As it happens often on goanet, issues get repeated in a cyclic manner. The
Goa's Liberation/Aggression is one such issue that has been contentious and has
clearly divided many goanetters in pro-Portguese and pro-Indian camps. As it
has been pointed out in the past, the points made by each camp would not be
satisfactory to the other. It will remain a "live" issue and, in all
probability, will crop up again in the future.
Paulo has taken recourse to quoting Mathai, Nehru's secretary. Mathai's
assertion is also recorded by other historians, political writers and
biographers. Some of Nehru's biographies have much more detail on Goa than
Mathai has given. That the USA was pressurizing Nehru to hold back the troops
at the last minture was a gamble played by Portuguese through the good offices
of Secretary of State Dean Rusk. As Ambassador to India, John Kenneth
Galbraith's job was to convey the message to Nehru. It is said that Rush was
closer to the Portuguese than he was to India.
Mathai's book, a memoir, was "banned" because he has exposed some of Nehru's
personal life, particularly his liasion with a sanyasin Shraddha Mata who bore
Nehru's son in a convent. This so-called "fact" was not discovered by others
who knew Nehru well. It is believed that Mathai and Menon did not like each
other, each one trying their best to have Nehru's ears. Paul's this is old hat,
but perhaps you have "rediscovered" it now, since you have now been reading on
India and rightly so for a young man (or rather not so young) 1971-born Goan.
Since the book's release and today, much has changed in India. Banning a book
has little impact, as Salman Rushdie's case proved in India where large amounts
of copies were smuggled in. Was not Maulana Azad's book on India's freedom
struggle banned?
However, USA confidently, or rather tactfully, okayed Nehru's plan to send
troops to Goa. Nehru and President Kennedy were close to each other, more than
Salazar and Kennedy. Because of Portuguese membership of NATO, the US could not
publicly give green signal to Nehru. Rush obviously influenced Kennedy to talk
to Nehru and tell that Indian PM that Portugal wanted to settled the issue
amicably through the UN.
Nehru knew this would be stalling tactic and Nehru was aware of the attack
from his own Congress members and other leaders for taking the Kashmir issue to
the UN. As we know, the UN passed some resolutions on Kashmir but the issue is
still burning.
Reading Mathai is one thing, but one must also read Galbraith's Ambassador's
Journal to get a clearer picture on what went in the background. It is little
wonder that Salazar was mad with Kennedy, but all that Salazar could is do is
wail and cry.
True, Nehru's image suffered because of his Goa act. He was in line for the
Nobel Prize for Peace, but that one act ruined it for him. Only Morarji Desai
among the cabinet members was against India using force. Desai's Gandhian
philosophy perhaps prevented him from giving his consent. On the other hand,
Krishna Menon did play his own game to save his own political future. Nehru
depended too much on Menon and their friendship was special. So, certain
factors came into play for Nehru to relent and send in the troops, even though
he may have tried to recall them at the last minute.
In this post I will also come to JC's point regarding June 18. I checked his
TGF website and found two pieces on Dr. Juliao Menezes, one by the late Lino
Leitao and the other by Ben Antao. Lino has mentioned that Lohia and Dr.
Menezes were arrested and taken to Panaji and released late at night. Lino does
not mention if Lohia spoke,though he says there were cries from the crowd when
the two arrived. JC informs that according to one version Lohia never spoke.
Maybe he draws his conclusion from Lino's article. JC also mentions Dr.
Menezes's book, Goa's Freedom Struggle, which, in fact, is a small booklet. The
booklet has not been memtioned in the bibliographies of many books on Goa's
freedom struggle, including one of the newest Farar Far by Prof. Pratima Kamat,
head of Goa's University History Department. One noted librarian/historian from
USA says that historians are not quoting from it because it is full of
inaccuracies. I do not know if the book is
avaiable, but Other India Bookstore (OIBS) does not have it listed on its
website. However, JC mentions that Vasant Nervekar's book is available on OIBS.
I wish JC would quote from the Menezes booklet and also from Nervekar's book to
reinforce his point. Pointing to books does not help, neither does asking
counter-quesions. JC informs that he would ask his friend in Toronto to provide
details on the June 18 meeting and would also let us know what Dr. Telo
informed him. I am still awaiting for the disclosures.
I know that the current "revisionist" trend in writing history has resulted in
overthrowing many "historical" facts as we knew them. It is a new genre, far
from the history writing of scholars such as Arnold Toynbee. Revisionist
historians belong to a different school than Marxist historians, and both
greatly different from the traditional school. Both the Revisionist and Marxist
schools, to some extent, look at history from "below." What is important is how
independent scholars find the middle ground between these two schools of
history writing and provide their results which could still be contested. Prof
George Moraes once told me that he would like to revise his Kadamba Kula as he
"discovered" many new "facts". He did not get to doing it.
Post-colonialism is another term widely used to debate issues concerning former
colonies. Post-colonial studies form a big slice of literary criticism in the
modern world. Studying and understanding Goa along these lines would be helpful
to those who would like to take a fresh look into Goa's colonial past.
Especially young and not-so-young Goans, such as
No recriminations, please, we are Goans.
Eugene
