Thursday, June 6, 2013


Since he raised the issue of Goa, that the possibility of Portugal grant independence to that territory has been advanced by various sectors, such as the way it should have been followed by Portugal, to prevent the events of 1961.

Most Portuguese politicians agree that the invasion of the territory of Goa by the Indian Union was illegal and in absolute contravention of the rules of international law, the Indian Union violated by invading Portuguese territory.

It happens that, after the revolution of April 25, 1974, the then government of Portugal recognized the possession of those territories of the Indian Union, accepting a situation domain 'De Facto' handing definitely - the legal point of view - to the territories invading country.

Among the evidence presented, is that now there was nothing left to do, since the regime out Revolution May 28, 1926 (New State) had persisted in its colonialist policy. Aventam the same sectors, the solution would have been to Goa's independence, especially during the 50s, which would have led to the Indian Union had no argument for invading the territory.

There are however a number of gaps in that reasoning, we can conclude that such a hypothesis, not only would have been possible to implement, as also could never have been accepted by the government of the Indian Union.

Hindu Nationalism

Hindu Temple: The revival of Ancient symbols was used as an argument to defend and justify Nationalism and Religious Fanaticism.

When Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi started his journey that would culminate in his assassination by Hindu nationalists, had several movements in the sub continent favorable to the independence of India. The problem is that the boundaries of this mythical India, were not clear to anyone, and the ultra-nationalist, considered the kingdoms that existed before the arrival of Muslims as the source of their right to independence.

In fact, between the second century BC to the twelfth century, when it establishes the first Muslim sultanate, the Indian subcontinent was ruled by a myriad of kingdoms and empires, whose dominions, though not coincident, if extendiam from the montranhas the Hindu-Kush to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).

The Indian nationalism, was therefore created with reference to this past and this geographic reality, that included territories corresponded to countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri-Lanka, Sikkim, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Burma and Naturally, Goa. India Hindu nationalists who wanted to create, was based empires of the past, and so, for many, appeared as an attempt to rebuild an empire.

The connection between the future India and this historical reality is, a purely rational point of view, an absurdity. From the standpoint of international law, is unacceptable, as manifestly illegal. Corresponded eg the Italian State demanded control of Libya in France or the UK, because for centuries the territories that occupy these countries belonged to the Roman Empire.

However, and regardless of not having a rational support or cool, Indian nationalism, Hindu-oriented, was gaining more strength. In 1920, Mohandas Gandhi was elected leader of the Congress Party. Gandhi was seen by the Muslim leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a dangerous nationalist Hindu.

The Muslim leader, defended the administrative autonomy of India, but he feared the rise of Hindu and independence, which he deemed dangerous to Muslims, given the content nationalist extremist that threatened to take.

Mohamed Ali Jinah: The leader of the Muslims of India, through Hindu nationalism as a threat to peace and not ever believed that India could be created as a plurinational state that respects minorities. The Islamic leader has always defended theses, which implied that the creation of the Indian Union, amounted in practice to create an empire. The non-acceptance by a Hindu nationalist state that Muslims and Hindus were in equality, led to the need for separation, as early as 1947.

Between 1930 and 1935, the restlessness of Muslims increases. Muslims consider as the main danger area of ​​Hindu nationalists, who have a risk of death for the Muslims of India. 

In 1937, the Congress of Mohandas Gandhi, refused a formal alliance with the Muslim League, thus reaffirming the intention to proceed with a Hindu state, which corresponds to the territories 'historic' of Hindus. At the same time, Nehru, as president of the Congress Party makes a speech in which he asserts that "... there are only two movements in India, Hindu Nationalism and British Imperialism ... '.
These statements are seen as a denial of the rights of countless minorities, stating opposition to British rule by Hindu movement, and denying all others the right to exist.
Regardless of your religious background, regardless of the incredible diversity of races, religions and languages, India's Congress Party, is Hindu, and nothing more.

The envisioned by India's Congress Party leader, looked up increasingly with an empire with a state-the NACA.

This movement and the positions of the leaders of the Congress Party, understand in the light of a certain nationalist vision that interprets the events of the last millennium and sees the emergence of India out of the British Empire, as a sort of resurgence of Hindu power prior to Muslim invasions, before the arrival of Europeans or prior to the establishment of the Mughal empire (Islamic), which dominated India until the seventeenth century.

The division was unacceptable, because it had been the reason for the decline. The output India of the British Empire, had to leave so unified and should seek to lift a country capable of developing its golden time.

The decolonization of British India, did not go well with the separation of a significant, but much could be lost if the countless territories that were under the control of the government in New Delhi took the bad examples of small states that remained on the borders of Indian Union. So everything had to be done to ensure that these bad examples potencial never would.

The destabilization of neighboring states 

The Principality of Sikkim: An example

When after World War II, the attempts of the British to keep the 'Pearl of the Empire »united under one government failed, began to be conducted throughout the territories, citizens referenda to ask, what is your option, and which country thought that its territory should belong.

In a referendum held in 1947, the small Principality of Sikkin, which was between Nepal, Bhutan, India and China, refused to join the Indian Union.

The existence of a small national reality, within what Hindu nationalists called India (or India historical, to better understand), however it was difficult to accept.

The Prime Minister of the Indian Union and Chogyal Chenpo, at the time leader of Sikkim, a country that kept its independence for centuries. Nehru did not accept that the Sikkim never establish embassies and imposed a policy disguised transmigration, which ultimately led to the disappearance of the small principality in 1975. The Sikkim, is often considered Tibet of India.
The Principality of Sikkim, constituted for the Hindu nationalists, an extremely negative, because it allowed a precedent that would lead to the emergence of other national realities or micro-states, which have always characterized the Indian sub-continent.

Small states, were seen as one of the weaknesses of India, and the reason that led to the beginning of its decline in the thirteenth century. The logical solution was to ensure that such national realities had no means or conditions to survive.

India tried to just start boycotting the process, but the fact that Sikkim has established special relations with the British, who prevented the principality was integrated into the Indian Union.
The Indian government assured however a system of suzerainty, in which foreign policy was directed by the government in New Delhi.

The Indian Union imposed a status of semi-independence, but failed to act against Sikkim. The country was slowly being colonized by the Indians. In 1968, RAW [1] initiates actions that will lead to overall destabilization of the country during the 70s. Terrorist attacks to succeed and ethnic hatreds explode suddenly.

In 1970, the Congress Party of Sikkim (arm party of the same name in India) and representative of the Hindu minority, begins a violent revolt against the monarchy of Sikkim, demanding greater representation for the growing number of Hindus.
Political instability and violence settled. The solution of the problem came conveniently through a request from a group of representatives from Sikkim, for the principality was accepted as a state of the Indian Union.

In 1973 India intervenes, claiming that fears that China considers the territory as part of Tibet and attach.
The prime minister, an ally of the Indians, we could not understand with the prince, and in 1975, presents a formal request to India for the country to be more attached as a state of the Indian Union.

The question was put and the population endorsed the dilemma of accepting part of India, or otherwise maintain the political instability and riots that had been organized by the Indian or be attacked by China. The country was formally annexed on May 16, 1975.

The ultimate annexation of Sikkim, is one of the clearest demonstrations that the independence of the Portuguese State of India, would never have been accepted by the Indian Union. Their fate could never have been different from the Sikkim. Nehru himself said that, by proclaiming in a speech in 1955:

"... We are not willing to tolerate Portuguese presence in Goa, Goans even want them there are ... »

The issue of Goa, could never therefore have any direct relation to the characteristics of the regime of Lisbon, which in this case stated with some property, that India just wanted to exchange a colonialism on the other.

Now, what led to the annexation of Sikkim, was the inability of the small state fighting terrorism sponsored by the Indian Union, through the RAW [1]

This type of destabilization was tempted as we know in Goa, terrorist attacks and small groups Satyagris [2]. The state of Goa, in the case of access to independence, would not be able (like Sikkim or Bhutan) to resist a wave of atantados against citizens.

If it had reached independence, the only way that Goa would fight instablidade be keeping some kind of connection with Portugal, whose military presence even though symbolic, was enough to quell terrorist activities.

Such a possibility, of course could not be accepted by the Indian Union and would be considered as neo-colonialism, leading inevitavalmente the invasion and annexation, later or sooner.

The case of the Kingdom of Bhutan

The government palace in Thimphu, capital of Bhutan: The small country's international isolation was imposed by the Indian Union, which demanded control foreign relations 
If the case of the Principality of Sikkim annexation led to the end and integration more or less forced Indian Union in the country, it is not the only exermplo demonstrating that Goa could never have been a state independent and autonomous.

Also in the case of Bhutan attaching the question has been raised. There, there was even less Hindu and Buddhist majority population was clear, and Bhutan was also recognized by the British, having a status of no-self.

But still, the Indian Union also demanded the right to manage the foreign policy of this small state, exactly as in the case of Sikkim.

When Sikkim was finally absorbed by India, a highly contested process, Bhutan tried to seize critical to India to pierce the Indian blockade that prevented the existence of foreign embassies.

Sri Lanka, the problem of larger

If small states of Bhutan and Sikkim, are those that we can more easily compare to Goa, you can not fail to mention the temptations annexationist Indian neighbor about Sri Lanka, also seen as part of Greater India.
If no conditions internationally to continue to defend positions more or less 'annexationist', the truth is that India has never ceased to regard the former Ceylon, as a territory should be under the elevation of the government in New Delhi.

Although no clear evidence, the truth is that the government of Sri Lanka has accused officially in 1983, the Indian Union in support of the rebel Tamil north of the island, in an alleged attempt to destabilize.

Even today (2009), purchases of military equipment by the Sri-Lanka are regularly the subject of criticism by Indian military, claiming that Sri-Lanka, standing in the Indian region should acquire equipment to India and not to other countries .
In response to pressure from India, Sri Lanka opted to establish special ties with China in terms of defense.

Sri Lanka, had the advantage of a position of prestige among the non-aligned movement, otherwise would be destined to the same destination Goa, where its size (the country with a population that currently reaches 21 million people) do not this possibility become unviable, even after the end of the Cold War.

[RAW - Research and Analisys Wing 

It is an office of research and strategic studies, sponsored by the government of the Indian Union, and depending on the prime minister himself, which was created in 1968. The organization maintains allegedly secret arms and aims to facilitate operations in neighboring countries of India, to allow Indian enjoy instability in their own favor.

The RAW, exercised its activities in Sikkim, and exercises present these activities in Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Bangladesh. Ie all territories Hindu nationalism believes that are historically part of India.

No comments:

Post a Comment