The Goan Case —
Rights of India vs. Goa & Portugal

©Lucio Mascarenhas, formerly "Prakash". 25th October 2002. Revised 11th December 2002; June 2004.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles

Let us examine the case of the Indian Union against the EIP.

Case History: The Indian Union claimed that the EIP was (and is) a natural part of itself, unnaturally separated, and demanded that Portugal "revert" Goa to it. Upon the refusal of Portugal, the Indian Union, through its agents, claiming to be private citizens, both of the EIP and of the Indian Union, invaded and seized the enclaves of Dadra and of Nagar-Aveli in 1954, which were then 'merged' by these terrorists into the Indian Union, and this 'merger' accepted, by the Indian Union. Subsequently, after an unsuccessful blockade against the remaining EIP territories, aimed to provoke the Goans to revolt against Portugal, the Indian Union invaded the EIP in 1961 and 'annexed' it.

The Indian Union proffers these arguments as the bases of her 'title' for claims and invasions, etc.:
  1. That she is the successor in potentiality of the Indian states from which Portugal had first seized these terrritories half a millenium ago.

  2. That she possessed a natural right to recover and reclaim these enclaves.

  3. That Portugal put the Indian Union's security at risk by considering leasing etc. the EIP to the USA or to NATO for use as military bases.

  4. That Portugal responded to the Indian Union's insistence on negotiations for the cession and evacuation of the EIP by building up military forces, which was evidence of a Portuguese intention to declare war upon the Indian Union.
I submit that these are all lies, deliberate lies. I will now prove my contentions against those of the Indian Union.

Natural Right

In 1937, the predecessor in title of the Indian Union, the British East Indian Empire was partitioned, with the active acquiescence of the political parties of the remainder of the Empire, to create the new Dominions of Burma and Ceylon (including the Maldive Islands Archipelago), on the basis that these territories had Buddhist majorities.

This partition was part of a package by which the provinces of Bihar and Orissa were spun off from the Bengal presidency, and Sindh from the Bombay Presidency, with the active participation and approval of all Indian parties, who were consulted both by the British East Indian Imperial government in Delhi and by the British government in London.

The Indian Union has always most solemnly protested and professed that it recognized the territorial integrity of both these states, which professions and protestations are now part of international treaties, obligations and laws.

Again, in 1947, after resistance, the main parties of the Indian Union acquiesced in the partition of the remainder of the Empire to carve out for the Muslims (at the urgent and pressing demands of the Muslim League led by Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah) the state of Pakistan (which then also included Bangladesh). In this case too, the Indian Union has continuously and always most solemnly protested and professed that it recognized the territorial integrity of Pakistan (and Bangladesh), which professions and protestations are now part of international treaties, obligations and laws. Nor has the Indian Union ever attempted to reclaim Pakistan and Bangladesh, exercising its 'natural' right, despite aiding Bangladesh in attaining independence from Pakistan. In fact, the Indian Union, to evidence to this her spirit, freely withdrew from parts of Pakistan Punjab that it had seized during the 1971 war.

Following the collapse of the Mughal Empire, the petty principalities of the Himalayas threw off the Mughal and provincial yokes and reasserted their independence. However, taking advantage of the anarchy, the principality of Gorkha invaded and overthrew its larger Eastern neighbour, Newar, whose name they corrupted as Nepal, and established the Nepalese Empire. The Nepalese Empire waxed forth to include a large part of the Sub-Himalayan districts both east and west of Gorkha, until they fell afoul of the simultaneously expanding English imperialists and were, as a result, confined to their present borders, losing in the bargain their conquests of Sikkim, Darjeeling, Pithoragarh, Garhwal, Kumaoun, Lahaul & Spiti, Chamba, Simla, etc.: the present Indian Union provinces or territories of Himanchal Pradesh, Uttaranchal Pradesh, Sikkim and the 'Gorkhaland' Autonomous Region.

This establishment of modern Nepal happened long after the Portuguese took the EIP.

The Indian Union has never contemplated annexing Nepal, although she had had ample opportunity, such as the invasion or intervention by the Indian Union on the invitation of the then King Tribhuvan, to overthrow the upstart Ranas, and reassert the Royal authority. On the contrary, the Indian Union has by treaties and on numerous occasions reasserted its recognition of Nepalese territorial integrity and independence.

In 1947, the Dogra Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir was invaded by agents of Pakistan as a result of which it precipately acceded to the Indian Union. However, the Indian Union failed to procure Pakistan's entire evacuation of the former Kingdom, with the result that a large part of that former Kingdom is still in the custody of Pakistan.

The Indian Union insists that this part, which it styles the Pak-Occupied Kashmir or POK, is an integral and constitutional part of itself and vigourously prosecutes anyone, whether its citizen or otherwise, who publishes maps etc. that purport to show this area as not being a part of itself, etc.

However, what is signal, is that the Indian Union has never, in all these 54+ years, made the least sincere effort to procure its evacuation by military means. On the contrary, the Indian Union has formally promised, in the Simla Pact of 1971, that if Pakistan will agree to drop its demand for the whole of the former Dogra Kingdom, then it will agree to Pakistan retaining its conquests, and will accept the Line of Control as the new International Border between Pakistan and the Indian Union in this area.

Given all these facts, how can the Indian Union justify its claims to a 'natural' right to reclaim the EIP? The answer is undeniably that the Indian Union's claim is absolutely and entirely unjustified, and further that it arises from pure mischief and malice.

Nato Bases and Portuguese Aggressions

In the early part of the last century, England and the British East Indian Empire persuaded Denmark to sell to it the Danish colony of the Nicobar Islands, which were paid for from the Imperial East Indian Exchequer.

In like manner, they tried with the EIP. The Setting: In 1870, England rejected International precedents and used military force to blackmail Portugal to cede its ancient claims in the Upper Zambesi Basin, between Portuguese East Africa and Portuguese West Africa, to England, to form the English territories of North Rhodesia, South Rhodesia and Nyassaland, corresponding to the present Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi. This caused a backlash in Portugal, with an anticlerical, anti-Monarchial revolution in 1910. In the years since then, the Portuguese economy collapsed entirely and remained so for many years until the Phalangist Dr. Antonio Salazar was authorised to put in practice his ideas for a recovery. During this time, England offered to purchase the EIP from Portugal, but Portugal, under Dr. Salazar steadfastly refused to consider this offer.

Given this fact, that Portugal under Salazar refused to sell the EIP when it was in financial troubles, why should we accept the idea, without any shred of evidence, that Dr. Salazar would be willing to consider leasing or selling the EIP to the USA or to NATO, at a time when Portugal was no longer in dire financial straits?

Moreover, in reading the UN Resolution 1542 (XV), it becomes evident, that the Salazarists stubbornly refused to co-operate with the UN in bringing about the EIP to self-determination, due to their famous sentimental attachment to the (remains of the) Portuguese Empire. Why, then, should they be willing to consider the alienation, even if by lease, of the EIP to the US or to NATO?

Further, Portugal did not at all build up forces in the EIP: Following the seizure of the enclaves of Dadra and of Nagar-Avelim by the Indian Union throught sponsored terrorists and regular troops, Portugal did build up force, upto some twelve thousand. However, by early 1960, Portugal had scaled down its forces. When the Indian Union invaded, they found that there were only about 3,500 troops to defend it. Hardly a number that can be used to justify a claim that Portugal had been building up troops with bellicose intentions, is it?

But, as a matter of fact, the Indian Union systematically put out such news reports about a Portuguese military build-up. The only conclusion that one can put to this, given the actual facts, is that this was nothing but a tissue of lies — a deliberate campaign of mischief and malice, evidence, furthermore, of a bellicose intention, not on the part of Portugal, but on the part of the Indian Union!


The Indian Union claims, vis-a-vis Portuguese India, that it existed potentially in the Indian states of the fifteenth century and from whom Portugal acquired what is the EIP.

Or, to put it in the famous words of Dr. Salazar, "For the Indian Union to claim to turn the clock of history back to the 15th century, to come forward now and make out that she already existed potentially at that time, or to set herself up as the rightful heir of those whom we found holding sway there, is a fancy..." Let us examine if this claim, upon which the Indian Union bases its claim to 'reclaim' the EIP, can stand.

First of all, the Indian Union is not legally a successor state of these states. It has not received any such right by descent from and through the British East Indian Empire. This is proved by the fact that the laws, treaties, obligations, rights, etc. of these states have not descended to the Indian Union, in the way that those of the former British East Indian Empire have descended to it.

Further, from history, we see that, unlike the Chinese, Japanese and many other peoples, India never had any tradition of an Ścumenical Empire of all India. Quite on the contrary. In matter of fact, if we look at Indian history and tradition, we see a deliberate effort to prevent any coagulation of the Indian states into a single state. This was the work of Hinduism, of the Brahmins, the Hindu priests.

They did this by deliberately exhorting kings and princes to continuously wage war against one another, by exhorting and encouraging feudal subordinates of their 'divine' duty to achieve independence and the royal rank. Hinduism set prince against prince, state against state and people against people. Thus, it conspired and succeeded in preventing any unification of India from being achieved.

The only somewhat Pan-Indian states that came to be, came to be, not because of Hinduism, but despite it. Thus, the Muslims conquered parts of India and incorporated the various conquered kingdoms, principalities and regions into their empires — Tughlak, Lodhi, Mughal, etc. Similarly, the history of the British East Indian Empire.

There is something far more interesting, however: The Indian Union straightfacedly and thoughtlessly claims that it came into being, as a Nation, in 1947. Now if the Indian Union was born as a Nation in 1947, it is impossible that it had any connection with the states that existed on what is now its territory in times gone by, isn't it?

Therefore, we find that there is no basis whatsoever for the Indian Union to pretend that it existed 'potentially' in the Indian states from whom Portugal acquired the EIP.

The True Reason For India's Obsession With Goa

Anti-Enclavism —
Another Form of Imperialism & Territorial Acquisitivism!

The Only Relationship between India and Goa is one of a Criminal and a Victim: that, and nothing else. And, obviously, this is a relationship that CRIES OUT TO HEAVEN... THE BLOOD OF GOANS, DEMANDING REDRESS... The ONLY legitimate redress is that of punishing, chastising India and of restoring Goa to the Status Quo Ante. — Lucio Mascarenhas.
Dear Senhor Bernardo,

The message you have quoted to me, this letter, even from a Goan "Bharati" (what exotic, hybrid animal is this?), is not extraordinary. After all, have we not been brainwashed for more than fifty years?

Even today, Goan sentiment, though not yet activated and inclined to recourse to arms to liberate the motherland, still sees Goa as NOT Indian. Culturally, our idiom separates Goa from India. We call ourselves Goans and the others Indians. We travel to India, not within India. And yet, ever since the unfortunate Padroado-Propaganda conflict (the so-called "Goan Schism") in British India, the Antipatronalists have sought to alienate the affections of Goans as a means of destroying the Patronalist party.

Schools run by the Church under the Antipatronalists had, in attempting to out-manouever the Portuguese Patronalists, played into the hands of the English imperialists and their Indianist handmaids by taking up education in English with an Indianist syllabus, thus anglicizing the Goans and Indianizing them.

[I must add that I am myself Antipatronalist, that is, pro-Roman, supporting the interventions of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, against the 'exclusive' claims of the Portuguese Crown and State to rights of Patronage in the Orient. However, unfortunately, the Antipatronalists in British India have harmed Goa unnecessarily in their quarrel with the Portuguese.]

For generations, Goans have learnt one thing at home, and another in school. At home we learnt that we are Goans not Indians. In school we were brainwashed that Goa is merely another and an insignificant part of the "Greater Glory" that is India. Who can blame us if so many Goans are therefore seriously confused? Who can blame us, then, if so many Goans tend to follow the Indianist line?

The man that wrote that message is one such man, a brainwashed zombie. He has been taught like all others, to cheerlead for India, right or wrong: An unfortunate who has never learnt to think for himself, to question the poisonous pap fed him in Indian schools. For such zombies, India is their God, India and its territorial continuity, the rights and dignity of peoples be damned!
On what basis are we to understand India's pretensions to a claim over Goa and to the loyalty and affections of Goans? Is it because we are "Indians"?

But if we are "Indians", then what are the people of Burma and Sri Lanka, to whose separation and erection as separate "nations" the Indians assented to, in 1937 and continuously since, without regress? And if we are "Indians" then what are the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh who were separated from India in 1947, and to whom India formally assures that she has no designs on their territories?

Goa, by contrast, has existed as a separate country, not from 1937 or 1947, but from 1510, before the British India Empire was even born!

Long after the great Albuquerque wrested Goa from the infidel moors and inaugurated Christian Goa, in his long campaign to outflank that brood of vipers and strike them in their very nest, Robert Clive inaugurated what is today India on the battlefields of Plassey and Wandiwash. If India has a "Father of the Nation" it is Robert Clive pre-eminently above any other claimant!

It is the British who invented the modern India, who fused disparate states and peoples into one state, the British Indian Empire. It is this unification that is the moral and ideological basis of India's existence.

India is NOT a nation. Both British India and the Indian Union, which is British India minus Burma, Ceylon, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Maldives, house more than three hundred nationalities, ranging from the Tamils to the Kashirians, the Ahom to the Brahui...

It is modern mythology that a state is a nation. However, this nostrum is idiocity defined. A State is NOT a nation. After a great many wars, states of Europe are, by and large, nearly identical in extension, to particular dominant nationalities, such as the Polish in Poland, the Germans in Germany, etc. However, even in Europe that is not entirely true. There remain many nations who do not have thier own sovereign states and who are forced to play second fiddle to the dominant nationalities.

It is absolutist, mythological nationalism that leads peoples into troubles; great troubles. It leads to man's insensitivity towards man, to one ethnic group subjugating another and dehumanising them. Absolutist nationalism has led mankind into one war after another. However, some people are too dumb to learn. Such are the Indianists.

But it is strange and unacceptable that India should claim Goa and force herself upon us by military might when she refuses to be irredentist towards the separated territories!

But there is, in fact, a logic to India's claims. And that is, not because Goa is, or is not, "Indian" but because Goa, or rather the integral EIP (Portuguese India), in all its five enclaves, is a spot and blemish on the fair face of India. That is, Goa as an enclave, interrupts the CONTINUUM of Indian territories, round about it.

This is Goa's sin.

The Indians were perfectly willing to accede and still do accede to the secession of Burma, Ceylon, Pakistan and Bangladesh. None of these secessions affect India's territorial continuity. But the mere existence of Portuguese or French India is an insult and an affront to India, by interrupting her territorial continuity, in the form of unseemly, unbecoming enclaves.

From this viewpoint, it is territory, not people, that is important. This is the idolatry of territory, of territorial continuity. In this mindset, humanity and human rights and human dignity counts for nothing. What counts is territory and territorial continuity.

By the same token, Malaysia should be fully within its rights to march in and annex the miserable, measly enclave of the Sultanate of Brunei, which mars the fair face of Federal Malaysia. Ditto for Singapore.

By the same token, France should be fully within its rights to march in and annex the miserable, measly enclave of Monaco, which mars the fair face of France.

By the same token, Italy should be fully within its rights to march in and annex the miserable, measly enclave of San Marino, which mars the fair face of Italy.

By the same token, Germany should be fully within its rights to march in and annex the miserable, measly enclave of Luxembourg, which mars the fair face of Germany.

But why only Luxembourg? Why not Austria, German Venetia, the Sudentenland, Silesia, German Switzerland, Alsatia and Lotharingia, which the French call Alsace and Lorraine?

It is precisely this mindset that precipated Europe time and again into wars — great wars. First we had the Sun King and his "reunification movement" under which he sent out troops and officers to annex territories surrounding France on the basis that they were once dependent on the cities or provinces of France. Then came the two World Wars, including Hitler's annexations of Austria and the Sudentenland, and his dream of fabricating a German Lebensraum in East Europe.

Therefore, we see, that India's claim to Goa rests not on any moral or legal principle or value, nor on ethnic or irredentist principles, but purely on the idolatry of land, the idolatry of the continuity of one's possessions, so that one must bludgeon out of existence the hapless land that disrupts this continuity, regardless of all other values.

We are all witness to the same idolatry of territorial continuity and contempt of peoples in the case of Goa's sister, East Timor, at the hands of the "Indonesians", another mythic nation like the Indians.

Lucio Mascarenhas
©Lucio Mascarenhas.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles
Hosted by