"The 13 colonies
revolted against England because they refused to be considered second-class
citizens. Whites born in America were forming a resistance against the white
colonizers who imposed high taxes. The true Americans, the so-called Indians,
were meanwhile being exterminated."
I am not an
expert in the history of the United States so I cannot comment on this in
detail. I can say, however, that history is a process and today the United
States is a far “more perfect Union” (to borrow the _expression_ of the authors
of the US Constitution) than it was in 1776. Let us not forget that the
Portuguese found in Goa a caste system legitimized by religion in which an
entire segment of the population was condemned to perpetual servitude, a system
that even the Jesuits and Christianization could not completely erase. So let
us pause before we cast stones on other countries.
"In Goa during
the Portuguese colonial regime, there never were "democratically elected
representatives of the people of Goa."
Sounds like “Alberto”
believes that the history of Goa started on 28 May 1926 when the “Revolução
Nacional” (National Revolution) in Portugal established the “Estado Novo.” But as we all
know, the history of Goa is much longer than that. Between 1822 and 1926 (i.e.,
for 104 years) the elections in Goa were democratic and they were fair. In
fact, they were so fair that in one of the elections Bernardo Peres da Silva (a
Goan) defeated the Viceroy of Portuguese India (a European) who had decided to
run to stop Peres da Silva. It was during this period that the people of Goa
elected distinguished Parliamentarians like Bernardo Peres da Silva, António
Caetano Pacheco, Francisco Luis Gomes, Cristóvão Pinto, Prazeres da Costa, and
many others. After 1926 and during the Estado Novo the elections were rigged,
but they were rigged everywhere in the Portuguese Nation, not just in Goa.
"Only Christians
were well regarded by the unelected government in Lisbon, and most Hindus in
Goa were treated with disdain."
This is not
correct. To give a few examples, in the 16th and 17th centuries, Goan Hindus occupied key positions in every trade and profession more so than
Christians. Goan Hindus were praised by the Portuguese for their skill, and the
Portuguese preferred them to the Goan Christians. Later, many Goan Hindus
received titles of nobility awarded by the King of Portugal (Barão Dempó,
Visconde Quencró, Visconde de Perném, etc.). More recently, Panduronga
Pissurlencar was awarded a well-deserved honorary Doctorate (“Doutor Honoris
Causa”) by the University of Lisbon. The Rao family had monopoly of the cinema
business in Goa for many years as owners of the “Cine Teatro Nacional.” Even
Dayanand Bandodkar was allowed to build a big business in the mining industry
in Goa. This does not mean that there was no racism or discrimination in Goa. The
451-year history of the Portuguese rule in Goa is complex, full of paradoxes,
contradictions, and upheavals, not easily amenable to simplistic generalizations.
"As for
"it is the 96th anniversary of the Goan Declaration of
Self-Determination," only a minority group of Christians defended that
declaration."
Where is the
data to support this statement? The Declaration was issued by democratically elected
Representatives to the Government Council, and they spoke on behalf of the
people of Goa.
"The majority,
through integration with Mother India, was led by Ram Manohar Lohia,
Julião Meneses, T.B. Cunha, Luís Menezes Bragança, Evágrio George, P.D. Gaitonde,
and even Jack Sequeira."
This is also
not correct. There was never a plebiscite in Goa, and therefore, we do not know
what the majority of Goans wanted, and, sadly, we will never know. Ram Manohar Lohia
was not a Goan and his entry into Goa was repudiated by several Goans in a
statement published in the newspaper “A Vida.” Pedro Correia Afonso wrote this
statement, and among the signatories was his brother Francisco Correia Afonso.
You may want to read “Goa: A Terceira
Corrente” by Mário Bruto da Costa where
he discusses this in detail. Luis de Menezes Bragança was never in favor of
transferring the sovereignty of Goa to India or any other nation. As far as I
know, Jack Sequeira was never involved
in politics until after the annexation of Goa in India. Jack Sequeira played a major
role after the annexation of Goa. Had it not been for Jack Sequeira, Goa would
have been a colony of Maharashtra.
"António
Anastásio Bruto da Costa, a landowner and admirer of Salazar, did not want a
break with Lisbon and defended dependence with limited autonomy from
foreigners, second-class citizens."
I did not
speak of Bruto da Costa in my article or my post. I doubt he was an admirer of
Salazar. From reading “Goa: A Terceira Corrente” I am under the impression that
he treated Salazar with respect, but he was firm in his opposition to the dictatorship
and the “Acto Colonial,” and therefore, he followed the political tradition of
Menezes Bragança. On the other hand, you, “Alberto” should admire and applaud
Salazar. In his “Acto Colonial” Salazar said exactly what you said: that the Goans to “objects of possession” of the Portuguese, a position that was
condemned by Menezes Bragança and Bruto da Costa.
"Goa, today, as
one of the states of India, is governed by Goans elected democratically. The
rulers are natives of Goa and speak Konkani, and Lisbon does not send a
governor-general who only spoke Portuguese and defended foreign interests."
Obviously, you
are entitled to your views on this. Just remember that as of this date, Bernardo
Peres da Silva, whom I consider as the greatest leader Goa has ever known,
remains as the only Goan who had the distinction of being Governor of Goa. He lasted
only 3 weeks, not because of the racism of the Portuguese, as it was falsely
stated by respected historians like Teotónio de Sousa and Leopoldo da Rocha. He
was deposed by Absolutists because he was a Liberal. Many Portuguese Europeans
and their descendants were slaughtered because they defended him. Several
Portuguese Europeans followed him in his exile, and the Editor of the newspaper
that defended him was a Portuguese European. These facts are shoved under the
rug by some historians because they did not find them politically palatable.
Last, but
not least, I am a historian, not a politician. I am a firm believer that research
in history should be based on impartial interpretation of data, and not on the
personal beliefs or ideologies of the historians or on political expediency.
John M. de Figueiredo
