Dom Romeo da Silva's Speech
© 2003, A.D., P.J. Mascarenhas, Goa Livre Organisation
Address Delivered By Dom Romeo da Silva, Kenya Delegate, To The Goan Conference, Paris
Mr. President, Ladies, Gentlemen:
Aside from any other claims to redress that we have, touching on our case for an Indian withdrawal from Goa, I would like to mention that there exists a legal case within the framework of the operations of the United Nations Organization. I am to refer to the classification of "Goa and dependencies" as a non-self-governing territory within the meaning of Chapter IX of the Charter. This emerges from the Resolution under reference 1542 (XV) as submitted by the 4th. Committee A/4651 adopted by the Assembly on 15th. December 1960 to which India was a consenting party.
I quote: (Refer to page 3 of Goan Association letter of 13th. August 1962 to the Secretary General, UNO. See here.)
It is clear that the UN considered Goa, Damao and Dio as non-self-governing territories and in this connection Mr. President had already quoted Principles VI and IX listed by the UNO for determining the existence of an obligation to transmit information to the United Nations on non-self-governing territories.
In terms of the good faith which subscribers to the UNO may be expected to bring to their endorsement of the various resolutions passed from time to time, it becomes clear that we have a legal right to demand of the United Nations that it enforce the content of its own prescriptions — the more so when an Organisation of Goans such as ourselves duly constituted as a representative body of Goans acting outside the constraints of Indian coercion, formally calls upon it to honour those prescriptions.
We consider that all member nations of the UN, jointly as well as severally, arein duty and honour bound to support our stand on this issue.
In particular, I take this opportunity of calling upon the USSR, a country by the operation of whose veto Indian aggression was given a free reign, to accept the challenge to prove her good faith and sincerity in supporting the true interests of dependent peoples by supporting, if not sponsoring, our plea for redress of our grievances vis-a-vis Inda, coming within the letter and spirit of the quoted resolution which I have just read to you.
Irrespective of the deliberation of the UNO, a body which seems rapidly to become a reservoir of ineptitude, sanctimony and humbug, it scarcely needs to be said that our right to self-determination does not derive from any government or institution. It is our birthright, our inalienable birthright. We therefore meet here on this 3rd. day of December, 1963, to reiterate that demand of self-determination for our peoples. (Cheers).
To those in this world who may feel that we may have no case for, no birthright to self-determination, to those who may feel that the resolutions of the UNO cannot be enlisted in our support whatever the reason at all, I will mention that we have before us the pledge, the solemn pledge of a head of Government, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, made in his capacity as Prime Minister of India, which has been read out to you at the outset-verbatim by Mr. President and quoted also by Mr. Fonseca. Need I stress that this pledge was made by a head of Government acting lawfully within his function, made deliberately to secure the allegiance of Goans to the anti-colonial concept, made soberly by that head of Government at a time, no doubt, when he was of sound mind, made to all intents and purposes at the time, in all sincerity and solemnity and with no intention but to honour it in the text and spirit. And yet here we are confronted withthe situation where that same head of Government during his very same term of office, while the very same regime on whose behalf the pledge was made, continues in office , — we are confronted I say with the situation where that Government in this era of enlightenment, the 20th. century, the second half of the twentieth century which has witnessed the overthrow of dictatorships and fascisms, the spread of light and means of communication of the emergence of subject nations to nationhood in the last pockets of Imperialism in Africa and Asia, — we are witnessing an attempt by a Sovereign Government to renege on a pledge, hoping doubtless that its duplicity will not travel throught channels of communication to the outside world and into the mainstream of recorded history. The Government of India cannot say that it was a former imperialistic Government that made the pledge; it cannot say that it was an opposition party that made the pledge and that it is accordingly not bound to honour it; it cannot say that it was a previous regime that made the pledge; it cannot say that it was a former Prime Minister acting unconstitutionally or capriciously who made the pledge.
I accordingly say that the Government of India has no right to be in Goa; it has no mandate from the people of Goa, never having sought a mandate from the people. (Cheers).
It has been the tragedy of mankind that whenever a people have, in the name of liberty, fraternity and equality, asserted its right to be free, thousands have laid down their lives for the cause. But it has also been the joy of mankind that with the martyrdom of man, the will of the people has forged the stronger and their love for their land has burned all the brighter.
It is regrettable if understandable, that a section of our brethren have professed to see in the reputed economic development of Goa a reason for not lending their voices to the otherwise universal call of Goans the world over, to join forces and unite. There are some who say that our deliberations contudcted in a spirit of non-violence will be fruitless. To them I say that fortified by a conviction of rectitude and high purpose, we shall continue to deliberate and to speak and to act, hewing to the line of right, fall the chips where they many! (Cheers)