Indian Union vs. EIP
© Prakash J. Mascarenhas, 25th October 2002. Revised 11th December 2002
Let us examine the case of the Indian Union against the EIP.
Case History: The Indian Union claimed that the EIP was (and is) a natural part of itself, unnaturally separated, and demanded from Portugal their cession. Upon the refusal of Portugal, the Indian Union, through its agents, claiming to be private citizens, both of the EIP and of the Indian Union, invaded and seized the enclaves of Dadra and of Nagar-Haveli in 1954, which were then 'merged' by these terrorists and this 'merger' accepted, by the Indian Union. Subsequently, after an unsuccessful blockade against the remaining EIP territories, the Indian Union invaded the EIP in 1961 and annexed it.
The Indian Union proffers these arguments as the bases of her 'title' for claims and invasions, etc.:
I submit that these are all lies, deliberate lies. I will now prove my contentions against those of the Indian Union.
Natural Right
In 1937, the predecessor in title of the Indian Union, the British East Indian Empire was partitioned, with the active acquiescence of the political parties of the remainder of the Empire, to create the new Dominions of Burma and Ceylon (including the Maldive Islands Archipelago), on the basis that these territories had Buddhist majorities.
This partition was part of a package by which the provinces of Bihar and Orissa were spun off from the Bengal presidency, and Sindh from the Bombay Presidency, with the active participation and approval of all Indian parties, who were consulted both by the British East Indian Imperial government in Delhi and by the British government in London.
The Indian Union has always most solemnly protested and professed that it recognized the territorial integrity of both these states, which professions and protestations are now part of international treaties, obligations and laws.
Again, in 1947, after resistance, the main parties of the Indian Union acquiesced in the partition of the remainder of the Empire to carve out for the Muslims (at the urgent and pressing demands of the Muslim League led by Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah) the state of Pakistan (which then also included Bangladesh). In this case too, the Indian Union has continuously and always most solemnly protested and professed that it recognized the territorial integrity of Pakistan (and Bangladesh), which professions and protestations are now part of international treaties, obligations and laws. Nor has the Indian Union ever attempted to reclaim Pakistan and Bangladesh, exercising its 'natural' right, despite aiding Bangladesh in attaining independence from Pakistan. In fact, the Indian Union, to evidence to this her spirit, freely withdrew from parts of Pakistan Punjab that it had seized during the 1971 war.
Following the collapse of the Mughal Empire, the petty principalities of the Himalayas threw off the Mughal and provincial yokes and reasserted their independence. However, taking advantage of the anarchy, the principality of Gorkha invaded and overthrew its larger Eastern neighbour, Newar, whose name they corrupted as Nepal, and established the Nepalese Empire. The Nepalese Empire waxed forth to include a large part of the Sub-Himalayan districts both east and west of Gorkha, until they fell afoul of the simultaneously expanding English imperialists and were, as a result, confined to their present borders, losing in the bargain their conquests of Sikkim, Darjeeling, Pithoragarh, Garhwal, Kumaoun, Lahaul & Spiti, Chamba, Simla, etc.: the present Indian Union provinces or territories of Himanchal Pradesh, Uttaranchal Pradesh, Sikkim and the 'Gorkhaland' Autonomous Region.
This establishment of modern Nepal happened long after the Portuguese took the EIP.
The Indian Union has never contemplated annexing Nepal, although she had had ample opportunity, such as the invasion by Indian Union on invitation of the then King Tribhuvan, to overthrow the upstart Ranas, and reassert the Royal authority. On the contrary, the Indian Union has by treaties and on numerous occasions reasserted its recognition of Nepalese territorial integrity and independence.
In 1947, the Dogra Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir was invaded by agents of Pakistan as a result of which it precipately acceded to the Indian Union. However, the Indian Union failed to procure the entire evacuation of the former Kingdom, with the result that a large part of still is in the custody of Pakistan.
The Indian Union insists that this part, which it styles the Pak-Occupied Kashmir or POK, is an integral and constitutional part of itself and vigourously prosecutes anyone, whether its citizen or otherwise, who publishes maps etc. that purport to show this area as not being a part of itself, etc.
However, what is signal, is that the Indian Union has never, in all these 54+ years, made the least sincere effort to procure its evacuation by military means. On the contrary, the Indian Union has formally promised, in the Simla Pact of 1971, that if Pakistan will agree to drop its demand for the whole of the former Dogra Kingdom, then it will agree to Pakistan retaining its conquests, and will accept the Line of Control as the new International Border between Pakistan and the Indian Union in this area.
Given all these facts, how can the Indian Union justify its claims to a 'natural' right to reclaim the EIP? The answer is undeniably that the Indian Union's claim is absolutely and entirely unjustified, and further that it arises from pure mischief and malice.
Nato Bases and Portuguese Aggressions
In the early part of the last century, England and the British East Indian Empire persuaded Denmark to sell to it the Danish colony of the Nicobar Islands, which were paid for from the Imperial East Indian Exchequer.
In like manner, they tried with the EIP. The Setting: England used military force to blackmail Portugal to cede its ancient claims in the Upper Zambesi Basin to England, to form the English territories of North Rhodesia, South Rhodesia and Nyassaland, corresponding to the present Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi. This caused a backlash in Portugal, with an anticlerical, anti-Monarchial revolution in 1910. In the years since then, the Portuguese economy collapsed entirely and remained so for many years until the Phalangist Dr. Antonio Salazar was authorised to put in practice his ideas for a recovery. During this time, England offered to purchase the EIP from Portugal, but Portugal, under Dr. Salazar steadfastly refused to consider this offer.
Given this fact, that Portugal under Salazar refused to sell the EIP when it was in financial troubles, why should we accept the idea, without any shred of evidence, that Dr. Salazar would be willing to consider leasing or selling the EIP to the USA or to NATO, at a time when Portugal was no longer in dire financial straits?
Moreover, in reading the UN Resolution 1542 (XV), it becomes evident, that the Salazarists stubbornly refused to co-operate with the UN in bringing about the EIP to self-determination, due to their famous sentimental attachment to the (remains of the) Portuguese Empire. Why, then, should they be willing to consider the alienation, even if by lease, of the EIP to the US or to NATO?
Further, Portugal did not at all build up forces in the EIP: Following the seizure of the enclaves of Dadra and of Nagar-Avelim by the Indian Union throught sponsored terrorists and regular troops, Portugal did build up force, upto some twelve thousand. However, by early 1960, Portugal had scaled down its forces. When the Indian Union invaded, they found that there were only about 3,500 troops to defend it. Hardly a number that can be used to justify a claim that Portugal had been building up troops with bellicose intentions, is it?
But, as a matter of fact, the Indian Union systematically put out such news reports about a Portuguese military build-up. The only conclusion that one can put to this, given the actual facts, is that this was nothing but a tissue of lies - a deliberate campaign of mischief and malice, evidence, furthermore, of a bellicose intention, not on the part of Portugal, but on the part of the Indian Union!
Potentiality
The Indian Union claims, vis-a-vis Portuguese India, that it existed potentially in the Indian states of the fifteenth century and from whom Portugal acquired what is the EIP.
Or, to put it in the famous words of Dr. Salazar,
First of all, the Indian Union is not legally a successor state of these states. It has not received any such right by descent from and through the British East Indian Empire. This is proved by the fact that the laws, treaties, obligations, rights, etc. of these states have not descended to the Indian Union, in the way that those of the former British East Indian Empire have descended to it.
Further, from history, we see that, unlike the Chinese, Japanese and many other peoples, India never had any tradition of an �cumenical Empire of all India. Quite on the contrary. In matter of fact, if we look at Indian history and tradition, we see a deliberate effort to prevent any coagulation of the Indian states into a single state. This was the work of Hinduism, of the Brahmins, the Hindu priests.
They did this by deliberately exhorting kings and princes to continuously wage war against one another, by exhorting and encouraging feudal subordinates of their 'divine' duty to achieve independence and the royal rank. Hinduism set prince against prince, state against state and people against people. Thus, it conspired and succeeded in preventing any unification of India from being achieved.
The only somewhat Pan-Indian states that came to be, came to be, not because of Hinduism, but despite it. Thus, the Muslims conquered parts of India and incorporated the various conquered kingdoms, principalities and regions into their empires - Tughlak, Lodhi, Mughal, etc. Similarly, the history of the British East Indian Empire.
There is something far more interesting, however: The Indian Union straightfacedly and thoughtlessly claims that it came into being, as a Nation, in 1947. Now if the Indian Union was born as a Nation in 1947, it is impossible that it had any connection with the states that existed on what is now its territory in times gone by, isn't it?
Therefore, we find that there is no basis whatsoever for the Indian Union to pretend that it existed 'potentially' in the Indian states from whom Portugal acquired the EIP.