Paulo wrote: 1: Mario, you and others fail to understand what the real Goan issue is all about. 2: Goa should not be ruled by anyone...The Pakistanis were also ethnical Indian but they chose not to be ruled by India. 3: Goa never belonged to the Republic of India ..The Republic of India * did not * have a legal stand to rule over Goa or to conquer Goa. 4: I am not defending the side of the Portuguese. I am defending the side of Goa and Goans. 5: It is about time Goans understand that we Goans are the ones who lost out in 1961. Not the Portuguese!
Earlier, Mario Goveia wrote: Hey, Paulo. My family was on the opposite side of this battle from yours. We won. We feel liberated .. You lost. Get over it. Dear Paulo, I am glad that at least you chose to respond to Mario Goveia. Surely Mario and his ilk do not know that the issue of Goa had three interested parties (1) Goans (2) Portugal (3) India. As it turned out, Goa and Goans were brushed aside by Nehru and Menon. There are the shallow who probably are unaware that intellectual Goans were OPPOSED to Portugal's continuing in Goa. They were working towards Independence. Froilano de Mello opposed Salazar right in the Portuguese Parliament. The ones who were the real boot-lickers of Salazar are the ones who miraculously became 'freedom-fighters' overnight - in mid Dec 1961. Using Mario's logic (oxymoron), it could be said that Iraq has a right to invade and capture Kuwait. Wasn't the space now known as Kuwait, once part of the Empire of which Iraq was a part? So - what is the difference? Remember now, Mario has justified recent conquests where according to his logic: His side won, the other side lost. What happened to the place which got bombed to smitherins and people who got wiped out - is immaterial. I know that Eugene Correia said that there is a price to pay (I paraphrase). I suppose that is OK as long as I don't have to pay it. You should wait for Mario's typical response to really understand the prevalent illogic. Using Mario's brilliant logic a step further: It is justifiable for a man to molest a woman IF he is strong and she isn't. It doesn't matter that it is morally wrong to use force against a person or people without express consent. Isn't that one of the lessons from the Nuremberg trial? Sadly, for the Marios of this world, ALL that matters is that - "the strong shall prevail". More in keeping with the Darwinian "survival of the fitest" that these amigos de Mario love to hate. jc PS: I don't know why anybody should grumble about what is happening in Goa today. I believe that after Dec 1961, every single Indian from any part of India has every legal right to buy ANY piece of property which is legally sold to him/her. All this Rajan Parrikar et al "bhaillo" nonsense is just that i.e. nonsense. No Indian is a "bhaillo" in Goa. As Mario says ....get used to it. Also get used to the fact that even IF there are Re 1 toilets or Cornelian Port-a-loos, those who do not wish to pay the Re 1 or use the Portaloos, have every right to defecate and micturate anywhere (especially on those beaches) in Goa just like they did in the rest of India. otherwise - take them to court and get a ruling.
