Clarifications: Soviet Explanation of its Veto

© Prakash João Maskaren. 8^th January 2003.
The so-called Explanation of the Soviet Veto, authored either by the Soviet Union (obviously from matter passed up to it by its lackey, the Indian Union) or by Anjali Patil, is a very distorted narration, full of deliberate misrepresentations.

However, what is outstanding, is not these lies, bad enough though they are, but the utter hypocrisy on the part of the Soviet Union. The Russian Empire, which was seized upon by the Leninists and transformed into the Soviet Union, was and is quintessentially a Colonial enterprise. The whole of Siberia, and of the Central Asia Steppes, is the world's largest colony, with a great number of aborigine nations oppressed and made the subject of Russian colonisation and genocide of the aborigines. Nor was this ended or reversed under the Soviets: As a matter of fact, this process was intensified!

As for the distance of 5000 miles, it is not a holy cow; but certainly there are, in East Siberia (Sakhas of Yakutia, Evenks, Chukot and Koryak, etc. see Siberia)

It is the utterest Hypocrisy on the part of the Soviet Union to then pretend to be a champion of the peoples victimised by colonialism and genocide, and to foist the UN Resolutions 1514, 1541, 1542, etc.

The Soviet Union owes us, the citizens of the EIP/Goa, a sincere and public apology and restitution for its part in the crimes of 1954 & 1961.

I seriously doubt that the first settlers of Goa were the Kannadigas. If that were true, then the Konkani had displaced them. But in matter of fact, these contemporary nations of Marathi, Konkani, Kannadigas and Tulu, evolved about two millenia ago by the fusion of various immigrant peoples since the Aryan invasion of India with earlier, pre-Aryan peoples. And the blurring of borders started to happen after this historical process had already been completed, by which the borders of the respective ethnic homelands became accepted and fixed as part of social traditions and folklores.

The narrative states that Goa had become, under the Kadambas, a great, in fact, pre-eminent entre-pot on the west coast of the Peninsula. That claim clashes violently with my understanding of the facts: there WAS no absolutely pre-eminent entre-pot, and among the existing eminent entre-pots, Goa did not figure. The main entre-pots in the Konkan were the cities of Sopara and Kalyan, in fact the ports where the apostles St. Thomas and St. Bartholomeo landed, on their way to evangelize the South.

Goa became a major entre-pot only under the Portuguese, and that only for a few centuries, until the Portuguese were eclipsed as the pre-dominant maritime power in Indian seas.

And the reasons for the decline was not racial miscegenation (or its alleged consequent dilution of Portuguese bloodlines in India) or even the alleged Portuguese religious intolerance, but because of the success of the Dutch in harrying, terrorizing and breaking the spirit of the Portuguese: a Process ramified by the Portuguese infidelity in rebelling against Spain and seceding from the Crown of Castile without any just cause whatsoever, and by its aligning and subordinating itself and its interests to the inimical Protestant England, in its craven Hispanophobia!

The narrative states that the Portuguese set out to entirely destroy all Muslim shipping in the Indian seas and to impose their system of passes, so that no vessel could use these waters without their leave and without paying them for the privilege. This is true, however, it, by suppressing material facts, makes these facts say something that is not the truth.

It ignores the material fact that Portugal (and Spain) were always in the forefront of the Resistance against Islam; that they suffered near seven hundred years of Islamic oppression, occupation, despoilation and humilation, colonisation and imperialisation, and that they not only gained their independence, not lumpsum, but bitterly fought, mile by mile, from Islam, but that they very naturally carried on by trying to push forward and liberate North Africa; that the main reason, which in fact was so much an obsession, that it could be called the ONLY reason, the Portuguese came to India, was to avenge itself upon Islam and outflank it: the Crowning ambition of Da Gama, Alberquerque etc., and one that was within their reach, but for the interference of the Dutch and the English, was to seize Mekka, the Headquarters of Islam!

Nor is the fact to be forgotten that the Muslims did not take kindly to the idea of anybody coming in and breaking their MONOPOLY of the Indian Seas; that they actively sabotaged the Portuguese trading effort, thus acting first in opening the war in Indian waters; or the fact that except for the South, all India was groaning under their tyranny — even Goa was liberated, not from Hindu hands, but from the Arab Sultanate of Gujrat or Cambay!

The Russians have no reason to badmouth or derogate the Portuguese: they themselves had to fight many centuries in order to regain their independence from Islam and they themselves immediately began the long tedious drive to push for the liberation of Siberia, the Caucasus and Central Asia from Islam!

The narrative states that "Even the people of the settlements did not accept Portuguese sovereignty over Goa, Daman and Diu. Geographically, culturally, economically and even religiously, Portugal had no justification to be there. The people of Goa and Portugal had nothing in common. The Portuguese ruled Goa only by right of conquest and the settlements were under their occupation. The Portuguese tried hard to suppress the movement." This is nothing but a tissue of lies. It is a fact beyond dispute that nearly five hundred years of Portuguese rule has so influence the society and culture of these lands that they can only be described, not as either purely Indian or purely Portuguese, but as uniquely Indo-Lusitanian!

Nor is there any evidence that there was ever, at any time, any serious, mass dissatisfaction with Portugal. It is because of this INCONTROVERTIBLE fact that Nehru merely annexed these territories instead of holding a plebiscite, as held before and after 1954-1961: in 1947-48 in Hyderabad, Junagadh, Mangrol and Manavadar, and in 1975 in Sikkim. He was supremely aware that any such plebiscite held in Portuguese India would inevitably result in the rejection of the Invaders and the re-embracing of Portugal, thus rejecting his robbery and making him an object of ridicule!