------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** http://www.GOANET.org ****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's Goanet operations sponsored by Mrs. Daisy Faleiro
If you would like to sponsor Goanet's operations contact:
Herman Carneiro - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jose,
You are right only because I think it is too late for Goa to be independent.
In the 1960s, Goans should have demanded to be given a choice, through a
formal plebiscite, probably organised by the UN, just like it happened in
East Timor in 2000.
But we were too "sossegado" and we allowed ourselves to be conquered, yet
again.
But if someday in the future India starts breaking-up, like George says it
may be possible, then I would definitely defend the idea of an independent
state of Goa. At the moment, it is just impossible.
Question is: Will Goans still have Goa in the future? Will Goa still
maintain its distinguished cultural identity in the future?
It is difficult to tell, especially with so many Goans leaving Goa and so
many emigrants moving to Goa.
Each time I visit Goa I hear more and more Hindi and less and less Konkani.
And with Marathi given equal status to Konkani, it is just a question of
time for Marathi to replace Konkani completely. I have no doubt.
With Konkani gone, that will be the end of our cultural identity. Just my
opinion.
Best regards
Paulo.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:goanet-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jose Colaco
> Sent: 01 March 2007 04:25
> To: Goanet
> Subject: [Goanet] Repossession sans Possession - Interesting misconcept.
>
> ======= jc's response =======
>
> Dear George,
>
> I definitely could not have been one of the individuals in your poll;
> Paulo neither. And from what I know, both Paulo and I are practising
> Catholics. I absolutely and utterly do NOT believe that Goa should be
> separate from India. It is my impression that Paulo too believes likewise.
>
> In his post, Paulo is stating the obvious. He is talking about possession
> being a requisite for repossession. Forget legalese...it is plain and
> simple
> English. One cannot take back what one did not legally hold title for in
> the
> first place. One can only countermand, confiscate, and utilise what is
> known
> as 'adverse possession'.
>
>
>Eugene homogenicity propostion sounds interesting. Using that as a
> platform,
> I suppose India can take over Bangladesh et China can take over parts of
> India which it considers "homogenous" with China.
>
> ..........and the Andaman Islands - Any thoughts from Eugene or Arthur?
> ah well .... have a good day ...all you good folks.
>
> jc
