In response to Eugene Correia's post on the matter: Having read the book from cover to cover over several weeks, I could proffer the following thoughts.
1: I am unable to believe many of the vague charges contained in the book. They are just as 'believable' as the pre-invasion propaganda on the Indian side. 2: There are some other parts which are believable - based on conversations with those who were in Goa at the time, and based on how events have unfolded post1961. 3: The book would have been totally unbelievable IF Goa was not then treated as "spoils of war". 4: I would NOT make a judgement on a book based on 'bits and pieces' . If I did, I would be like my colleague from Ahmedabad who would look at the posters and photographs in the windows of El Dorado and relate a whole story of the film .....as though he had seen it. 5: Not all who challenge the status quo are pro-Portuguese. How does Eugene know that they are not just pro-Goan? Would he say, for instance that Rajan Parrikar's writings are pro-Portuguese? 6: Personally, I believe (like Santoshbab) that the invasion was not legal. Like him and others, I too believe that it is NOW " water under the bridge". Time to move forward. 7: Am I saddened by the continued filthification and the continued land grab? I am. The fact of the matter is that one can do nothing about it. Conquests are like that. You lose You snooze. I have accepted it. Perhaps, others too will accept it, albeit grudgingly......and move on. 8: As far as the book is concerned, I cannot dictate to others WHAT they should think about the book, at least until they have had the opportunity to read it. 9: That might not be possible IF the book is banned or otherwise not available. jc Pardon any Typos. This IPad does some curious auto- corrections On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Eugene Correia <[email protected]> wrote: > Those who believe that the book, Nehru Seizes Goa, is their bible > there's nothing one can say. Leo Lawrence guided the pressmen who came > to Goa before and after the Liberation. I was going through some > scanned clippings from foreign newspapers before and after the > Liberation. Also went through the chapter on Goa in Salazar and Modern > Portugal by Hugh Kay where the author says that the diplomatic > standoff between Salazar and Nehru with Salazar trying his best to > hold on to Portugal under constitutional amendments and some > historical examples of countries giving away their colonies and Nehru > sticking to his guns that must be absorbed into India, the Indian > government saw no option but to move its army into the colony. > I have said here that it was a war and, as they say, everything is > fair in love and war India did what it was best in the circumstances. > From a diplomatic war to armed struggle was a long way. > Does it surprise that NATO allies didn't come to the rescue of > Portugal despite Salazar's pleading? It was the time when the last > bastions of colonialism were falling if not already fallen and African > nations wanted that one boost to give them the reason to demand > freedom. Like a domino effect, it happened. That's what history is and > one has to understand that "ifs and buts" are something one looks at > in hindsight. > As I mentioned earlier the whole thing is now academic, more so after > Portugal has recognized India's sovereignty over Goa the matter > between the two countries should be considered closed. But we have > here and elsewhere, particularly on a vehemently anti-Indian website, > people crying over split milk, by which I mean that Goa should have > got Independent nation status. This is one "if" of the tussle for the > prized colony. > As Vivian said that it's old matter and we must see forward, a > statement that was seconded by Merwyn. This world is largely > post-colonial and I advise those wanting to see the Asian world > through the lens of post-coloniality to read Between the Lines: South > Asians and Post-Coloniality, a collection of essays. I don't have my > book with me right now to quote from it. > Leo has acknowledged reporters from the foreign press, and many of the > reports from these reporters and editorials from global media were > complied together in a book form by the Portuguese information > department. I happened to read the copy borrowed from a fiercely > pro-Portuguese who by the mid-70s had tempered down. The book also > carried many anti-Nehru and anti-Gandhi cartoons and the ones I > remember is of a Nehru wooden statue with a olive branch (symbolism > peace) and soldiers coming out of the back door. It was a reminder of > the Trojan Horse of Greek history. Gandhi was shown seating in his > trademark pose, crosslegged, with his head bowed down and a dragger > shoved into his back. I wished someone had drawn a cartoon of Nehru > seizing Salazar by his b***s. > Gandhi himself didn't approve of the method to gain Goa but in the > post-Independent India Gandhi's voice carried not much weight as it > did during India's freedom movement. He was also ashamed that the > Indian army misbehaved in Goa. Can anyone control the jawans who found > the freedom to do what pleased them? Marauding forces cannot be > contained easily by political leadership and, as we have seen in many > cases, by the military top brass. Recently, the former Admiral of > Indian Navy said that Indian military forces also engaged in torturing > prisoners of war and in many instances they were beheaded. It took > real guts for the Admiral to state such a fact on TV during the debate > on the beheading of Indian soldier by Pakistan's military. > Frankly, I am not anti-Portugal. I loved the place when I visited it > few years ago. It was always my dream to see Lisboa for I had heard > from my childhood days that if you see Goa there's was no need to see > Lisboa. I know that saying belong to old Portuguese times because > Lisboa itself has deteriorated. Just for argument's sake, what would > have happened to Goa economically if it was still in Portuguese hands? > Imperial Portugal is far different from the current Portugal. I will > surely get lot of brickbats from those who regret the fate that fell > on Portuguese Goa (or is it Portuguese India, as some writers say?). > Someone on a notorious website said that the Nehru family even > borrowed the "Gandhi' name. Not surprising that the commentators there > are so ignorant of India's political history. Neither they are upto > mark on Indian prehistory and for such people I suggest Prof. George > Moraes' book, Kadamba Kula, and Gerard Pereira's An Outline of > Pre-Portuguese History of Goa. These ignorant folks who continue to > abuse me have taken to hair-splitting saying the India was not formed > before 1947, I ask wasn't India was known as"British-India"? > This debate is going nowhere and I call upon those suffering from > "seized mentiallity" to concentrate their engergies and minds in > thinking of ways and means to make Goa move forward. > > Eugene Correia
