Contra-Asheesh Shah

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

[See also Contra Asheesh Shah: Part II]

Dear Asheesh — I pity your ignorance!

Goans are not trying to carve out a small section of India and demanding independence for it. Nor was Goa ever a Portuguese colony.

I tried to warn you, but you did not take the hint. You could have spared yourself some unnecessary embarrassment.

In India, the schools teach glorified bilge, and students are trained to imbibe this bilge unquestioningly. You evidence the fact that you have never unlearned this bilge and learnt to think originally, to enquire after the facts and to revise your understanding of issues and of things.

The Hindus are experts at inventing histories — mythologization. And very elaborate and contrived ones too. No other people on the face of the earth have developed this talent to the same degree as the Hindus.

It is one's duty to inquire and to dig up the facts and the truth, and not to accept teachings without question. Most often this is crucial, for it means the difference between life and death — between salvation and damnation. Yet Hinduism insists that its adherents (and all men, in fact) accept its fantastic creeds without question.

A colony is a territory where the people from one land come in, settle, and either displace or kill off the original people, so that the newcomers are the demographic majority. On the contrary, a territory that is merely conquered and ruled without being colonized in a dependency.

When the Romans began to expand into Europe outside of their nest in central Italy, the whole stretch above them — North Italy (the Basin of the River Po), Switzerland (Helvetia), France (Gaul), Spain (Iberia), Portugal (Lusitania), the British Isles, was populated by the Celts or Kelts. Rome conquered most of these territories, except Scotland and Ireland, and assimilated these peoples into the Roman Imperial civilization.

Rome did not colonize these territories, although it did plant here and there, colonies of soldiers retired from honourable service in the Imperial Army. Again, the Imperial Army was not pure Roman but eclectic in its racial composition. At no place did the Roman colonies and colonists outnumber the native peoples, who rather outnumbered them on a vast scale.

These territories were, therefore, not Roman colonies, but Roman dependencies, if we could say that, although they had rather soon ceased to be dependencies by being assimilated and integrated into the Social Community of the Roman Empire, as a de facto "nation", as eclectic in its ethnic origins as its Army and its Emperors (mixed race Romans, Greeks, Illyrians, Aramites, Arabs, Germans, Britons, North Africans, etc.)

[The Romans by their judicious policy of assimilation and co-option, so thoroughly integrated and gained the affection and loyalties of the conquered people, that for more than a thousand years after the collapse of the Roman Empire, these peoples are loath to let go of the Roman heritage — the Romanitas.

The ancient nation and country of Dacia, for example, likes to go under the name of Romania!

Germany, until it was overthrown by the French Revolutionaries under Napoleon and others, went for more than a thousand years as the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", what the Nazis like to call the "First Reich", beginning with the Otto Dynasty and ending with the Habsburgs.]

Following the Hun invasions of Europe, the Outer Germans or Teutons overran the Roman Empire, among whom the ancestors of the English — the Teutonic tribe of the Angles from South Denmark, and the Teutonic tribe of the Saxons from the adjacent North West Germany — swept into and settled the then country of Britain. The Anglo-Saxon perpetrated brutal genocide against the native British, who were forced to flee for their lives; they settled in Armorica, across the Channel, on the mainland, the modern Brittany in France, and succeeded in retaining Wales, a small part of their former homeland, in the South-West corner of Britain.

The English thereby formed an Anglo-Saxon colony in Britain, which they renamed as England — "the land of the Angles" (the French name for which is "Angleterre").

British India was an English dependency, not a colony. New England, Australia, New Zealand — these are English colonies.

Brazil was the only Portuguese colony in Portuguese history.

The Dutch East Indies were Dutch dependencies; South Africa, conquered from the Portuguese, was a Dutch Colony until it was severed at the end of the Napoleonic Wars and assigned to England as its imperial possession (dependency) as a result of the Congress of Vienna.

Another important distinction is between Nation and State. A nation is an anthropological reality, a State is a political reality. They are not necessarily co-terminus. On the contrary, it is very rare that Nation and State are ever co-terminus.

Another serving of the Indian bilge throws question over the Portuguese involvement in Goa, rights, etc., and sadly for you, you faithfully regurgitate that abject nonsense.

There was never any question about the legal status of the Portuguese when they landed in South Asia. There is a good question about the rights and relation of the Indian Union with those states that the Portuguese then encountered and dealt with — the State of Cochim (yes, ending with 'm' rather than 'n'; the Portuguese 'm' is silent, so that it is closer to the native Kochi, than the English Cochin) under its kings called the Samudripati ("Zamorin"), the Empire of Vijayanagara in South India, the Bahamani Sultanate of Bijapur (under its kings, the Adilshah branch of the Bahamani dynasty), the Bahamani Sultanate of Ahmadnagar (under its kings, the Nizamshah branch of the Bahamani dynasty), the Arab Sultanate of Cambay or Cambatta, modern Gujarat (from whom the Portuguese seized Bombay and its environs, Damao and Dio / Diu), and lastly the Sultanate of Hindustan, under the Lodhi Sultans, headquartered for most of its life at Dili, the former Dilika (founded by the Raja Dili), and shortly to be replaced by the Mughal dynasty, as the Mughal Empire (Shahenshahi) of Hindustan.

Also the Arab Emirate of Oman and the Caliphate, based in Constantinople, whose combined naval forces, together with those of Cambay, were signally defeated by the outnumbered Portuguese at the Naval Battle of Dio (Diu) to completely end the Muslim monopoly of the Indian seas, thus beginning the process of the liberation of South Asia from Islam, which culminated in the formation of the Maratha Confederacy, the Bundela Kingdom, the Sikh Empire and the utter collapse of the Mughal Empire.

As for Goa, the Goans themselves consciously invited the Portuguese to invade Goa and to liberate Goa from the Sultanate of Bijapur (Adilshah branch of the Bahamanis), at the express guidance of the Vijayanagara Emperor of the time, whom the Goans had themselves approached.

The Goan delegation was led by the Goan princes Mala Pai and Timmayya (also called Timoja).

When Portugal was invaded by the Indians, first in 1954 and then again in 1961, Portugal was NOT ruled by any kind of Junta, but by a democratically elected government under Prime Minister Dr. Antonio de Oliviera-Salazar. The World Court was approached about the Indian invasion of 1954, and demanding that India be compelled to permit right of passage to the occupied territories (Dadra & Nagar-Aveli), and the Court gave a ruling that could not be termed as a victory for either India or Portugal. I have read "a bit more of history", the question is: What is your reading of history?

There is a Goan Hindu traitor, Dr. P.P. Xirodcar (or as he likes to style himself, in the Indian fashion, Dr. Shirodkar), former director of the Archives in Indian Occupied Goa, who has written a viciously anti-Goan and pro-Indian book, wherein he has devoted some chapters to the World Court case and its rulings, and you can verify the facts from there, if you care to.

Portugal's Government was seized by a Communist Junta in 1974 — the so-called "Carnation Revolution" — but there is, apparently, democracy today. At least, the government of Iberian Portugal is elected and not a junta, as you foolishly allege.

None of the Goan Freedom Fighters and their websites — I myself, Agnelo Gomes or Errol Rodrigues, ever endorse what is called "Colonialism". You are merely being fatuous in making this allegation, for which you provide no evidence — merely your bald assertion.

Wake up and start using your brains! Quit making a fool of yourself!

There are, of course, "good" colonialisms and bad colonialisms. When the Portuguese or Spanish or French or Dutch or English or other European peoples went forth and conquered territories or colonized, it was bad colonialism. But when the Hindus swept into India and enslaved the Dravids and the Nagas, it was good colonialism, something that is celebrated to this day by you and your people.

You Indians are loud in denouncing "colonialism" by Europeans, while you are sedulously silent about the same practices practiced by you Hindus, the Arabs, the Chinese, and others! This is pure and unadulterated hypocrisy!

But allow me to investigate your "good" colonialisms.

When your ancestors began to expand out of the first Aryan colony in India, the Aryavarta, modern Pakistan, into what came to be called the Madhya-Desa, the Gangetic Basin, it was, of course, "good" colonialism.

It is also "good" colonialism when the Gujaratis settle in the lands of the Vasava and Ghamri tribals, in the Dangs, Banas-kantha, etc., and displace and rob the natives, who pre-existed the Gujarati nation's formation, of their lands and wealth, and reduce them, even to starvation.

Today, the world is full of the spectacle of the White Man tripping over himself to apologize for all his sins, real and imaginary, past and present. That is a "nice" spectacle, more so when contrasted to that of you Hindus, triumphantly celebrating and crowing over your "good" colonialism and genocide of the Indian aborigines, the Adivasis and Dalits, and you still keep up steadfast with the "good" work. Bravo!

Today, the world is full of the spectacle of the "Catholic" and Protestant Church leaders tripping over themselves to apologize for all their sins, real and imaginary, past and present. That is a "nice" spectacle, more so when contrasted to that of you Hindus, triumphantly crowing over your "good" colonialism and genocide of the Indian aborigines, with not a single of your Dharmacharyas, Sankaracharyas and other Hindu religious leaders having the humility to apologize to the modern Dalits and Adivasis for the crimes that your ancestors inflicted upon them, robbing them of their patrimony, which "good" work you continue to this day, and which your Dharmacharyas, Sankaracharyas and the whole cursed lot of Satanists — Sadhus and "Sants" ("Saints" — a monstrous joke!), Rishis and Maharishis, Acharyas, Shastris, Pandits, etc., etc., triumphantly celebrate and crow over!

When your people continue that unfinished task in all the Deccan: Baghelkhand, Bundelkhand, the Kaimur Hills, "Jharkhand", "Chattisgarh", Tribal West Orissa, Dandakaranya, Gadchiroli, Gondwana / Bastar, Maleghat and the rest of Khandesh, robbing the Adivasis of their lands and means of livelihood and reducing them even further, even to starvation, it is, of course, "good" colonialism.

But you Hindus are so swollen with conceit and drunk with your own triumphs that you unrealistically and fantastically dream of a Hindu World Empire, of doing in England, America, Australia, New Zealand and all the West, and also in Africa, to the whites and the blacks, the same "good colonialism" that you have perpetrated in South Asia upon the aborigines, the Dalits and Adivasis — an empire and a program nicely aided and furthered by paganized, Hinduized westerners — your convenient dupes or "useful idiots"!

Alexander the Great was king of Macedonia, to whom the Greeks appealed for aid against the Iranian Empire's effort to conquer Greece. Alexander overthrew the Iranian Empire and advanced into all its provinces in order to subdue them to himself. This is why he entered India, or more precisely, into the Persian provinces in India. Yet, the modern Indians pretend that Alexander was some kind of ruffian or pirate who coveted India and attempted to conquer all India! [Eugene de Sousa | Arjun Mahey]

You Indians talk flippantly and disparagingly, not only of Alexander, prattling your ignorance, but also of Columbus, Cortes, Pizzaro, Vasco da Gama, Alfonso de Albuquerque and others of the Conquistadors. It is a fact that much that these conquistadors did in Africa and the Americas was morally wrong and in contravention of Christianity, especially the perfidy against the nation of Ba-Congo, against the Aztec and Inca Empires and the Brazilian Mamelucos episodes.

However, every people look at those times when they have been powerful enough to dominate others as their "Golden Age", while their teeth is set on edge when they contemplate a time when they were ruled by others.

The Bible teaches us: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." But men believe that when they sin against others, it is no sin but glory, while when others sin against them it is truly sin!

You Indians look on with pride upon the times when your ancestors penetrated south of the Vindhya Mountains and began to colonize those lands. You look on with pride upon the doings of the Aryan invaders who subdued Tamil Nadu.

You look on with pride upon the doings of the merchant Singhal who lead a maritime expedition from Vanga and Utkal to colonize Ceylon, founding the Sinhala nation.

You celebrate and worship as a "god", Rama, King of Koshal who murdered the Dalit Tsambuk for taking to asceticism, in violation of the Hindu "Law" (Manu's Law) that forbade the enslaved aborigine from any intellectual or spiritual pursuits: You worship a misanthrope.

You look with pride upon the invasion and colonization of Gujarat led by Krsna from the Braj country, Braj-Bhoom, thus founding Gujarat — that was "good" colonialism! You look upon with pride upon the maritime expeditions of Krsna in the Arabian Sea, in order to impose his imperialism upon whom he could find there — that was "good" colonialism.

You look with pride upon the exodus of the Hindu recalcitrants from Madhya-Desa when that area turned nearly wholesale to Buddhism, with the Hindus migrating south of the Vindhyas and colonizing and forming the country of "Maha-Rashtra" — the "Great Nation"! That was "good" colonialism!

You look upon with pride upon the Indian conquistadors who invaded and colonized South-East Asia, founding Ph'nom and Champa, and the Sri Vijaya and Sailendra Empires and Jaya-K'Shetra (Jakarta) and Singhapuram (Singapore) and in the Philipines, etc. [Indian Traditions In The Philippines]

You look upon with pride on the Chola king Rajaraja who invaded and overthrew the Sri Vijaya and Sailendra Empires, so much so that you commemorate with a plaque, him and his "achievements" in the Indian Parliament, when in fact, if you had any sense, you would have quietly drawn a veil over him, whose campaigns of self-aggrandization disrupted the Indian colonies there, so that the people and princes of those lands turned in desperation to Islam!

And yet, on the other hand, the campaigns of Muhammad of Ghazni, Muhammad of Ghor, Timur the Lame and others fill you with revulsion, for they, with a barbarity that matched that that you inflict upon the Dalits, enslaved you and dragged you like chattel over the Uparisena Mountains, so that those ranges being soaked in your blood came to be called the "Hindu Kush" — "The Slaying of the Hindu"!

And so it is that Rama and Krsna and Rajaraja and others of your conquistadors are heroes and exemplars but Alexander the Great, Vasco da Gama and Alfonso de Albuquerque are monsters!
When the Arabs were seduced to the heresy of Islamism by Muhammad the Quraishite, the founder of that heresy, they were brainwashed into becoming fanatics and were highly motivated to go forth and to conquer the world. On the contrary, their opponents were a divided and confused lot, for which they could not withstand Islam. Thus the Arabs overran the West Asia and North Africa and the southern fringes of Europe, plunging all these lands and peoples into a thousand years of misanthropy and darkness. They swept into Iberia and over-running it, entered into France till they were defeated at Tours by Roland and the Franks.

Following the Battle of Tours, the Arabs continuously, though slowly fell back, being pushed out by the Christian Reconquest. First to be liberated was the North of Spain, the kingdoms of Asturias, Castile, Leon, Navarre, Aragon, etc. One of the minor princes took advantage of the situation to seize a small district — Portugal — in the west from the Arabs and founded the Avis dynasty State of Portugal. "Portugal" seems to be the Arab name for watermelon, and therefore was given to that district from which the State of Portugal was born.

Gradually, as the Reconquest proceeded, the frontiers of Portugal, as much of Leon, Castile, Aragon, etc., were pushed further southwards at the expense of the Arabs. Lisbon was freed by a contingent of English and Scandinavian crusaders and became the capital of Portugal. Eventually, the last territory in the Iberian peninsula to be incorporated into the State of Portugal was the Arab Kingdom of the Algarve. For long thereafter, the King was called the King of Portugal and the Algarve.

Shortly after the liberation of the Algarve, the Portuguese began to probe Arab North Africa with the hope of continuing the reconquest there, to regain these formerly Christian territories. In the process, Portugal became a maritime power, exploring the seas around and beyond the powerful Muslim states ruled from Morocco. The Portuguese successively bypassed the Moorish Kingdom and the Sultanate of Mali to reach new territories further south. This took them by stages to the Cape of Good Hope, the southernmost extremity of Africa, and beyond that into the Indian Ocean, to South Asia.

Vasco da Gama landed in Cochim in 1498, thus opening the sea-route via the Cape of Good Hope, between South and East Asia and Europe, thus beginning the process of ending the Muslim monopoly over the seas and the Asian maritime trade.

With the loss of economic power of the Muslims went the loss of political power.

In 1510, the Portuguese, being invited to liberate Goa from the Adilshah of Bijapur, succeeded in doing so in November 1510, on the feast of St. Catherine of Alexandria, after having failed once before in February.

When the Portuguese liberated Goa, there was tremendous goodwill among the Goans towards the Portuguese. Again, Portugal itself was then fervent with the faith, and poured in great numbers of missionaries into Goa, so that the missionaries outnumbered the Portuguese troops in Goa. All this combined to create a favourable climate for the spread of Christianity, for the Goans to convert freely and willingly to Christianity.

However, as there was a wave of conversion, there was also a reaction, with a small faction of hardened pagans — socially prominent — spearheading a campaign of ostracism against the new Christians, seeking to seduce them back to paganism, and stirring up antagonism to the Portuguese. Finally, the government had to expel these malcontents from Goa. With their departure, Goa was pacified and rallied around the Flag of Portugal.

It is true, as has been harped upon frequently, that the Goans never did formally write out and sign any document making Goa a part of Portugal, but that was not necessary.

And to those who harp on this point, I merely ask them to kindly furnish copies of documents by which the various peoples of India agreed to be part of the Indian Union.

Among the peoples of the Indian Union, a great many expressly did not wish to be included in the Indian Union. However, it is largely the Tamils and the Nagas who took to arms in order to expel the Indians.

With the conquest and pacification of Goa, Goa and Goans were integrated into Portugal, to become as much part of Portugal as Lisbon had once become, or as the Algarve had become. Nor is it significant that the Portuguese territory is spread out in different places. That is irrelevant, for it is not the structure of the territories that is important, but the Social Communion of the peoples that is important.

As far as Goa is concerned, having once "grappled our souls" to Portugal "with hoops of steel" no significant portion of the Goan population ever questioned the fact that Goa had become an integral part of the Portuguese Nation. It is what we believed and what we adhered to solidly and unquestioningly, as is right and proper.

To those Indians who raise questions about the validity of Goa's absorption into Portugal, I would point out that, just as Portugal grew and changed territorial shape, India too had grown and changed territorial shape.

When the Aryans invaded India, their first colony was in what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan — the "Aryavarta" (the "Abode of the Aryans"). The Basin of the Indus river was called by them the "Sapta Sindhu" ("The Land of the Seven Rivers"). The word "Sindhu" was corrupted by the Iranians as Hindu, thus giving the Greek Indos and the Latin Indium and India. In the second wave of colonization, the Indians penetrated the great plains of the Ganges, stretching from Matsya-Desa to Vanga-Desa via Koshal, Magadha, Anga-Desa; a land overgrown with forests and populated by the Nagas, who dwelt in wooden cities, and thus India grew. Then, in the third wave of expansion, the Aryans pushed over the Vindhya Mountains into the Deccan and to the South, so that they covered the entire Indian Peninsula or Sub-Continent. Then, in the fifth wave, they began to invade and colonize the Sunda Archipelago, Malaya, the Philippines and Indo-China. This completed the formation of the East Indies, the anthropological reality of India.

Therefore, no Indian has any right to complain and to look askance at the Portuguese and the expansion of the Portuguese state.

The Modern Indian state, the Indian Union, is the creation of England. The English took advantage of the work of the Portuguese, who had armed and aided the Marathas in rebelling against the Mughals and other Muslim powers in India, who built them their ships, their forts and trained and officered their armies. The Maratha Revolution — powered by the Portuguese — destroyed the Mughal Empire, and in its stead arose the Maratha Confederacy, the Sikh Empire and several minor Hindu and Muslim states.

The Indian Union was fashioned by the English out of their cumulative conquests in the Indian Sub-Continent. The other major conglomeration of Indian territory ruled by a single power was the Dutch East Indies, which, after the Japanese Invasion, renamed itself as "Indonesia" — a Greek name meaning the "Indian Islands".

Yet, the Indian Union is not the entire British India, for in 1937 and 1947, Buddhist and Muslim dominated parts were excised to form Burma and Ceylon (1937) and Pakistan (1947). The Maldive Islands were separated from Ceylon to form a separate country, while India contrived the break up of Pakistan's eastern wing, East Bengal, to form "Bangladesh" in 1971. Thus, between 1937-1971, the old British India resulted in the new states of Pakistan, India, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma or Myanmar: a total of six new states.

When the Partition of 1937 was proposed, all the parties in the remnant of India agreed to it without question, nor is there any challenge to that even today. In 1947, when it was proposed to hive off Pakistan, there was some token resistance, but finally they gave in and accepted it.

India not only accepted these excisions from her territory, but she has also formally promised and guaranteed these territories and their peoples their independence, assuring them that she (India) did not question their separation and did not seek to bring them back into the Indian Union.

Nevertheless, despite this, the Indian Union has claimed, or even more precisely, pretended, that the enclaves of French and Portuguese India belongs by some automatic right to it and should be handed over to it, to be absorbed by it, regardless of the wishes and rights of the peoples of these territories.

India pretends that it is the landlord of these territories, and that it or itself in the form of its predecessor states, had leased these territories and now demanded their reversion.

But these territories were legitimate conquests — not leased territories. And they were not taken either from India, or from any legitimate predecessor state of the Indian Union. As a matter of fact, the Indian Union's only predecessor states are the British Indian Empire in part, and those princely states which either freely joined it or were terrorized [Travancore, Sikkim] or defrauded [eg. the Khasi States] into joining it.

There is no legal succession of any kind between the Sultanate of Bijapur and the Sultanate of Cambay on the one part, and the Indian Union on the other part.

Succession is not automatic merely because two political entities in two different time periods held the same territory!

Succession is not accidental but deliberate.

But even given that there is a legitimate succession of right from Bijapur and Cambay to the Indian Union, it does not affect the rights of Portugal in any manner, for Portugal gained these territories by legitimate conquest — a title as good as India's for much of India's territory is made up of unwilling conquests!

Given these facts, India cannot pretend that her claims upon Goa are the claims of some kind of mystical Indian Irredentism!

As a result of the blind fanaticism and philistinism stoked and fostered by Gandhi, Nehru and other Indian leaders, Indian mobs invaded the French enclave of Chandernagore in Bengal. Thereafter, France agreed to a plebiscite in the remaining four enclaves — Yanam, Pondicherry, Karaikal and Mahe de Labourdonnais — which resulted in a vote for the Indian Union. Therefore, these territories were handed over to India.

In the case of Portugal, the Portuguese government rightfully refused to even contemplate any transfer of the Portuguese provinces to India. As a result, India sent in armed mobs, aided and reinforced by regular armed troops, who seized the enclaves of Dadra and Nagar-Aveli, and briefly, Teracol, in 1954. The Goan Volunteer Militia, organised by Governor-General Dr. Jose Bossa, drove out the Indian brigands from Goa, and retook Teracol.

In 1961, India invaded and occupied all the remaining territories of Portuguese India.

Before the invasion, India, in the person of its Prime Minister Nehru, had "gratuitously" promised the Goans a referendum or plebiscite, where the Goans would be free to decide for themselves if they wanted to be an independent country or to join India, etc.

Yet, when the invasion was completed, Nehru blasely announced that he had absorbed Goa into India, and that the Goans, recognized by even the Indians as Portuguese citizens till then, had automatically, without asking for it, become Indian citizens!

Yet it is interesting to note that India had conducted plebiscites in 1947 in Junagadh, Manavadar and Mangrol, kingdoms whose Muslim rulers had desired to join Pakistan, for which they were driven out by Indian military invasions. Again, there was a similar plebiscite in Hyderabad in 1948. While there was no plebiscite in 1954 or 1961, there was a plebiscite in 1971, when the Indians invaded Sikkim, kidnapped the King, forced him to sign away his kingdom to India at gunpoint, and then held a "plebiscite" where Nepalese citizens settled in Sikkim voted against retaining Sikkimese independence and instead chose to be annexed to India!

It is interesting to know why a plebiscite was not permitted to the Goans, even when it was most piously promised, and by none other than Nehru himself!

No official reasons have ever been given, but the facts are too obvious to be ignored: Of all the Portuguese citizens, Goans, resident in India during 1947-1961, some one hundred and fifty thousand plus at any given time, of whom fully one hundred thousand lived in the city of Bombay alone, far fewer than two hundred Goans actually supported or acquiesced in the Indian campaign of terrorism against Goa. The vast majority, far more than ninety-nine percent of the agitators who violated the borders of Goa, and who were sent by India on armed terrorist raids into Goa to perpetrate acts of terrorism in order to bring about a breakdown in the constitutional setup in Goa, were Indians, not Goans.

Given those facts, Nehru and the Indians knew that they had no chance at all if a free plebiscite was held in Goa, and therefore they refused to permit one.

Yet, at the end of the day, it remains that India's actions are illegal, null and void, nothing more than and nothing more lawful than that of a bandit and an abductor and a robber who takes and holds stolen goods. India has not and had no case for claiming Goa. Its only real complaint against Goa was that it was an "ugly pimple", to quote Nehru directly, and that it interrupted the continuity of the Indian state.

But that is not a legitimate argument. The world is full of states that are actually little more than enclaves. If the Precedent set by Nehru was to be accepted as the norm, it would mean that the rights and dignity of man would mean nothing but fiddlesticks, and that the right to hold continuous territory is greater than the rights and dignity of human beings!

Indians are taught that India is a nation; that the Indian nation was born in 1947. It is true that there was never any nation of India before 1947, so that if there is one now, it must have been born at some date quite recently, and 1947 is a reasonable date.

But such a claim makes shipwreck of India's claims upon Goa.

However, it is a fact that India is not a nation, but a collection of nations. The territories of these nations have been put together by the English. Yet it remains true that these nations are not homogenous but that they are often hostile to the concept of India. Many of the nations of India are the remnants of the aborigine nations, and have survived the Aryan Conquest and in surviving, their tradition has been a tradition of constant hostility towards the concept of India, which has inflicted upon them so much suffering, and even aimed to extinguish them.

These territories did not willingly agree to be part of India, but neither the English nor the Indians allowed them freedom to choose as they wished, and rather imposed upon them with brute force.

[Principally, the Nagas and the Tamils. The Tamils were successfully terrorized by India into quiescence, while the Naga War of Independence drags on to our day.]

Yet it is instructing to inquire into the history of Indian Unity. It is striking that in ancient Egypt and in China, the people quickly latched onto the idea of a greater unity encompassing all of Egypt and of China, respectively, so that they held on to the ideal of a single united state. On the contrary, the nations of Greece jealously held on to their separate city-states, the polises, and survived until they were overwhelmed by the Roman Empire.

In the case of India, it is striking that there was never any ideal of a single united state to encompass all of India. While it is true that at some time or the other, some or the other state came to dominate a wide area, and formed some kind of an empire, such contrivances were ephemeral, and usually did not survive the first major crisis. More importantly, there was never any tradition of a single Indian state encompassing all of India, as China sedulously held to that tradition.

The reasons for this are not too difficult to uncover. It is in the peculiar arrangement by which the Brahmin and Kshatriya castes agreed to cooperate to keep India subdued before them. The Brahmins, the teachers and priests, taught the Kshatriya, the ruler, that it was the duty of every Kshatriya — the Kshatriya Dharma — to aspire to founding his own state, and to expanding it at the expanse of his neighbours. Thus Kshatriyas constantly contrived to found their own states. This was a formula guaranteed to produce eternal chaos and civil war, and that is in fact what it did produce.

As against this idea of Kshatriya Dharma as taught by the Brahmins, the English fused all of the sub-continent into one state for their own particular administrative convenience. The Hindus — largely the Brahmins — have latched onto this united state and have hijacked it to their own ends. Today, the Indianist pretends that Indian Unity is a sacred dogma of Hinduism!

The Indian aggression against Goa, and the denial to Goans of their right to self-determination is based upon this pretension of Indian Unity as a sacred dogma of Hinduism.

Yet it is a fact that India is not merely limited to the limits of the Indian Union, or even to the larger limits of British India, but includes all of the East Indies, which name is a synonym for India. And yet, if India was being irredentist, it should have been irredentist, not merely towards Goa, but towards all of the East Indies.

But it is patent that the Indian Union harbours, for now, no such ambitions. It does not, for it is content to consolidate itself as Hindu India, and bringing these territories will dilute the Hindu predominance and the program of consolidating the Hindus, so that they will be strengthened to take up the program of World Empire.

Therefore, I have conclusively proven that India never had any moral or legal basis to levy any kind of claim upon Goa. It did not have it in "Irredentism", and in fact, its claims lie baldly upon nothing other than the "Doctrine of Territorial Continuity", a kind of idolatry of land, to the utter disregard of peoples.

Such a doctrine is unconscionable and a threat to mankind, for it has already thrust mankind into many ugly wars, and is still capable of causing more misery to mankind.

It is a doctrine of brigands and robbers, of misanthropes and malefactors. It cannot confer any rights upon those who rob others of their rights, nor can it, as a matter of fact.

To sum up:

India has had no moral or legal basis to prefer a claim or pretension to and over Goa, over the territories of Portuguese India. India's actions are illegal, null and void.

The lawfulness of its actions — its mendacious pretension of rights over, and its campaign of terrorism and its invasions against, Goa rest upon nothing more or less than the lawfulness of the robber to rob, and of the thief to thieve.

It's right to hold Goa, once stolen, is the right to hold stolen property and not to restore it.

Its moral basis is sheer mendacity in crime and a pure and unadulterated humbug heaped upon pure and unadulterated humbug heaped upon pure and unadulterated humbug. That, and nothing more.

I believe that I have made my case. I rest.

Lucio Mascarenhas
PS: These pages may be of further value in your education as to facts, but I am not holding my breath:
  1. The Indian Union's "Case" Against Goa

  2. Chetak's Flame
From: Asheesh Shah
Subject: Re: Free Goa - Bharatis are the ones going to Portugal
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:13:25 +0000

Dear All

A very small but relevant difference, Indians are not carving out a small section of portugal and demanding independence. As for their legal status, what was the legal status of the portugese when they landed in India and created a colony?

As for the first gentleman who wrote about UN recognition, please read a bit more history. The portugese military junta took the matter to the World Court ... and lost. I can understand the difficulty in retort, but after all, your backgrounds are the same as the dictatorships that ran portugal for so long and to this day, as is self evident by the detail of you web site justify colonialism.

Good Day All
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:23:20 +0100 (BST)
From: Bernado Colaco
Subject: Re: Free Goa - Bharatis are the ones going to Portugal

With fake documentation it is the Shahs who have made Portugal their home. Maybe this Shah should visit Avenida Almirante Reis in Lisbon to see for himself the 'success' of his bharati brothers.

--- >Lucio Mascarenhas wrote:
Dear Errol,

Are we obliged to pay attention to every brainless, mindless and dumb Indian idiot that spews venom at us?

And who is this Beluga Whale?

Another of those Indian clones and zombies, brought up on the sewage of "Indian glory and superiority" and so lacking in intelligence as to not question this bilge?

I do not think that we need to bother ourselves over these contemptible specimen of sub-human anthropomorphs...


Lucio Mascarenhas
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Errol Rodrigues
To: "Asheesh Shah" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Goa Freedom


We Goans were never given the choice, and held up at gunpoint. The invasion and occupation of Goa without a mandate from the people of Goa was a complete injustice.

The Indian government invaded my country Goa and Promised the indigenous goan people a referendum on autonomy or Independence. People like us have been persistently asking for a Referendum on Goa, to be decided by indigenous Goans, on autonomy or Independence. The people of Goa are a passive and friendly race who does not have a tradition or culture of violence. We will respect the Outcome of the referendum.

The United Nations has never recognised the invasion/annexation of Goa.


Errol Rodriques
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Errol Rodrigues
Subject: Fwd: Goa Freedom

More RSS supporters; insisting Goans to leave Goa; for the Indian perhaps?
From: "Asheesh Shah" [email protected]
To: Errol Rodrigues
Subject: Goa Freedom
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:23:52 +0000

Yo do not have to put up with any of this Indian nonsense. Please pack your bags and go back to fucking potugal. Simple!

Asheesh Shah

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