! Does that sound lawful to anyone? Then they renamed it to an Act of Conquest through a determination from the Supreme Court of India. Does that sound right to any proud Goan? So are we liberated or are we conquered? Can't be both for sure as they are not synonymous.

This is what the freedom fighters should have questioned then! How come the Supreme Court of India determined that Goa has been conquered in 1961 from the Portuguese??? Where is the liberation then? -Liberation is when people are liberated and allowed to choose their future democratically. Kuwait was liberated from Iraq a decade ago. I cannot think of a better example of liberation.

Clearly Goans were not allowed to choose their future immediately after 1961. This is what Nehru said: "We are 700 million and the Goans are 700 thousand.". This was democracy for Nehru. It is consistent with his "Police Action" over Goa (operation Vijay – 1961)As a proud Goan, I see it more likely like a robbery. A neighbour country (that accepted the legitimacy of Goa under Portuguese rule by maintaining diplomatic representation in Portuguese Goa from 1947 to 1954) robbing another sovereign country.

The real freedom fighters wanted an independent Goa. This means independence from Portugal and independence from the Republic of India. That is what independence meant for them. Many had a very clear plan of action and we did have very intelligent Goan people already running the state at that time. What did the Republic of India do? Dismissed most of them and brought their own people from Delhi. Those who remained were forced to change allegiance but sooner or later were replaced and subjugated.

The Republic of India tried to brainwash most of us Goans by saying that Goa was always part of India and all the rest that you already know. The truth is: Goa was part of the Indian subcontinent. Not part of the political entity called the Republic of India. The Portuguese did not conquer Goa from the Republic of India. So the Republic of India (founded in 1947 as a single entity which they inherited from the British) cannot claim that Goa was always a part of the Republic of India! It does not true.

At the most, they could have helped us Goans by liberating us from the Portuguese and allow us to choose democratically our future. The proper thing to do would have been to held a democratic plebiscite to decide the future of Goa immediately after 1961. It could be that majority of Goans wanted the merge with the Republic of India but the plebiscite would have been the fairest way to demonstrate that. But I think Nehru was fearing that the plebiscite could demonstrate a different result and he would lose face to the world.

As you know, the plebiscite did not happen. - I am not defending Portugal. My point is that the case of Goa was not handled in accordance with International Law for which both Portugal and Republic of India are to be blamed. The Goan people did not have a say in it. No questions were asked. No options were given.

Yes, we did have an opinion poll in 1967 (they would not allow it to be called a referendum or a plebiscite!) but there was no option for a independent Goa even then, 6 years after! Where is the respect for the Goan people? Didn't we deserve to be given an option that so many people had asked for, including a full association of well organised Goans who had been demanding independence since the foundation of their association and conference in Paris 1963.

Could the freedom fighters in Goa not bring up this issue? Why was independence not on offer when so many people were asking for it? And people continue to call it a liberation even after knowing that the Supreme Court of India has labelled it as an Act of Conquest. Do the freedom fighters agree with that determination from the Supreme Court of the Republic of India that say that we are conquered? If not, why did they not protest? As a very proud Goan I feel sad that we Goans fail to understand these facts and who the real freedom fighters really were in 1961!

NIZ GOENKAR ADDS:  This is the most wonderful letter by Mr. Paul; Colaco Dias and this is a fact long long back I was trying to eloborate, but no one believed me. Goa lies in the peninsula of Inda but is and was never an Indian territory. It has been invaded by Indian forces. One good colonial power left and a bad colonial power took over thanks to the so called Freedom fighters of Goa.