India Vs. Goa
©Prakash John Mascarenhas, Bombay. 6th November 2003. This page is copyright!
Sir:
Please find my response to your latest post as below. In order to avoid confusion, I have coloured your rejoinders in red and my re-rejoinders in blue�
>You have missed the central point of my pages on this subject, even of the particular page that you quote. And that is that Goa is not legally a part of India, that India has illegally occupied Goa.
I would ask you to define india first for me.
Definition = "India" as she is understood in Indian law and in international law, is that remnant of British East India minus those part excised from it - which are Burma, Ceylon, the Maldives, Pakistan and Bangladesh and plus those dependent princely states that freely acceded to it.
The point that india has forcefully occupied Goa is a joke to me.
For the immoral man, whose morality begins and ends only with his "own" people, the claim preferred by any other people that they have been victimized and transgressed against, and especially such a claim against his own people, is always, and necessarily a "joke."
The exception is, of course, any claim preferred, regardless of its merits, against a people he perceives as his rivals - such as England, China, Pakistan, the USA, etc.
However, to the sincere moralist, this is no joke.
The Indianist flatters himself that in intruding on other peoples and forcing himself down upon them, he is doing them a great favour. After all, is not India and Indian civilization, read Hinduism, the greatest, most noble, sublime and superior system on all the Earth?
And yet the Indianist is confronted with the spectacle of these people, upon whom he has so generously inflicted himself, rebelling against him. The very ingratitude of these ingrates baffles and infuriates him.
The Indianist is outraged that, having so kindly and benevolently set about invading another people's land, enslaving and degrading that people to a second class status in their own land, with Indians as first class, and having condescended to rob their land, degrade their men, degrade and rape their women, pirate their natural resources, destroy their environment; the subjects of his "divine" benevolence should resent and rebel against him, against noble India!
The Indianist bellows with rage when the past "wrongdoings" of the Portuguese, the English, the Turks, or any other people who assimilated some or the other people of India to their own cultures, is conjured up once again, usually rather than not by the mere presence and perseverance of these assimilates, for is it not that they have a divine monopoly on doing this?
Only the Indianist has a right, by divine mandate, by sole and exclusive divine mandate even, to inflict himself, to force and compel and stuff down the throats of other people, his Indian, or more properly, Pagan Hindu culture, or what passes for a culture, and no other people have the same or similar right.
The Americans, do they good or bad, are always and inescapable sinners, "Imperialists". The English, do they good or bad, are always and inescapable sinners, "Imperialists". The Pakistanis, do they good or bad, are always and inescapably sinners, mischiefmongers! The Indianists, however, do what they may; their every act is good, beneficial, divine, benevolent...
Unlike the Americans, the English, the Pakistanis, and other sinful and base peoples, the noble and sublime Indianists never sin, they deign to benevolently smile down upon and to rain down as divine mercies upon inferior peoples — the Nagas, the Mizos, the Meiteis, the Asom, the Bodos, the Achik, the Hynniewtrep, the Goans, etc.
The Indianist, having condescended to inflict himself benevolently upon his victims, expects that these base, subhuman people should be seized with paroxyms of joy, carried off in transports at having been so victimized, and falling at his divine feet, grovel thereat and beg for these divine favours to be continued and extended. They ought to beg that their lands be robbed from them, that their women be raped by their divine masters and reduced to exotic playthings for their divine masters, that they be dehumanized and extinguished from the face of the earth by their sublime and noble masters and conquerors!
Therefore, when instead of this natural response, the Indianist beholds the spectacle of these his victims having the impertinence and ingratitude to rebel, he is amazed and dumbstruck and enraged at this unnatural deviation, these unnatural deviants!
Are you trying to say that you prefered portugese occupation instead. Because I donot see you raising an eyebrow to the changes in culture portuguese have brought about to you.
The Portuguese came in five hundred years back - even before the Mughal Empire was established, forget about British India. You are right when you say that I have no problems with the entry of the Portuguese - we Goans invited them in, at the suggestion of the Hindu Vijayanagar Empire, in order to liberate us from Islam. And yes, we got the side benefit of Christianity, which I know is the greatest good that man can have... What of the cultural changes brought in by the Portuguese? I like them. I have no complaints. And it is these modifications that define Goa.
>I rely upon arguments from law, morality and principles to prove myself. But to answer your other points:
What is law ? what is morality ? Isnt that something used by a society to save itself. Isn't that dependant on the government currently ruling you. In that case the law you have to follow is indian law and in that case none of your arguments hold.
Bullshit. You argue from relativism. And make morality and immorality the same.
Law and morality are immortal. They are not made by men, they are only found out by men, in order to follow them. Of course, some laws are purely man made - such as the permissible age for marriage, and so on.
The Higher Laws are never man made. What is wrong is always wrong. It has always been wrong to take someone else's property by force, without his free consent.
As far as the Law of Countries and States is concerned, it has always been wrong to seize a people by main force and to annex them against their free and express consent. However, victim people are free to acquiesce in it, if they wish to do so. However, while they have the physical freedom, it is never moral to acquiesce in evil. This is moral law.
>Goans are different because of their Lusitanian connection, which makes them exotic to the Indians themselves despite their fervent claims - more to convince themselves than others - that Goans are automatically identical with Indians!
Well marathi's are different cause of there maratha connection, Upites are different coz of their sindhi connection, I being a kasmiri am different coz of my afgany connection .. everyone has a connection sir u r not unique.
I know nothing about the Sindhi connection of the "Uttar Bharatis" or of the "Afghani" connection of the Kashmiris� I doubt it�
It is not only that everyone in India has some connection, but it is so in all the world. But what differentiates the Goan from the Marathi, the Kashmiri or the "Uttar Bharati" and their lands is that these latter territories are, by and large, legally part of India. Not so with Goa. Goa never belonged to India. Goa never joined India. India has merely encroached upon Goa, and has declared that purely because of its robbery, Goans are subjects of India. That is immoral.
You Indianists make a big song and dance about the alleged atrocities committed by the Portuguese. If my history serves me well, you are descended from Aryans, themselves invaders who have perpetrated unspeakable atrocities, and continue to do so even today, on the pre-Aryan inhabitants of India. (Don't give me any of that revisionist crap of the Indian origin of the Aryans! You know it is a lie as much as I do.)
Maleghat is an example. This is a mountainous redoubt where the adivasis have taken refuge, been confined to when they were robbed of their lands and expelled by the invading Aryans. Every year, during the dry season, Maleghat suffers a drought - and there are starvation deaths.
Due to political pressure, the Maharashtra government has a program for relief measures during the dry season. The last time this had been reported in the press, the press had also reported the sharp and snide remarks made by government employees to the Maleghat Adivasis, asking them why their names were "foreign" - why they could not have "normal" Indian names...
Foreign? Their names are more Indian than the Aryan, Sanskrit names! But of course, since the Sanskritist culture dominates India, these people are "aliens"! This is their sin!
And you have the insolence to accuse us, Goans, of being de-Indianised, of cultural changes brought in by the Portuguese.
Well, we invited the Portuguese in. And we freely consented to the changes, adopted them freely as also Christianity. And this is what defines us. So when you attack these, you attack us, our rights, our freedom, our choice, etc.
You do not have any authority to question and to challenge us on these points, these matters. And in doing so, you impose yourself upon, you interlope, you usurp!
>Goans are also different because they belong to or are legally constituents and citizens of a different legal entity, state or nation than India, and because it is India which is the greatest enemy of Goa and the Goan people - because of India's malicious and baseless claims and pretensions on Goa and on the loyalties of Goans and because of its immoral and illegal occupation of Goa, etc.
U seem to prefer the portugese occupation instead. Why is your history clock stuck to when portugal occupied goa. Diddnt they do it forcefully ? Werent u marathas before ???
You seem to be terribly ignorant of history. We Goans were never Marathas - Ever! We were always Konkani. The Marathi are a different ethnic group.
Just as a Dogra is not a Kashmiri and a Kashmiri is not a Dogra; just as a Tibetan from Ladakh-Baltitstan is not either a Kashmiri or a Dogra; so are Konkani and Marathi two distinct and separate peoples inhabitating two separate ethnic homelands.
The Marathi country - the Maharashtra - includes the tract bordered by the Dandakaranya Forest on the East, Karnataka to the south, and the Sahyadri Mountains to the West. Beyond these mountains, to their immediate west, upto the sea, is the land and country of the Konkani.
It is true that the Marathi have increasingly encroached on the Konkani homeland� in the last 150 years particularly.
>The "Beauty" of India leaves me cold.
What gets u hot then ????
Goa! The beauty that is Christian Goa! The beauty of the imposing white-washed churches, of the church bells calling the faithful to prayer, of the lilting, mellifluous Luso-Konkani dialects of Goa� Tiatrs, fests, the communal rosaries and feasts of the patron saints at the crosses.
Everything that we love, you, the Indianist pagan hates with violence�
>I DO NOT believe in "gaining Independence" from India. There is an important distinction in my case, from that position. My case is that India did not have and does not have any legal or moral claim or basis to rule Goa, that India is illegally occupying Goa, and that this illegal and immoral occupation must be vacated. That position is very different from the concept of independence - which is secession. Goa cannot secede from India for the simple reason that Goa is not a part of India.
Who are u to decide what is legal or moral? Do u think of urself as god? Please sir come down from heaven to earth and try to answer the basic questions of poverty, hunger and unemployment in goa if u really think of urself as goan. Such things as who occupies who are decided not by morality but by economics.
If I am incapable of deciding that Goa is not a part of India, then you are incapable of deciding that it is a part of India, or that any other territory is legally part of India. You are illogical.
I am a Christian, not a Hindu. Hindus, following Advaitwad, think themselves gods, not Christians. For a Christian, the very idea is blasphemy!
I, a Goan, a citizen of a legal entity distinct both from Portugal and India, have the right, along with my fellow citizens to determine the destiny of my country, Goa, solely and exclusively to any other people.
You are a relativist. But morality and law and truth are not relative. They are absolute.
You are shamelessly hypocritical. You deny me the right to denounce evil, and tell me to concentrate on working merely to relieve my fellow-man. Why do you not practice what you preach? You Indians refused to accept British rule, and refused this same advice you now offer me, and you have the insolence to offer it to me!
>As to your positioning of your two "categories": I do not belong to either.
Then why on hell are you against the indian government, if they didnt lay a disturbing finger on you. Sir there is a poor soul somewhere in goa who could use your help. Help him why add to troubles of others by raising such whimsical ideas.
I am "the hell" against the Indian government because it is immoral, illegal and a terrorist organization, that has committed acts of terrorism against my country and which commits the greatest act of terrorism against a people - political, social, institutional, cultural and many other forms of Genocide which is being perpetrated against my country, Goa!
>It does not matter that some Goans too collaborated and were party to India's invasion and occupation of Goa. That does not make this legal or moral. These persons merely certified themselves Goan traitors, quislings.
Who are u to decide or tag them as traitors. Maybe they felt it best for the goan cause that goa be a part of india. The way you tag them as traitors they would tag you as traitors too. So I suggest u decide between urselves who a traitor is and then get back to pointing the blaming finger on the indian govt.
I am not a relativist hypocrite like you. Therefore, I can see clearly enough who is a traitor and who is not. It maybe that some individuals may have felt that it is best for Goa to be ruled by Portugal, India, Pakistan, Burma, or the Martians. That does not give them authority to force any such thing down the throats of the Goans. It does not authorize them to collaborate with any foreign country to invade and to colonize Goa. The only right that such people can have is to seek to persuade Goans that being ruled by the Burmese or Martians or whatever is in their best interest, and get them to formally and legally vote and merge Goa into Burma or Mars or whatever.
Therefore, when a Goan violates norms and collaborates with the enemy to overthrow Goa, aiding them to invade and to subject it to an occupation, they are morally and legally traitors.
There is no great mystery in this - even a schoolboy could have told you this. But you pretend that there is no permanent truth or moral standard - except for expediency and opportunity. That is hypocrisy!
This hypocrisy is more is found to be more pronounced when we consider that you have an entirely different standard of judging as compared to your attitude towards the British dominion over India. Then you are not relativist. Then you oppose and condemn England and demand implacably the cessation of English rule and independence for India!
>How the situation handles out in Goa is no concern of Indians.
Whether Goa is "viable" or not is not any concern of India or Indians. Internal difficulties of or with some Goan >minority segment(s) with the majority segment(s) is of no concern to India or Indians.
Are you so totally narrow minded as to not see the result of a civil war in a neighbouring country on the country. Have you not met the countless bangladeshi's in delhi.
Why do you pretend to be so naive that you ignore the fact that the entire Bangladesh thing was invented and stage-managed by Indira Gandhi purely for her own ends - and morality had nothing to do with it?
Do you use your brains or what?
Have you ever sat down and considered the moral implications and consequences of what Indira Gandhi has done?
British India was partitioned in 1947 to form Muslim majority Pakistan. The Indians blames the Pakistanis and the Muslims. This is what I was taught in school. Now it is a no-brainer, that if India was partitioned, then India should not have acquiesced in this, and should have strenuously protested and protested its claims over the excised territories, just as West Germany did with East Germany or Communist China does with Taiwan.
I had always wondered why Indians were so laissez faire about Partition, and why they were not all het up to procure its reversal.
Time and time, when I raised this issue, I found that any suggestion that India should invade and take over Pakistan and reunite it to India, always made the Hindus break out into a cold sweat. They want none of this. They feared that the absolute Hindu majority over India would be diluted. Thus was another pious Indian lie and mythology debunked - that it was solely the Muslims who wanted Partition.
Hypocritical thought the Hindus are, the vast majority of them sought and desired Partition, and desire it to continue, even the ones who most viciously bad-word Gandhi!
When Indira took advantage of Pakistan's internal disputes, she avoided, "inexplicably" the opportunity to reabsorb East Bengal.
It is not so great a mystery why. No Hindu wants India to be flooded with so many Muslims!
But consider again the implications. A people do not have normally the right to secede unless there is an extraordinary situation. Was there one in East Bengal in 1970-71? I would think not - except that Indira Gandhi invented one, by interfering and stoking up bad feelings between East and West Pakistanis�
If it is legitimate for India to interfere without just cause and due to mischievous intent, in Pakistan, then it is legitimate for any other country to interfere wherever they want, and to do mischief.
That will make a complete shipwreck of world peace, and set the stage for mass disturbances on a worldwide scale.
Today, the Indians are reaping what they sowed - the fruits of all their mischiefs in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1971, 1975, etc., etc.
No other country in the world has so many individual ethnic groups fighting actively for independence - Kashmir, Khalistan, Assam, the Bodos, the Achik and the Hynniewtrep, the Twiprans, the Meiteis, the Nagas, and so on.
>Men have the right to be concerned in their neighbours' affairs, only in so far as it concerns their common humanity. However, because India has sinned - and continues to sin - against Goa, and thus against humanity, it has no right to pretend any concern in Goan affairs - whether motivated by law, morality or concerns for the common welfare of humanity. Goan patriots will not stand for it.
Please sir go tell this to pakistan or china. Pray do tell me about the sins you talk about. And again you are no one to decide what is moral or who is ethical. In the first para u seem to shout that it is immoral for indians to 'rule' goa and here u seem to say that india has no right even if it is moral to 'rule' goa. Sir, u seem to me as a terribly confused person who cannot decide on one line of argument.
A hypocrite is one who pretends that the wrongs of one own country can always be whitewashed, but who gleefully latches onto and seizes the sins of other countries and will not allow them to be torn out of his hands.
And that is why you insist in applying relativism in order to whitewash India's sins, and simultaneously clutch indefagitably the sins of Pakistan and China, for example�
But if India is sinless, why is Pakistan or China sinful? Cannot the same relativism justify them also? And why should relativism apply only to India and not to England or to Portugal?
You pretend that there is a moral confusion in what I write. There is none. I merely relate moral principles that are already acknowledged in International Law.
India could have pretended an interest in Goa on the basis of humanitarianism, but that has been conclusively proved false, both by its patronization of the pro-Indian terrorist organization, the Azad Gomantak Dal, then, and by its invasion and blas� occupation and pretended annexation of Goa since then.
And for your information, even a humanitarian interest does not grant the intervenor the right to annex a territory it goes in ostensibly to liberate. Once it has "liberated", its rights cease to exist. It must hand over the freed territory to the international community, and permit it to be prepared for a free tryst with destiny. Even the UN Laws, to which India subscribes, clearly set this out.
>I do not care a damn about the Indian government's "difficulties" in "uniting" so many cultures and >"minorities". We Goans have not asked to be invaded, occupied and to be assimiliated, and all talk of India's >difficulties in its fulfilling its agenda of crime and misanthropy leaves us cold. And since we have never >legitimized the occupation, such talk is meaningless.
Sir if you hold an indian passport then u very well start giving a damn about indian govt.s difficulties.
Damned if I will! I have NOT asked for or sought for Indian citizenship; India has forced it down my throat. Therefore, I have zero obligations to India...
India has trangressed against me and my country as a brazen hussy, and now you have the insolence to demand from me obedience to this robbery! Are there no limits to hypocrisy?
And yes it was goans who asked the indian army to enter to mantain stabilty.
Can you kindly provide evidence that any legal Goan entity asked or invited India to "enter to maintain stability?" Which new mythology is this?
Also please point out who the we in above conversation is coz I think it is only u.
It is none of your concern whether I, as a Goan who stands for my legal rights, am alone or not. And even if I were alone, it would not change the moralities involved.
I donot think that if today Indian army kills 20 innocent kasmiri's on the doubt that they are militants they are doing anything wrong. It is what the kasmiri people have bought upon themselves by aiding pakistan.
Aha! Very, very interesting!
When the Americans say "Collateral Damage" you Indianists holler and allege hypocrisy. And yet, you exempt yourselves from the same charge, and practice the same as a deliberate policy! Now I understand!
I agree the congress ill treated a lot of poor kasmiris in kasmir but it is those people in the govt we, u and I, have to fight not the indian constitution.
Count ME out of your fight with your governments. I am not part of your community of Indian citizens and have no desire to be...
Why does a sardar or a south indian go fight for kashmir? answer me this. Why does a goan officer bomb positions in kargil? answer me this.
I have to need to answer you your idiotic questions. A lot of people have been brainwashed about the greatness of India, and have unthinkingly bought into this idolatry of India and its mythical greatness, even Goans and even Christians.
And in law, even that some Goans should join the Indian, Pakistani, British, French, US armies does not give those countries any automatic right to invade and annex Goa!
Today, there are millions of Indians who desperately want to work in the US or England, and millions who have got in, by hook or crook, and the vast majority by crook�
By your standards, that means that the US has the right to invade and take over India!
>As a Goan, I entirely sympathize with other nations victimized by India. Specifically, I thought that only the Nagas and the Sikkimese had any legitimate grounds, but now I have convincing evidence that India did to Manipur and the Khasi States, for example, what it had done to Sikkim latter in 1974... a forged, forced accession where a king is forced to cede to India at gunpoint. I consider that all these actions are illegal, immoral, null and void.
Just because u perceive india wrong makes other such whimsical ideas right.
Of course, I am "whimsical" because I am not a moral hypocrite - a moral relativist!
Sir, you really need to rectify ur definitions of right or wrong.
Not I, but you. You chose hypocrisy, I choose morality. I will not deviate.
>You display enormous ignorance when you repeat the old lie spoon-fed in Indian schools by the Indian government - that "ours is the only government in the world that recognises the right of an individual to be different." I will not even attempt to answer that fantastic nonsense, the foolishness of which should be so apparent to one reading the daily newspapers... to any sane, rational and major human being living in the 21st century.
How on earth do u know sir that what was taught to u was the truth? How on earth do u know that what u heard or just witnessed did not have some other motive. There are no truths in the world sir, except logical truths. (Logical truths are statements which are true by definition as in science.)
Logical? No, this has nothing to do with logics. It is pure relativism. And relativism is the refuge of hypocrites!
There can be no statement no description that truthfully describes any situation. All the so called truth in the world sir adds up to one big lie.
More relativist hypocrisy!
(I dont say that Bob Dylan does).
And what kind of authority is Bob Dylan? Who is Bob Dylan? This Charsi - Drug addict and apostate to the "New-Age", to Hindu paganism! Certainly you will quote him as your authority!
Our lives here are a part of evolution of improvent of the species(living organisms) as a whole, there is no other truth.
Evolution? Hey, don't preach to me that satanic crap!
Hey monkey, go funky! Hey cheeta, eat banana!
If u have the time money and resources to help a poor person out there do so now, donot waste your and my energies on opinions. Opinions can change, but the poor mans stomach doesnt wait for them.
I have not sought to waste your time. It is YOU who initiated this exchange, and I am merely responding, defending what is right from what is wrong.
And if evolution is right, then the only law can be the survival of the fittest. Bothering to help someone who is not the fittest with the hope of aiding them to survive is destructive of the law of evolution, of the law of the survival of the fittest. You pollute the gene-pool with those that nature wants to discard, and you do not allow nature to discard these rejects, these defective by-products of evolution!
Hitler had it correct, from the evolutionist viewpoint�
>This attitude is the same old frog-in-the-well attitude. You will do yourself a great deal of good by junking the official mythologies of Indian nationalism, moral (read Gandhian / Nehruvian / Socialist / Secularist, etc.) or racial (Varnashrama and Manusmriti's dismissal of all non-Indians as Mlecchas - Barbarians) superiorities, etc., taught you in school and at home, in the press and on Indian state t.v., and begin to interact with people around the world and study them, their histories and their current affairs. You will then see what a foul mess of lies you have been raised upon!
I hate all those. They just ruined the country. In every country that gained independence there was a person who single handedly drove his armies to victory. In india there was a person who said keep killing us till there will be no more to kill and then we will be free. What shit.
I see that you have your problems with Mr. Gandhi, sometime the "Mahatma" and "Father of India" (sic!). And I see that you are Godsean, belonging to the Sangh Parivar.
You cannot hate them all, certainly, for while you may abhor what Gandhi loved, you love what the Sangh Parivar loves�
I donot watch TV until unless there is some great cricket or soccer match.
And so�?
I have lived in a lot many states of india for periods more than 3 years. Have interacted with the locals in each of those states. The common man sir is too busy to think of himself as a part on india or as a part of his state. He just is interested in earning his livelihood. That is the true india as well as true goa for u. Wake up and look at it.
Man does not live by bread alone! Morality is very, very important. And morality is not something that evolves, or something that you, Pseudanthropus darwinii, can comprehend� And this is something that a Darwinian chimp can never comprehend: Morality never evolves!
There are greater things than the mere craving for survival in a world that just happened to be by pure accident and without any purpose and which is going nowhere. My world, on the other hand, prizes morality and does not believe in the Hogwash Gospel of St. Charles Darwin the Ape-man!
Yours Sincerely
Mysteryguyin, Human patriot.
Tell me: Is POK a legal part of Pakistan or of India? And if of Pakistan, why? And if of India, why?
From your viewpoint, as I see it, it is illegitimate for Goans to protest against the wrong that India has done it, and that Goans ought to tender their loyalties to the invaders and usurpers.
Why is this applicable only to Goans under India and not to Indians under England?
Poland was once an independent country. Then it was invaded and partitioned again and again, between three European powers - Prussia, Russia and Austria. Did the Polish do wrong in fighting to re-emerge as an independent nation?
Your answers should be interesting.
P. John Mascarenhas, Goan patriot, Christian apologist.