Goan India 1961 (split off from Afghanistan under PDPA thread)

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,497
Portugal
I don't see anything wrong in annexation of Goa into India its an Indian land what business some colonial power had in India,...
With or without reason it was a case of an attack from a country to another without a formal declaration of war, in the 20th century.

Anyway, even if Portugal was right-wing dictatorship at the time, it would be interesting to know the feelings of the local population in Goa, Damão and Diu. Where they willing to join India? Or to remain with Portugal? Probably we will never know:

“In 1961, following the Indian "liberation" of Goa and celebrations throughout India, journalists noted an unusual lack of enthusiasm among Goans.2 This indifference or apathy had been source of embarrassment for everyone involved. The failure of nationalist rhetoric to persuade the local population of Goa to embrace either position is useful case study to examine the relationship between history, nationalism and rhetoric.”

Source: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pi/index.php/pi/article/download/1400/945, pp. 125-126.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,561
SoCal
With or without reason it was a case of an attack from a country to another without a formal declaration of war, in the 20th century.

Anyway, even if Portugal was right-wing dictatorship at the time, it would be interesting to know the feelings of the local population in Goa, Damão and Diu. Where they willing to join India? Or to remain with Portugal? Probably we will never know:

“In 1961, following the Indian "liberation" of Goa and celebrations throughout India, journalists noted an unusual lack of enthusiasm among Goans.2 This indifference or apathy had been source of embarrassment for everyone involved. The failure of nationalist rhetoric to persuade the local population of Goa to embrace either position is useful case study to examine the relationship between history, nationalism and rhetoric.”

Source: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pi/index.php/pi/article/download/1400/945, pp. 125-126.
AFAIK, following the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, as many as tens of thousands of Goans "voted with their feet" by leaving Goa and moving to Portugal. In fact, this is why Portugal has around 70,000 people of Indian descent (primarily from Goa) right now.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,497
Portugal
AFAIK, following the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, as many as tens of thousands of Goans "voted with their feet" by leaving Goa and moving to Portugal. In fact, this is why Portugal has around 70,000 people of Indian descent (primarily from Goa) right now.
There was a movement to Mozambique where there already existed a strong community from Goa, and then in 1974/5 to Portugal. But I don't know the numbers. The Portuguese India at the time had something like 625 000 people.

But where did you get that number, the 70 000? And that they are primarily from Goa?

I confess that all the Indians that I know are from recent migration waves, and are not from Goa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,561
SoCal
There was a movement to Mozambique where there already existed a strong community from Goa, and then in 1974/5 to Portugal. But I don't know the numbers. The Portuguese India at the time had something like 625 000 people.

But where did you get that number, the 70 000? And that they are primarily from Goa?

I confess that all the Indians that I know are from recent migration waves, and are not from Goa.
I got the 70,000 number from here:


"One little known fact about Portugal is that there are many Indians – you see them almost as often as you do in Britain. The colony of Goa, which used to be Portuguese, was annexed by India in a two day war in 1961. Salazar cut off diplomatic relations with India, and allowed any Goans who wanted to emigrate to Portugal to do so – consequently, many Portuguese-Indians and Catholic Indians did just that, and today there are about 70,000 Luso-Indians in Portugal. They have integrated very well; I suspect they might be richer than the average Portuguese."

Also, I simply assumed that they were largely from Goa because I haven't heard of any subsequent mass Indian immigration into Portugal. However, I could very easily be wrong about this.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,497
Portugal
I got the 70,000 number from here:


"One little known fact about Portugal is that there are many Indians – you see them almost as often as you do in Britain. The colony of Goa, which used to be Portuguese, was annexed by India in a two day war in 1961. Salazar cut off diplomatic relations with India, and allowed any Goans who wanted to emigrate to Portugal to do so – consequently, many Portuguese-Indians and Catholic Indians did just that, and today there are about 70,000 Luso-Indians in Portugal. They have integrated very well; I suspect they might be richer than the average Portuguese."

Also, I simply assumed that they were largely from Goa because I haven't heard of any subsequent mass Indian immigration into Portugal. However, I could very easily be wrong about this.
FTR, it looks like the 70,000 figure originally came from Wikipedia:

I don't know how did you find that travellers blog! You visit strange sites :D

I didn’t read it all, but it is his perception of Portugal (apparently only in Lisbon and Algarve). I agree with half what he says, and that means that I disagree with the other half.

Anyway about the number 70 000 Wikipedia mentions this source: http://indiandiaspora.nic.in/diasporapdf/chapter11.pdf

That is unavailable (at least for me). I consider the number high, most specially if we infer that they came mostly from Goa. There was no logistical operation of transport (there were not political conditions to do that), like it happened from Angola and Mozambique in 1974/5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Aug 2017
260
USA
It is disappointing to see false equivalences abound when labeling India as "expansionist" and "revanchist", buttressed by examples that are extraordinarily weak and conveniently stripped of context that would otherwise undermine the validity of those very examples.

The case of Sikkim and Sri Lanka have been addressed fairly adequately, so I will take the time to discuss Goa and the historical context surrounding its annexation. If anyone has any other figures or additional context to add, feel free to do so. This post is primarily intended to provide additional information and context so others can come to their own conclusions on whether or not India's annexation of Goa constitutes "expanionism", "revanchism", "aggression", or whatever simplistic labels anyone wishes to impose upon that country. I have pulled the following information from Guha's India After Gandhi and Keay's India A History.
_________

In the aftermath of its independence, India was opposed to leftover colonial rule in its part of the Indian subcontinent particularly along the coastal areas where small French and Portuguese colonies resided. Rather than "expansionist" India immediately invading these areas, it attempted to enter into negotiations with both governments for the peaceful transfer of these territories. In June 1949, the population of French-controlled Chandernagore voted by an overwhelming majority to merge with India. A year later, the territory was transferred. The French continued to hold onto its other territories though and in spring 1954, the situation became particularly tense with a pro-merger movement afoot in Pondicherry and daily protests by the French consulate in Madras. Finally, on November 1st, the French finally handed over their remaining territories with Nehru praising both governments for their "tolerance, good sense, and wisdom".

By contrast, Portugal under dictator Antonio Salazar rebuffed the Congress party's overtures for the return of its Indian colonies. As the return of French Pondicherry to India was being finalized, Salazar spoke on national radio of Portugal's Indian colonies as belonging to "the Portuguese by injunction of history and force of law." "Goa constitutes a Portuguese community in India". "Goa represents a light of the West in the lands of the Orient", which had to be retained so it could "continue to be the memorial of Portuguese discoveries and a small hearth of the spirit of the West in the East". He was also quick to remind New Delhi that Portugal's ~450-year rule predated that of the British and the Mughals (the latter depending on how the accounting is done for Mughal rule).

What of native sentiments regarding a potential merger with India? A Goa Congress committee was active well before Independence, with member activists residing in Goa and in exile within Bombay. They argued that conditions in Goa were far worse than in British India with racial prejudice and the lack of human rights. In 1946, left-wing Congress politician Rammanohar Lohia visited Goa and exhorted the people to rise against the rulers. A wave of strikes/protests followed that were crushed by the authorities. On India's Independence day, India's flag was hoisted in several areas but protesters were taken away by the police.

Nehru in fact wished to move slowly in the hope that the situation would be resolved through dialogue as it had with the French. However, he came under increasing pressure by radicals of the Socialist Party who began a series of satyagrahas to compel Goa to join the Indian union. In July 1954, a group of activists from Bombay seized the enclave of Dadra. The next month, the bigger enclave of Nagar-Haveli also fell without a fight. 1000 volunteers attempted to cross over into Daman but were stopped by the Indian police. Still, when they wired Nehru for assistance, Nehru in fact wired back stating that their actions would not "help our cause".

A year later, a group of socialists led by N. G. Goray entered Goa shouting slogans. They entered several miles into the territory before being attacked by police and arrested/placed in Fort Aguada prison. During these and other protests in 1954 and 1955, the Portuguese arrested more than 2000 people. Salazar likewise turned a blind eye to the protests thronging the streets of Panjim, the Goan capital.

After more than a decade of attempting to unsuccessfully negotiate the transfer of Portuguese territories to India, a detachment of the Indian army moved to the borders of Goa on the third week of December 1961. Nehru had at last decided to liberate Goa by force. Quoting directly from Guha's text:

On the morning of 18 December Indian troops entered Goa from three directions: Sawantwadi in the north, Karwar in the south and Belgaum in the east. Meanwhile, aeroplanes dropped leaflets exhorting the Goans to ‘be calm and brave’ and to ‘rejoice in your freedom and strengthen it’. By the evening of the 18th the capital, Panjim, had been encircled. The troops were helped by the locals, who pointed out where the Portuguese had laid mines. The colonists fired a few shots before withdrawing. In the smaller enclaves of Daman and Diu the resistance was somewhat stiffer. In all, some fifteen Indian soldiers lost their lives, and perhaps twice as many Portuguese. Thirty-six hours after the invasion began, the Portuguese governor general signed a document of unconditional surrender.

The Western press had a field day with this display of ‘Indian hypocrisy’. Exposed for so long to lectures by Nehru and Krishna Menon, they now hit back by attacking the use of force by a nation that professed ‘non-violence’. The action was also represented as a breach of international law and, more absurdly, as a threat to Christians and Christianity in Goa. In fact, 61 per cent of Goa was Hindu, while prominent Goan Christians, such as the journalist Frank Moraes and the Archbishop Cardinal Gracias, had an honored place in Indian public life. There had long been an indigenous freedom movement within Goa and many, perhaps most, Goans welcomed the Indian action. In any case, the Goans were now at liberty to choose their own leaders, something always denied them by the Portuguese.
It is often pointed out that the timing of Goa's annexation was largely due to the political exigencies of then Defense Minister Krishna Menon who was up for reelection around that time. Whatever the motivation, its generally agreed by historians that India's acquisition of Goa was largely popular within Goa and, all things considered, bloodless. Though Western media was initially critical of India's move, such criticisms were quickly muted with the minimal resistance and mass welcome given to the Indian forces. This is in stark contrast to the liberation of East Timor, another Portuguese colony, by Indonesia's General Suharto which witnessed ~100,000 conflict-related deaths, near-universal condemnation for its brutality, considerable resistance from East Timor's inhabitants, and the eventual expulsion of Indonesian troops by UN forces.

Political scientist Benedict Anderson had this to say regarding these two situations:

Nehru had sent his troops to Goa in 1960 [sic] without a drop of blood being spilt. But he was a humane man and the freely elected leader of a democracy; he gave the Goanese their own autonomous state government, and encouraged their full participation in India’s politics. In every respect, General Suharto was Nehru’s polar opposite.
________

Given the popularity of India's annexation within Goa, its successful integration into the Indian political system, the lack of bloodshed characterizing its acquisition, and the sheer weight of history, culture, religion, language, etc in favor of its acquisition by India, I think its extremely silly to use Goa as an example of India's "expansionism" and "revanchism". If one wishes to argue that India is such a state, I daresay that there are far better examples of this in the Indian subcontinent that do not require such subversions and intellectual dishonesty.
 
Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,561
SoCal
I don't know how did you find that travellers blog! You visit strange sites :D
Frankly, the Unz Review is a mixed big. It has some really good articles but also some really crappy ones (up to the point of engaging in Holocaust denial)--generally not by the same authors. One needs to be trained to weed out the gold there from the crap there, if you will.

The Unz Review is meant as a site for dissident writers and thus it is unsurprising that some decent writers ended up there while some crackpots and nutjobs also ended up there. Ironically, the Unz Review was founded by a Jewish guy named Ron Unz who has--amazingly enough--dabbled in some Holocaust revisionism himself. So, yeah, the Unz Review has some good stuff and some really bad stuff and one needs to be able to effectively sort the good from the bad.

I didn’t read it all, but it is his perception of Portugal (apparently only in Lisbon and Algarve). I agree with half what he says, and that means that I disagree with the other half.
What do you agree and disagree with?

Anyway about the number 70 000 Wikipedia mentions this source: http://indiandiaspora.nic.in/diasporapdf/chapter11.pdf
Here is this article, Tulius:


I would advise anyone here to always try using the Internet Archive if they want to access an article that they can't access online.

That is unavailable (at least for me). I consider the number high, most specially if we infer that they came mostly from Goa. There was no logistical operation of transport (there were not political conditions to do that), like it happened from Angola and Mozambique in 1974/5.
But didn't you previously say that some Goans initially ended up in Portuguese Africa and only moved to Portugal in 1974-1975 or afterwards?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,561
SoCal
Tulius, if you want to take a look at all of the travel blog articles by Anatoly Karlin (the guy who wrote that travel blog article about Portugal above), you can see them here:


I believe that he's planning many additional trips in the future and thus planning to write many more additional travel blog articles. :)
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,497
Portugal
It is disappointing to see false equivalences abound when labeling India as "expansionist" and "revanchist", buttressed by examples that are extraordinarily weak and conveniently stripped of context that would otherwise undermine the validity of those very examples.

The case of Sikkim and Sri Lanka have been addressed fairly adequately, so I will take the time to discuss Goa and the historical context surrounding its annexation. If anyone has any other figures or additional context to add, feel free to do so. This post is primarily intended to provide additional information and context so others can come to their own conclusions on whether or not India's annexation of Goa constitutes "expanionism", "revanchism", "aggression", or whatever simplistic labels anyone wishes to impose upon that country. I have pulled the following information from Guha's India After Gandhi and Keay's India A History.
_________

In the aftermath of its independence, India was opposed to leftover colonial rule in its part of the Indian subcontinent particularly along the coastal areas where small French and Portuguese colonies resided. Rather than "expansionist" India immediately invading these areas, it attempted to enter into negotiations with both governments for the peaceful transfer of these territories. In June 1949, the population of French-controlled Chandernagore voted by an overwhelming majority to merge with India. A year later, the territory was transferred. The French continued to hold onto its other territories though and in spring 1954, the situation became particularly tense with a pro-merger movement afoot in Pondicherry and daily protests by the French consulate in Madras. Finally, on November 1st, the French finally handed over their remaining territories with Nehru praising both governments for their "tolerance, good sense, and wisdom".

By contrast, Portugal under dictator Antonio Salazar rebuffed the Congress party's overtures for the return of its Indian colonies. As the return of French Pondicherry to India was being finalized, Salazar spoke on national radio of Portugal's Indian colonies as belonging to "the Portuguese by injunction of history and force of law." "Goa constitutes a Portuguese community in India". "Goa represents a light of the West in the lands of the Orient", which had to be retained so it could "continue to be the memorial of Portuguese discoveries and a small hearth of the spirit of the West in the East". He was also quick to remind New Delhi that Portugal's ~450-year rule predated that of the British and the Mughals (the latter depending on how the accounting is done for Mughal rule).

What of native sentiments regarding a potential merger with India? A Goa Congress committee was active well before Independence, with member activists residing in Goa and in exile within Bombay. They argued that conditions in Goa were far worse than in British India with racial prejudice and the lack of human rights. In 1946, left-wing Congress politician Rammanohar Lohia visited Goa and exhorted the people to rise against the rulers. A wave of strikes/protests followed that were crushed by the authorities. On India's Independence day, India's flag was hoisted in several areas but protesters were taken away by the police.

Nehru in fact wished to move slowly in the hope that the situation would be resolved through dialogue as it had with the French. However, he came under increasing pressure by radicals of the Socialist Party who began a series of satyagrahas to compel Goa to join the Indian union. In July 1954, a group of activists from Bombay seized the enclave of Dadra. The next month, the bigger enclave of Nagar-Haveli also fell without a fight. 1000 volunteers attempted to cross over into Daman but were stopped by the Indian police. Still, when they wired Nehru for assistance, Nehru in fact wired back stating that their actions would not "help our cause".

A year later, a group of socialists led by N. G. Goray entered Goa shouting slogans. They entered several miles into the territory before being attacked by police and arrested/placed in Fort Aguada prison. During these and other protests in 1954 and 1955, the Portuguese arrested more than 2000 people. Salazar likewise turned a blind eye to the protests thronging the streets of Panjim, the Goan capital.

After more than a decade of attempting to unsuccessfully negotiate the transfer of Portuguese territories to India, a detachment of the Indian army moved to the borders of Goa on the third week of December 1961. Nehru had at last decided to liberate Goa by force. Quoting directly from Guha's text:

It is often pointed out that the timing of Goa's annexation was largely due to the political exigencies of then Defense Minister Krishna Menon who was up for reelection around that time. Whatever the motivation, its generally agreed by historians that India's acquisition of Goa was largely popular within Goa and, all things considered, bloodless. Though Western media was initially critical of India's move, such criticisms were quickly muted with the minimal resistance and mass welcome given to the Indian forces. This is in stark contrast to the liberation of East Timor, another Portuguese colony, by Indonesia's General Suharto which witnessed ~100,000 conflict-related deaths, near-universal condemnation for its brutality, considerable resistance from East Timor's inhabitants, and the eventual expulsion of Indonesian troops by UN forces.

Political scientist Benedict Anderson had this to say regarding these two situations:

________

Given the popularity of India's annexation within Goa, its successful integration into the Indian political system, the lack of bloodshed characterizing its acquisition, and the sheer weight of history, culture, religion, language, etc in favor of its acquisition by India, I think its extremely silly to use Goa as an example of India's "expansionism" and "revanchism". If one wishes to argue that India is such a state, I daresay that there are far better examples of this in the Indian subcontinent that do not require such subversions and intellectual dishonesty.

In the essential lines what you wrote about the Portuguese India in this post is the information that I have about the theme, with one or other detail that can be deferent, but don’t change the all narrative. Let me add that the opposition in Portugal was also in favour of a negotiations and that the arrests made weren’t only in Goa, but also in the mainland with elements of the MUD Juvenil, MND and PCP being arrested, and many organizations in Portugal, against the government, appealed to the peace in Goa.

Just didn’t understood two things, the reference to Timor, and from where comes this “Whatever the motivation, its generally agreed by historians that India's acquisition of Goa was largely popular within Goa and, all things considered, bloodless. Though Western media was initially critical of India's move, such criticisms were quickly muted with the minimal resistance and mass welcome given to the Indian forces.”, so can explain the first and source the second?

The people in the Portuguese Goa weren’t given an option, neither from Portugal, neither from India (here as far as I know, so pardon any error). There was an invasion and an annexation. We don’t know the will of the people there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist