Speech of Dom Mirabeau da Gama e Rosario

Dom Mirabeau's Speech
© 2003, A.D., P.J. Mascarenhas, Goa Livre Organisation

Presidential Address Delivered By Dom Mirabeau da Gama e Rosario, Kenya Delegate, To The Goan Conference, Paris
It is my privilege and honour to welcome you to this historic Conference. I also extend our fraternal greetings to all the communities which you represent this morning. The representative character of this Assembly is self evident inasmuch as you represent communities of Goans, Damanenses and Diuenses in Macau, the Far East, in Pakistan, in Aden, in Iraq, in Ethiopia, in Kenya, in Uganda, in Tanganyika, in Mocambique, in Angola, in Portugal, in Germany, in Great Britain, in the USA, in Ceylon and in Brazil. We also have two members from Damao and the other from Goa who have come here and will explain their positions to this Assmebly, but the absence of duly accredited representatives from Goa or Damao or Diu and the silence of our people today is an eloquent commentary on the conditions obtaining in our beloved homeland and the compelling reason for convening this conference.

We meet today in an hour of crisis. At this historic and solemn Assembly, History confronts you and the people of Goa, Damao and Dio with the most sombre moment of truth. This truth is the grim strugle for the survival of our people and our homeland as a distinct geographical, political, economic and social entity. For the present time we are concerned solely with the welfare and the wellbeing of our people as a nation.

We are, therefore, writing at this coference the most important chapter in our chequered history. We are indeed fighting for the basic essentials of a civilized community — the elementary human right of survival and the fundamental political freedom to determine our destiny (Cheers). As human beings we demand our God-given right of survival and as an advanced and mature community we shall fight for the dignity of our people which accords us the right to detemine our future (Cheers).

We are not confronted merely with a Common Aggressor who has over-run our country for territorial aggrandisement: We face an insidious enemy who seeks to destroy our homes, tear the centuries-old fabric of our political economic and social institutions, regiment our way of living in a manner alien to us and scrub the history of our people with one mischievous word "Liberation" (Cheers). In the face of these circumstances our country expects you to do your duty and that is to muster every ounce of strenght and offer any sacrifice demanded of us to liberate our country and our people. The historic burden and responsibility of initiating and intensifying this struggle rests on this generation. This is our sacred duty.

The world stood aghast when Mr. Nehru, the apostel of Peace and defenceless communities, invaded Goa, Damao and Dio with the brazen effrontery of an interantional bandit. But the world reserved its pained surprise only for the violence involved in the so-called liberationof our people and the international embarassment caused in the family of nations. It never challenged vigorously India's claim to liberate an Asian people and it has never since concerned itself to ascertain the wishes of our people. The world has never paused to consider that our peoples and our countries are distinct and unique communities in the Sub-Continent of India and indeed in Asia.

In the canvas of Western colonialism, History has imposed on Goa, Damao and Dio a pattern which is unique in Asia, if not in the world. Our countries were never trading stations, ruled from a thousand miles with imperial aloofness and indifference. Portugal nursed these three parcels of land into little Portugals in the Orient. She introduced her language in these countries with the same enthusiasm of a benevolent mother so that it grew to be the language of our people in our political, commercial and social life. She transplanted in our country her political, administrative, commercial and social systems which were alien to the Anglo-Saxon patterns existing for a time in the rest of the sub-continent of India.

Our people did not only enjoy the same political rights and privileges of the Portuguese Citizen in Metropolitan Portugal but our education, aspirations and ideals were geared on lines identical to those existing in Portugal. The historic development of colonialism in our countries was such that a goan, Damanense and Diuense was accepted as Civis Lusitanus and a welcomed participant in Portugal's destiny. Seeing Goa and her people Portugal's Camoes was moved to say: "Patria em pedacos repartida" How different indeed is this concept of colonialism from that of Britain's imperial poet: "The East is East and the West is West
And the twain shall never meet" To prove this phenomenon conclusively I would refer you to a booklet entitled Goa And Ourselves written by an Indian author B.K. Boman Behram: Without going far below the surface of Goan life and behaviour, it was easy to perceive that the Portuguese had done more than govern Goa. They had initiated a historic process which in the fullness of time made the Goan people a cholseknit unit of the Lusitanian family. It is a true eastern capital of the Portuguese nation, in which was formed a society with very positive Portuguese characteristics, wholly integrated in the national spirit. In the result, one finds that a true Goan feels a bond of kinship with distant Portugal which he does not with his great neighbour on the other side of the frontier. I would like this to be particularly registered because it is an Indian author speaking of our people.

And again he says: Portuguese India with a population of 6,00,000 is partly Christian and partly Hindu by a half to half proportion — a proportion which tilts in favour of the Christians if the thousands of Goan emigrants who still retain their Portuguese nationality, are taken into account. The Christians are an orientalized neo-Latin type. The Hindus, by reason of their customs andusages having been protected by special Portuguese law and by the fact that they constantly intermingled with their neighbouring co-religionists, did not integrate so much in the sociological ethnography of Goa and it cannot be said that the process of lusitanization is complet in them. But, it is pointed out, the Hindus of Portuguese India, linked by centuries of political tradition to things Portuguese, are a Portuguese type. A particular system of government and certain environment prevailing for centuries naturally change the character of a people, and the Hindus of Goa definitely differ from Hinus inhabiting the adjoining territoris. (Prolonged Cheers).

As even Mr. Behram concedes, that our people, irrespective of the faith they may profess are distinct and different in the rest of the sub-continent of India and live in complete harmony. This feature of religious peace and harmony stands in sharp contrast to the religious strife — sometimes bloody — which has smeared every chapter of Indian history since the advent of the Moghul conquerors.

When you remember that Portugal's pervasive influence has permeated every facet of our life a few hundreds of years longer than the history of India or even America as modern nations, you begin to realise just how different our people are from the rest of the sub-contien of India. Do we then deny that we are Asians? We do not! In fact we pride ourselves in our ancient Asian traditions. But we are no more and no les an Indian than a Pakistani, a Nepalese or a Bhutanese. Yet India does not chaim Pakistan, Nepal or Bhutan as an integral part of the Indian Union. By some we are condemned as pseudo-Europeans and by others scored as westernised Asians. Gentlemen, we are neither one nor the other. We are simply Goans or Damanenses or Diuenses, and very proud of it. (Cheers)

On what grounds, then, does Nehru lay claim to Goa, Damao and Dio?

Does he stake his claim on the grounds of internatinal Law? Or is it in his role as a champion of the oppressed colonials? On moral grounds! Does Nehru believe it his political duty to liberate Goa, Damao and Dio under the Charter of the United Nations Organisation as the Leader of the Afro-Asian countries? We have never been told on which of these grounds India has played the role of liberator. However let us examine each of these grounds in turn.

In respect of his claim under International Law Nehru knows his case will be laughed out of Court. He needs only be reminded that he is in contmept of the decision of the International Court of Law at the Haque which recognised Portugal's sovereignty over Goa, Damao and Dio thereby approving Portugal's presence in these territories. Yet, when Nehru was convicted at the Bar of World opinion as an aggressor, he promptly scorned International Law as designed and the International Court as influenced by Western Imperialists. Not long after this display of arrogance, he in turn, was bullied by a far stronger neighbour, China. We then find Nehru meekly and conveniently seeking refuge and justice in this same Court. Do we, indeed, need to say more on this ground?

Let us examine Nehru's role as the Champion of the Oppressed, determined to liberate all people, especially our people, from the yoke of Imperialism on moral grounds. We now immediately recognise the pious and sanctimonious face of Nehru in the Councils of the World. He assumed the leadership of the Afro-Asian countries; he signed smugly the Panchashila Agreement at the Bandung Conference only to discover later that China had practised the same deceit with even greater finesse. He preached to the world Peace and Non-Violence with the righteous anger of a prophet; he encouraged and instigated the Afro-Asian peoples to fight for their independence and their dignity in the human family.

In the late fifties, Nehru palced on record his solicitude for the political well-being of our people; he expressed determination to stop the effrontery of an Asian people being ruled by a European race; at all times, he avowed to the world that the welfare of our people was paramount in his mind.

Further, I refer you, Gentlemen, to the booklet published by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India under the caption The Goa Question which primarily deals with a speech made by Nehru at a mammoth meeting of Goans in Bombay on the 4^th June, 1956. I quote: "I want to explain myself. If the people of Goa deliberately wish to retain their separate identity, I am not going to bring them by force or compulsion or coercion into the Indian Union. I want them to come and I am 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 a matter ultimately for the people of Goa to decide... 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 wil be for the people of Goa acting frely to decide upon them." That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is Mr. Nehru in 1956. Making a solemn pledge to a mass meeting for liberation, proclaiming his solicitude and that his sole interest was the people of Goa.

One important feature in this speech, Nehru concides our individuality and accepts our right of self-determination. When the Goan Association in a Memorandum submitte to Nehru after Goa's invasion referred to this extract of his speech and demanded that he honour his pledge, we received the following reply: The people of Goa, Daman and Diu are people of India and these ex-colonial territories are an integral part of India. When the people of India launched their struggle under Mahatma Gandhi, they were determined to secure the freedom of all their compatriots. This has now been possible with the removal of the last vestiges of colonialism from the soil of India.

The Government of India fails to understand your reference to a plebiscite in the context of self-determination. Democracy does not envisage that parts of an integral nation should resort to such processes. Goa, Daman and Diu are not different countries despite their past occupation by a foreign power. At the same time, Government of India have decided that unless the people of Goa, Daman and Diu so decide for themselves they will constitute a separate Union Territory, which will not be merged into any adjoining State of India.

The reunion of Goa, Daman and Diu with the rest of India on the 20^th December, 1961, entitles the people of those territories the fundamental rights and all the privileges guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The rest of India has just finished its third country-wide elections fo the democratic institutions established under the Indian Constitution, with a total electorate of about 210 million voters. In the near future, the people of Goa, Daman and Diu will also have free and democratic elections, which have been denied them under the Portuguese colonial regime. They will similarly join the other States and Union territories of India in the vast developement and the people of India." Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, you have before you two extracts and pronouncements each of the two speeches made by the same man, same Government and during the same term of office. You see for yourselves the brazen betrayal of our people and the deceit practised on our people and the world in general in these two documents. And what did this so-called liberation bring in its immediate wake to our people? Rape, murder, destruction, Indian troops, who behaved as arrogant conquerors, the replacement of administrative personnel with Indian civil servants, unemployment and the lowering of our standard of living. The promised freedom of speech of the press were dramatically dened when the O Heraldo was closed down because it published a call to all Goans to demand our right of self-detemination promised by Mr. Nehru. Without consulting our people India has proceeded to annex our countries by an Act of Parliament. And Indoe does not stop there! She has embarked on a careful plan to destroy our individuality by dividing our country and parcelling our people between the neighbouring provinces of Maharashtra and Mysore.

To prove my point even more conclusively I quote the advice given to the Goans only last month in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanganyika, when Dinesh Singh, the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India said the following — this is a report of that confidential meeting: The Minister in his reply advised the delegation not to get themselves involved in such highly political matters. He asked the delegation not to think in terms of such narrow compartments such as a separate province but to look ahead to the benefits that would be derived from developments now taking place in India as a whole. The Minister continued that the economy of Goa was such that it would not be able to meet the salary of even the Governor, let alone the other expenses involved in runnig of a state; in other words the Minister was of the opinion that Goa was not economically viable. He said that if Goans insisted on remaining a separate province instead of joining either of the other big provinces like Maharashtra or Mysore, it would merely serve as material for the Portuguese propaganda. The Minister assumed that none of the members of the delegation had ay first-hand knowledge about Goa after liberation and he questioned as to what contribution we Goans had made towards liberation of Goa, Damao and Dio. He once again stressed that this was a matter primarily for the people of Goa on the spot and the Government of India to be concerned with and we in East Africa would be best advised to stay clear of such affairs." This is another stage in the process of betrayal. First, they promised us the right of Self-Determination. Then promptly turned round and said that it was an integral part of India and could not understand anyone asking for the right of Self-Determination. Now they decide that they wish to divide the country between the provinces of Maharashtra and Mysore because they feel that it will be economically more viable because of course we could nont even pay the salary of the Governor: We have done that for the last 450 years!

In the face of these incontrovertible facts can Nehru make even a pretence to claok his aggression with the mantle of morality? The truth now emerges that Nehru never intended honouring any of his assurances given to the people of Goa, Damao and Dio.

To turn to the last ground whereby India may claim a right to liberate an Asian people under the Charter and Resolutions of the United Naitons Organisation I would refer you to the various Resolutions to which India has been a signatory and consenting party in that Organisation.

By a Resolution under reference 1542 (XV) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15^th December 1960, namely before India's aggression India voted and agreed that Goa, Damao and Dio were non-self-governing states.

There is, therefore, no doubt, that India conceded our country at that time as a non-self-governing territory. The United Nations Organisation lists certain guiding principles for the guidance of colonial powers in the evolution of these States into self-governing independent countries. I refer you in particular to Principles VI and IX listed in the Resolution reference 1541 (XV) as submitted by the 4^th Committee A/4651 adopted by the Assembly on the 15^th of December 1960, to which India was again a party. Now Principle VI states 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 an independent state; or

Integration with an independent state.
We are naturally concerned with (c) at the movemnt: Principle IX goes further: Integration should have come about in the following circumstances:
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 maek a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;

The integration should be the result of the freely-expressed wishes of the territory's peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through infomed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. The United Nations could, when it deems it necessary, supervise these processes.
These Principles clearly stated that a Non-Self-Governing country may integrate with an independent State through the usual democratic processes of a referendum which emphasizes the right of self-determinationn. In any even integration should be the result of the free will of our people. We, therefore, demand of India as a signatory to these Resolutions to grant us the opportunity to express the wishes of our people by way of a referendum. (Cheers)

The Charter of the United Nations Organisation has carefully enshrined the rights and freedom of all peoples and particularly so in Article 73, Chapter XI in which the following declaration appears: "Members of the United Nations which have or assumed responsibilities of the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests fo the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and assent as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, with the system of international peace and security established by the present Chater the well being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspiration of the peoples, and to assist the progressive development of their fre political institutions, according to the particular circumstance sof each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;"
This theme has been further confirmed and elaborated in a Resolution passed on the 14^th December, 1960, and known by the United Nations reference N.^o 1514 (XV) to which India was a signatory. It reads in part this: "The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to re-affirm fiath in fundamental humanrights, in the dignity and work of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progrss and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

"COnsidering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independ in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,"

Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their soveriegnty and the integrity of their national territory,"

Declares that:

"2. All peoples have the right of self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic and cultural development."
"3. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories whihc have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of these territories, without any conditions or reservations in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom." It is celar from these Resolutions and principles set forth by the united Naitons that it is incumbent on India to ascertain the wishes of the people.

India, however, through its representative, Mr. Jha formally states "that the annexation of Goa, Damao and Dio is a matter of faith with us. Whatever anyone else 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." — that is India speaking after signing, voting and declaring all these Resolutions that I have quoted to you (Cheers). India's fiath apparently was its right to annex the territories of Goa, Damao and Dio, and that in sheer defiance of not only our people but of all the nations of the world.

As the UNO was founded on such noble principles we submitted two Memoranda presenting our case for Self-Determination and reminding the Secretary General of the aforesaid Articles of the UN and Resolutions of the General Assembly. We begged him to bring to bear his international reputation and influence to persuade India to agree to our right of Self-Determination. we got no joy from him; just a curt card of acknowledgement.

Now, my dear friends, we know from our historical experience, that the Mute and the Weak, however just their Cause will never evoke active sympathy from any nation unless we pay the price which FREEDOM demands — SACRIFICE. (Cheers).

We therefore meet this afternoon to launch a solid Orgnaization, geared to one goal: to demand our right to Self-Determination (Cheers). To this end your communities and our people will give a solemn mandate to the Organization to fight for our Cause with every conceivable means. We msut no longer dissipate our energies and our eforts.

We meet here today to announce to the World our peoples' solidarity in our struggle for FREEDOM AND OUR DIGNITY (Cheers). We serve NOTICE ON INDIA of our unswerving purpose to fight for our Right of Self-Determination, wherever we can. We are determined to raise in protest the stiffled voice of our Country on every occasion that India raises its sanctimonious voice and preaches to the World its Gospel of Peace, Justice, Freedom and Non-Violence.

My dear friends, I call upon every man and woman to unfurl our banner and to nail it to the mast head of our future Organization and let us prove to the World that we are not a gutless, spineless people and we will all rally to our Call — Our Contry — Our People (prolonged cheers).

I shall now read out to you the text of the letters addressed to the SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS BY

The Goan Association
P.O. Box 16082. Nairobi. Kenya.
16^th. January, 1962.

The Secretary General,
The United Nations Organisation,
NEW YORK,
U.S.A.

Sir,

I am directed by my Committee to submit this Memorandum on behalf of the above Association both for your consideration and that of your Organization. We would inform you that copies of this Memorandum are being sent to the Chief Delegates of various national delegations to your Organisation. This Memorandum is being submitted for your sympathetic consideration in the agonising and sincere hope that the call of our people will not be ignored.

Our Association has been spontaneously launched in Kenya, East Africa on the rising tide of over-whelming Goan reaction to the failure of the Reputblic of India to hand over Goa to Goans to decide their political status. Our Association 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 Association has for its primary object the attainment of an Independent Republic of Goa. Our Association hereby earnestly requests you to bring to bear your international reputation and influence on the Government of India to place Goa under UNO Trusteeship with a view to a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the Goans. We are convinced by far and large that the poeple of Goa and Goans overseas have more than an overwhelming desire to be free from outside rule whether of Portugal or of India.

Long before the sub-continent of India was welded into a nation, the peoples of Goa, even before the advent of Portugal 450 years ago, were a viable political, social and economic entity. The occupation of Goa by Portugal over the last 450 years has further accentuated theunique character both of your country and of our people. Goans fought with untold sacrifices for over 200 years to attain a republic. The Press of the world has on record the admission from no les an authority than India herself on the eve of the invasion of Goa tha tthe identity of Goa was markedly different from the rest of the sub-continent and would be so preserved This separate identity of our people is true in very section of the population irrespective of the faith they may possess. The Government of India was constrained to make the above admission bespite their knowledgte that the majority of our people profess the same Hindu religion which is the predominant religion of the Republic of India. The constitution of the Republic of India has clearly pronounced that the Indian Union is a secular State. It therefore follows that the Government of India cannot and in fact does not lay claims to countries or peoples merely by virtue of the fact that such country is populated by people of the Hindu faith. Moreover, the Hindu faith is professed not only by the people of the sub-continent of India but by substantial minorities all over Asia.

Our political institutions and the economic fabric of our country follows a pattern which is different from that existing in the neighbouring countries. Our social pattern of existence is even more alien to that of our neighbouring countries.

There have been repeated calls from the United Nations Organisation to all the Colonial Powers of the World to encourage, promote and allow the subject peoples not only to express their political wishes but also to rule themselves. This clarion call has its source of inspiration in the United Nations Charter and as further reinforced by Resolution of 14^th. December, 1960 passed unanimously by 89 countries of which clause 5 quoted hereunder is relevant: "Immediate steps shall be taken in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other Territories which have not yet attained independence to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories without any conditions or reservations in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire without any distinction as to race, creed or colour in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom." Your Organisation has further condemned and indirectly censured Colonial Powers who either refuse independence to subject peoples or fitht shy of encourageing independence movements. Whilst the world may have been divided on the morality of India's march into Goa, there can be no difference of opinion as to whether the Goans have as a people the sovereign right to decide for themselves their own destinies. We are assured by the Government of India that her entry into Goa was purely an act of liberation from the yoke of a foregin poeple, although this has been condemned by the World Press as pure aggression. We submit that India will only justify her action before the bar of world opinion if she abides by the foregoing demands; otherwise this reputed liberation of Goa will be recognised as no more than named aggression and neo-colonialism.

Our country is at the moment viable economically. Our people are advanced enough to run our own affairs. We have in fact members of our community holding positions of trust, prestige and responsibility both in the Government of India and in the Government of Portugal.

In the political turmoil of world affairs your Organisation is being drawn into the role of protector of the weak. It is in this spirit that we submit and we ask you to appeal to the Government of India, which professes and is indeed a democratic State, to allow us this fundamental right of self-determination.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Romeo J. da Silva, Secretary

The Goan Association
P.O. Box 5506. Nairobi. Kenya.
13^th. August, 1962.

The Secretary General,
The United Nations Organisation,
NEW YORK,
U.S.A.

Sir,

I am directed by my Committee to refer to our letter dated the 16^th of January, 1962, to which we have not been favoured with a reply, and to address this further communication to your.

We are constrained to write to you further in view of several unfortunate events which are contributing towards a progressive deterioration of the situation in our country — Goa. You will recall our pela to you to bring to bear your influence on India in order to persuade her to hold a free plebiscite and thereby ascertain the wishes of the people of Goa on the future of their coutnry. We demand this freedom of choice as our fundamental democratic right.

It may intrigue those not familiar with India's techique of liberation that a mass of Goans several hundred miles away from the scene of action, should concern themselves with the fate of Goa, rather than the inhabitants resident in Goa itself. As I pointed out in my earlier communications to you, the Goan people, under India's de facto hegemony, laboru under duress. The same obtains with reference to the mass of Goans resident in the territories of Portugal. What India claims as liberation is, in the view of the Goan people, no more than a case of territorial aggrandisement; it is no more (and no less) than the substitution of one yoke for another. It is imperative (and indeed implicit in the term "liberation") that the wishes fo the people are asceretained through free and democratic processes, i.e. a plebiscite.

Since India's march into Goa, the economic and political conditions in Goa have fast deteriorated. Our people have suffered murder, rape and arson at the hands of the Indian troops. These allegations are borne out by reports and photographs which appeared in the Indian Press. Our economic and political institutions hve been shattered by the determined efforts of the Indian Occupation to integrate them into the larger pattern obtaining in India. There is now mass unemployment in Goa. The administration of our country has been taken over by Indian officials brought over from India, when the people of Goa have the personnel to run the administration and public services of our country. Int his respect, we do not refer necessarily to civil servants who were employed by the Portuguese Administration. It is rumoured that at leas 18,000 Goans are fleeing from the country which India will have the wold to believe has been liberated for the sake of its own people. Ther is neither freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, nor freedom of the Press. We refer you to the recent closure of a distinguished and longstanding Goan newspaper, the O Heraldo, which openly demanded that the Indian Occupation should hold a free plebiscite. In this connection, the leading Indian daily, the TImes of India, commented "that the old censorship law... apparently remains." In the face of these conditions, we renew our plea that your Organisation and its member-states bring pressure to bear on India to hold a free plebiscite. It is your Organisation which has inspried, encouraged and assisted the peoples of Non-Self-Governing countries to fight for their inalienable human rights of freedom and independence. May we refer you to your Charter and in particular to Article 73, Chapter XI, in which the following declaration appears: "Members of the United Nations which have or assumed responsibilities of the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests fo the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and assent as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, with the system of international peace and security established by the present Chater the well being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspiration of the peoples, and to assist the progressive development of their fre political institutions, according to the particular circumstance sof each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;"
We again refer you to the further resolution passed on the 14^th of December, 1960, and known by your reference N^o. 1514 (XV), to which India was a signatory, and from which we now quote: "The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to re-affirm fiath in fundamental humanrights, in the dignity and work of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progrss and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

"COnsidering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independ in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,"

Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their soveriegnty and the integrity of their national territory,"

Declares that:

"2. All peoples have the right of self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic and cultural development."
"3. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories whihc have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of these territories, without any conditions or reservations in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom." Again, your Organisation specifically insisted that certain member-states were duty bound to supply information in respect of their non-self-governing territories, vide the resolution under reference 1542 (XV) as submitted by the 4^th Committee A/4651 adopted by the Assembly on 15^th December, 1960, and to which India was a consenting party: "The General Assembly,
"Recalling that, by resolution 742 (VIII) of 27^th November 1953, the General Assembly approved a list of factors to be used as a guide in determining whether a Territory is or is no longer within the scope of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations,

"Recalling also that differences of views arose among Member States concerning the status of certain territories under the administrations of Portugal and Spain and described by these two states as 'overseas provinces' of the metropolitan states concerned, and that with a view to resolving those differences the General Assembly, by resolution 1467 (XIV) of 12^th December 1959, appinted the Special Committee of Six on the transmission of Information under Article 73e of the Charter to study the principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for in Article 73e.

"Recognising that the desire for independenc is the rightful aspiration of peples under colonial subjugation and that the denial of their right to self-determination constitutes a trheat to the well-being of humanity and to international peace,

"Recalling with satisfaction the statement of the representative of Spain at the 1048^th meeting of the Fourth Committee that his Government agrees to transmit information ot the Secretary-General in accordance with the provision of Chapter XI of the Charter.

"Mindful of its responsibilities under Article 14 of the Charter,

"Being aware that the Government of Portugal has not transmitted information on the territories under its administration which are enumerated in operating paragrpah 1 below and has not expressed any intention of doing so, and because such information as is otherwsie available in regard to the conditions in these territories gives cause for concern.

"1. Considers that, in the light of the provisions of Chapter XI of the Charter, General Assembly resolution 742 (VIII) and the principles approved by the assembly in resolution 1541 (XV) of 15^th December 1960, the territories under the administration of Portugal listed hereunder are Non-Self-Governing Territories within the meaning of Chapter XI of the Charter:
The Cape Verde Archipelago;

Guinea, called Portuguese Guinea;

Sao Tome and Principe, and their dependencies;

Sao Joao Batista de Ajuda;

Angola, including the enclave of Cabinda;

Mozambique;

Goa and dependencies, called the State of India;

Macau and dependencies;

Timor and dependencies;
There is therefore no doubt that Goa and dependencies were and are considered by your organisation to be non-self-governing countries.

Your Organisation lists certain guiding principles for determining the existence of an obligation to transmit information to the United Nations on non-self-governing territories and further lists principles on which integration may come about. We refer you to Principles 6 and 9 listed in the resolution reference 1541 (XV) as submitted by the 4^th Committee A/4651 adopted by the Assembly on the 15^th of December 1960, to which India was again a party: 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 an independent state; or

Integration with an independent state.
Principle IX

Integration should have come about in the following circumstances:
The integrating territory should have attained to 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;

The integration should be the result of the freely-expressed wishes of the territory's peoples 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.
India has failed to respect or comply with any of the principles listed above, even though she voted for these resolutions in the Assembly.

The Prime Minister of India has, in the past, voices assurances that, if and when the Portuguese went and the people of Goa deliberately wished to retain their separate identity, he would not bring them by force or coercion into the Indian Union. This is indeed an admission of our distinct character from that of the rest of the sub-continent of India. However, following the occupation of Goa, India is attempting to renege on these assurances of her Prime Minister on various specious grounds, such as that Goa is geographically, culturally and ethnically a part of India, etc. She has gone further and passed an Act in Parliament during its March Session unilaterally integrating Goa into India, in clear breach of the very principles which, as pointed out above, she has purported to support in the Assembly. This conduct of the Government of India amounts to a gross betrayal of the trust placed in her by the pepole of Goa; it als belies the high notion concerning India's integrity current among certain nations. Nehru himself is not a stranger to the idea of a plebiscite being held in Goa. In fact, at a mammoth meeting held in Bombay, India, on the 4^th of June, 1956, Mr. Nehru pledged himself in no less than the following terms: "I want to explain myself. If the people of Goa, that is, minus the Portuguese Government — if and when the Portuguese go and the people of Goa deliberately wish to retain their separate identity, I am not going to bring them by force or coercion in the Indian Union.

"I want them to come, and I am quite certain they want to come too. But that is not the point. I merely say that my naitnal interest involves the removal of the Portuguese from Goa, not coercion being used in bringing about the union of Goa with India althoug I wish it, I desire it and it is the only solution. That is a matter ultimately for the people of Goa to decide... I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no desire to coerce Goa to join India agains 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." We now plead with your Organisatin and its Member States not to gloss over this breach of pledge given to the people of Goa, nor to sacrifice our country to political expediency. It is the moral duty of your Organisation to ensure that the Goan people will be granted an opportunity to exercise their fundamental right of self-determination.

Doubtless our country and our people are small in the context of world problems, but the moral and political issues involved are those on which your Organisation has been founded — the protection of the weak and the poorer peoples of the world. In the name of our people, we demand a free plebiscite. We demand a plebiscite in the name of the same moral and political concepts which gave birth to your Organisation and have since (occasionally) animated it.

Yours faithfully,

Romeo J. da Silva, Secretary

Now here is the text of the letter addressed to the Indian Prime Minister by

The Goan Association
P.O. Box 5506. Nairobi. Kenya.
26^th. February, 1962.
COPY

The Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi,
INDIA.

Sir,

On behalf of this Association I am directed to submit respectfully this memorandum for your consideration and action.

THis Association in East Africa was launched recently on the spontaneous tide of reaction to the developments which have overtaken our country — Goa. Our Association is anti-colonial. Its members have alwasy sought to rid themselves of foreign rule. Our Association has and claims the overwhelming support of Goan opinion in East Africa for its primary object. At a mass meeting of Goans held in Nairobi on the 11^th of February 1962 under the auspices of the above Association, it was overwhelmingly resolved that "the Constitutional future of Goa be decided by a fair and free plebiscite." The primary object of my association is to secure from you, Sir, and your Government the basic right of self-determination through a plebiscite. We request that this plebiscite be held divorced from any pressures of politics, be they national or internatinal, in order to decide whether the Goans would wish to merge into the Union of India or become a separate Independent State with affiliations with the neighbouring country, India.

We submit for consideration that this simple and fundamental right of self-determination is essential not ony to prove democracy in practice but also necessary fo the dignity of our people as a citilized and mature community. As a champion of Democracy and of subject peoples the world over, we submit this appeal to you in the earnest hope that you will respect the dignity and the wishes of our people. We do appreciate that you staked not only your international prestige but also the position of India in the COuncils of the World when India marched into Goa. We should be grateful to you and to the people of India if you would grant the first and only gift which you can offer us as a result of your action in Goa — self-determination.

Sir, you are aware that the people of Goa have continuously relied on the bonafides of yor intentions in marching into Goa. We refer to you, Sir, to the booklet published by the Ministry of External Affairs under the caption of The Goa Question. The said booklet contains primarily the text of your address to a mammoth rally of Goans on 4^th June 1956. We quote the relvant assurances given by you to the Goans: "I want to explain myself. If the people of Goa, that is, minus the Portuguese Government — if and when the Portuguese go and the people of Goa deliberately wish to retain their separate identity, I am not going to bring them by force or coercion in the Indian Union.

"I want them to come, and I am quite certain they want to come too. But that is not the point. I merely say that my naitnal interest involves the removal of the Portuguese from Goa, not coercion being used in bringing about the union of Goa with India althoug I wish it, I desire it and it is the only solution. That is a matter ultimately for the people of Goa to decide... I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no desire to coerce Goa to join India agains 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." Sir, on thes assurances the people of Goa and my Association now look to you with absolute confidence and faith in the integrity of your intentins to this pledge to our people. Itis true that our people have not contributed by force of arms towards the liberation of our country. The reason for it is simple: We were helpless both by reason of number and by nature of the Government then obtaining in our country. However, we trust that our people will not be taken for granted again by our fellow brethren.

It is therefore with grave disquiet and anxiety that we read the intentions of your Government to pass a Bill in the Indian Parliament providing for an amendment to the Constitution annexing Goa to the Union of India. We do not see preparation being made by your Government to hold a plebiscite to ascertain as to whether our people have the desire to integrate with India or not.

As a small pocket with no ambitions for political grandeur or power in world politics, Goa does not constitute a threat to India. On the contrary it will remain a symbol to the world of India's honest intentions against colonialism. Like Pondicherry which you have described as a cetner of French culture and civilization in India, we are confident that you will equally accept that Goa will offer another centre which is neither completely oriental nor completely occidental, but Goan.

Sir, I trust that this memorandum will be submitted to you for symapthetic consideration which it deserves. We look to you to assit us in rescuing the dignity of our people by granting us first and foremost the fundamental right of self-determination.

Yours faithfully,

Romeo J. da Silva, Secretary