Friday, January 27, 2017

Dear Niz Goenkar/Indigenous Goans By A Pereira

This movement is founded to protect the rights of the Indigenous People of Goa. The United Nations has issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to guide member-state national policies to collective rights of indigenous people, such as culture, identity, language, and access to employment, health, education, and natural resources.
Goans are taken for a ride and made to behave as if we were always tenants of State Rulers and are glorifying the Law that treats us as Tenants of the State.
If we are a pure Goans, how can we vote to constitute the Goa State Legislative Assembly under the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, when the President of India is not our Landlord even after the ouster of the Portuguese Rule?
While the Election Commission of India (ECI) is very strict in checking abuse of money power during elections, it turns a blind eye to the whole procedure to enroll as a voter, which by any procedural standards is a sham. Any Indian citizen can come with some documents from any other place and get registered as a voter. Thus, thousands of migrants, who can easily be included in the Goa state voters list, also stay enrolled as voters in their hometowns. Recently in the Village Chandor (South Goa), in a ward called Mena Cavorim had about 53 bogus migrant voters. On complaining to the BDO, the complainants were given a torrid time to provide proof that these voters had not cancelled their voting in their native places. The Government authorities harassed the complainants but finally after great deal of perseverance the fraudulently entered names were deleted. The Government Authorities which committed the fraud are scot free. When the ECI is having all the information of the Voters all over India, this information is not perused by the authorities who are entrusted to prepare the Electoral rolls.
India it seems Liberated and yet Annexed Goa in 1961, under a solemn pledge to the entire world and the United Nations Security Council that Indigenous people of Goa will be allowed to choose their Political future and fortunes as per all UN resolutions applicable to de-colonised territories. While India has belligerently disallowed Indigenous Goans to exercise their right to self determination, the first Assembly Elections were conducted in 1963 after two years of martial law. This Conquest and Annexation of Goa, Daman & Diu, as rightly termed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, was recognised by Portugal vide a bilateral Treaty inked only in 1974-75, without making Indigenous Goans a party. India by invoking the Geneva Conventions imposed its laws on the conquered territory, but has forgotten that by virtue of the same Conventions it cannot send its own population into the conquered territory. The menace of Migrants in Goa has reached to such proportions that indigenous Goans are soon going to be a Minority in their own homeland. By the pace at which hordes of migrants enter Goa it appears that almost every Indian wants to be a Goan. The Migrants hardly knows the background and character of the Candidates and therefore lure of money becomes the sole factor to garner votes. While the ECI is over-enthusiastic to investigate, identify and cancel the names of Goans with Portuguese passports, it does nothing to weed out all the names of migrant voters registered at two places. We must expose the Game deliberately played on Goans by the ECI and call for boycotting elections (GLE)
On 4th Feb 2017.
Issued in interest of indigenous Goan's
Esquerda-Certo: Sr. Zico X Rodrigues, Pe. Jovino Pereira, Sr. A Lyndon Pereira "Baba", Sr. Prof. António Alvares, Sr. José L R Vaz - INDIGENOUS GOANS FRONT

Thursday, January 19, 2017


In accordance with Comunidade Hindu de Portugal -
Being born and brought up in Goa itself, I qualify to voice my opinion on this "lusofonia" matter since we were residents before the Economic Embargo that began in 1954 and the Invasion of December 18, 1961.
My avô maternal was Portuguese and the other avô paternal was a Goan, they married Goan women, and eventually our family grew to be less orthodox and more liberal. It was interesting as a child to see that there were hardly any differences in their lifestyle. But my older generation in Goa i.e. my grandparents were more into the Portuguese lifestyle than us descendants.
I have to say, Goans are very different from Indians, we have a more broad based westernised culture, quite lively. We have no arranged marriage system or a ‘dowry’ system even though I have Aryan and Indigenous Charddó ancestry, yet some pure caste Goans may have this, they who desire to keep their f*ckall standards and remain in their Dodsworth theoretical world.
Yes, it is totally normal for us to not be associated as an Indian citizen, since our culture is much different from that of an Indian family. We love being Goans. Our Goan identity is visibly quite different from the rest of the Indian Union. Same way it isn't a mirror image of Portugal either. It's a unique mix of various cultures, traditions and religions perfectly balancing and complimenting each other while everyone lives in harmony in our lusofone world; as our annexed country was the Seat/Capital from Moçambique to Timor Leste.
Yes, unlike how pseudo-Goans make you believe on the ills and notorieties, I beg to differ, because unlike Indians the Portuguese absolutely loved Goa and Goans! I can attest to it; Goa was tranquil, bucolic, gorgeous, and very clean and quiet when Portugal administered it. Today it has been ‘invaded’ by many from the Indian continent against Art. 49 of the Geneva Conventions and it is "crazy". We residents were always considered just as Portuguese as I am, reason why it still provides citizenship to any Goan born before 1961, and a big thanks to Dr. Froliano de Melló. Nowadays there are many Goans living in Portugal. Our Prime Minister António Costa is the product of a marriage between a Goan father and a Portuguese mother. He is very Portuguese but also very proud of being a son of Goa; he talks about it often.
But today, Goa isn't Goa, it has lost it's charm and is way away from recognising as the Pearl of the East anymore. Because most of our jobs and educational opportunities are exploited by Indians. Who have been since our illegal annexation trying to fuck our small country big time. We have reached on a situation in Goa where middle class Indians live in lavish bungalows and penthouse suites, and middle class Goans have to suffice with unfurnished apartments or live on a rental basis if so they want to part away from their family. It is very difficult for a Goan living in Goa to purchase a piece of land or a small home unless he leaves Goa for his better prospects.
A common Goan layman without much education mentions that at the time of Goa's invasion there was quite a bit of disappointment with the Estado Novo régime. The nationalist government had a chauvinistic rhetoric, and promised to make Portugal relevant on the world stage again, which however failed in pretty much every case; even then Goans were never against Salazar as such. Having said that, the invasion of Goa by the Indian State was considered illegal because Goa had been a province of Portugal for many centuries before India was a country, making India’s claim invalid. But nowadays, most people don’t really have an opinion on the matter. Everyone has heard of Portuguese India (which was not just Goa). There’s certainly no animosity between Portugal and Goa and I’d say the large majority who comprehend facts have a very friendly attitude towards the Portuguese state even till now and most of them have migrated to greener pastures.
Though there are those few "ANTISOCIAL CHARACTERS" who try to brainwash and convince people otherwise by pitting religions against each other, as also the Ganttia fabricated histories. However we Goans are on the brink of extinction, we will not last very long with the vast migration that has been on the rise since the dawn of invasion on December 18, 1961.
We are definitely Goan! As our culture is unique to either India or Portugal, although I must admit a lot of that culture is derived from the Portuguese. Sort of like 'creole'.
And again I beg to differ from pseudo-Goans, because wherever we Goans have gone, whether Patagonia or Honshu and if asked from where are we, if responded - "eu sou Goês/I'm a Goan"; I say, uptil this very second the standard of respect we get is incomparable to what an Indian will, since the world knows it's a country of Thugs and Cheats. Unfortunately nowadays Goans are studying/learning Ganttia traits towards the demise of "Gõycarponnê".

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

What’s So Bad About Indian – Hindu Nationalism By Robert Lindsay

An Indian and a Hindu, asked me to define Indian Hindu nationalism and what exactly I found deplorable about it. First of all, it is clearly possible to be an Indian and not be an Indian Hindu nationalist. The Indian Left has clearly rejected this ideology. I know some Indian Christians, one a convert from Hinduism, who also rejects it. The one I am thinking of is a Tamil who supported  the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

I have spoken to many upper middle class to upper class Indians, and almost 100% were Indian nationalists of the very worst kind. There is something really horrible brewing in India. I do not have the faintest idea what middle class, lower middle class, working class and poor Indians think, as I have never met one. But Indian Hindu nationalism of the very worst sort seems to be epidemic in the upper class and upper middle class.

The symptoms are:

Contempt for the West, its medicine, its language and its perceived superiority. In particular, rage towards the US as being the source of much of India’s problems, a notion that is absurd.

Strong feelings of rage over perceived inferiority masked by compensatory feelings of superiority, typically for the most backwards and fucked-up aspects of Indian culture and the Hindu religion, in particular caste. In particular, fury that India is referred to as a 3rd world country and anger that Westerners consider themselves civilized and consider India backwards, etc.

A notion that India is one of the great countries of the world, but India’s enemies have held it back from its greatness and kept it from being the great country it could be. This goes along with some weird notion that India was the wealthiest country on Earth in 1500, but then it declined to one of the poorest. This project was apparently done by outsiders, mostly Westerners.

A lot of anger towards Muslims. In particular, a notion that moderate Muslims simply do not exist. There is also continuing anger over abuses done by Muslims towards Hindus in the region from 500-1000 years ago. There is also the notion that many Muslims in the area are not really Muslims, since their ancestors were Hindus who were “forced to convert.”

Extreme denial about the worst aspects of Indian culture and the Hindu religion, in particular caste.

Extreme defense of the most outrageous differentials in wealth and poverty.

A notion that something called “Bharat India” existed and that much of the land east and west of India is “really India” in some weird way, because they were Indianized or especially Hinduized at some point.

These people lay some sort of claims to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Southern Philippines, Afghanistan, Iran, Azerbaijan and the general region of the Caucasus. Supposedly at some point these countries were all Hindu or Hinduized of some sort.

A denial that there was ever any religion than Hinduism in India, along with the notion that other religions such as Zoroastrianism are just branches of Hinduism. There is also a complete rejection of the Aryan invasion theory along with a lot of contempt for the lower castes, in particular, a curious notion the Dalits now run India and the Brahmins have become the new “niggers.”

Rage towards Christianity for converting low caste Hindus. I would say that contempt for Christianity is typical amongst this type, over and above feelings towards any other religion.

Anger towards the “White man” and a refusal to be lumped in with him in any way. This is apparently all because Whites from England colonized India for some time.

At the same time, while they often defend Hindutvas,  they themselves usually get angry if you call them a Hindutva or point out that their Indian-Hindu nationalism does not differ much from the Hindutvas.

Extreme rage and irrationality over the Kashmir issue, on which India is effectively an outlaw state, defying a security council resolution. On the contrary, most Pakistanis seem to be fairly calm about Kashmir. I think Indians are filled with so much rage and fury about Kashmir because deep down inside they must know they are wrong.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Of Temples, Conversions & Apologies – by Amita Kanekar

The Portuguese Prime Minister should apologise, say the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) and the Goa Suraksha Manch (GSM), ‘as soon as he lands, for all the atrocities committed on the people of Goa, while the Portuguese ruled Goa.’ 
Let us leave aside the fact that these apology-seekers have long been part of the present ruling establishment, and thus should themselves apologise first for their failure on every single front—for the freely proliferating casinos, for the mining mess, for the numerous white elephant projects destroying the environment while driving the state into massive debt, for the communities being uprooted right and left, for the lack of decent employment and wages for Goans even as the government prepares to clean out the state coffers to provide the 7th Pay Commission bonanza—to itself.
But let us ignore the fact that this talk of apologies for the past is clearly an attempt to distract us from the issues of the present, and to make some nationalist mileage out of the visit of the Prime Minister of Portugal to Goa. Let us also ignore the fact that it is ridiculous to ask for apologies for past events whose participants are dead and gone. What I would like to look at instead is the history peddled by the MGP and GSM, which, as expected, is both one-sided and brahmanical to the core.
So what are these atrocities that they want an apology for? ‘There was maximum destruction done by the Portuguese by destroying temples and bridges, just as they left Goa in 1961,’ claims former PWD minister Sudin Dhavalikar. Plus there was the ‘oppression under the Portuguese rule, conversions and inhumane treatment’, adds GSM president Anand Shirodkar, not to mention the introduction of the ‘English language culture’.
Now this is the first time one has heard of temples destroyed in 1961, simply because it never happened. There are of course records of temple destruction by the Portuguese earlier. But it is really a question whether this calls for apologies. Because what exactly did these temples represent? Even today, many Hindu temples across India are strongly brahmanical institutions.  Dalits have been beaten, even killed, for stepping inside temples in India not centuries ago but in current times. In Goa, while overt violence might not be heard of, Dalits are still barred from Hindu temples in Pernem. Even elsewhere — as in Marcaim, represented by Dhavalikar in the Goa Assembly— full access is allowed only to certain castes, while every single job, ritual and celebration sees the enforcement of the caste system with its ideas of purity and pollution.
The bahujan struggle at Marcaim to democratise the control of the temple is, not surprisingly, yet to receive a word of support from Dhavalikar.
How would it have been centuries ago when the temples of the Velhas Conquistas were destroyed? These dominant-caste temples were not just the owners of wealth, including lands, gold, and all kinds of slaves, but also the heart and soul of caste society. As Xavier and Zupanov (Catholic Orientalism, 2015) point out, the temples were the ‘centre of local sociability, a memory archive of social distinctions, a collective treasury, and the seat of village authority’. This was a society that upheld sati (banned by Albuquerque) and treated bahujans literally like dirt; not even accepting them as animals, forget humans; not allowing them to eat or dress decently—because that was against religion, the religion upheld by the temples. It was a time when Dalits could be killed in religiously-sanctioned sacrifices for the construction of all grand projects, as the inscriptions in Vijayanagara (Hampi) describe.
The destruction of such institutions by the Portuguese would thus surely have been seen as a moment of liberation by many, even though it was probably done not for liberation but as a statement of power.
As for conversions, according to Ângela Barreto Xavier (2007), the untouchables (farazes) were willing converts to Christianity, for they saw it as a chance to escape caste oppression. It is another matter that, thanks to many dominant castes also converting in order to retain power and wealth, caste itself entered Goan Catholicism. Even so, Catholicism still offered the message of equality, at least theoretically. The combination of this theory with the jobs, education, and other opportunities offered by the Estado to Catholic bahujans, meant that they could leave their former humiliating conditions and seek new opportunities. As Raghuraman Trichur and Peter de Souza point out, this in turn provided an opportunity for oppressed castes in the regions outside the Estado. For the Velhas Conquistas now needed labour; bahujan outsiders could find work here and thus escape their old positions and identities.
Conversions to Catholicism were thus a boon for Goans, not just the Catholics but all Goans. And the destroyed temples were similarly hardly likely to have been mourned by anybody but the dominant castes whose position they upheld. As for the ‘English language culture’, only casteists would want to deny this culture to all, along with the social and economic benefits it entails.
So, apologies for what? Vasco da Gama’s arrival in the Malabar is in fact considered by many Dalits as a milestone in the history of Dalit liberation (Aditya Nigam, 2006).
It is high time that Goans stop falling for the history narratives peddled by casteist myth-mongers. For them, the only problem in Goan (and Indian) history is the arrival of the Portuguese (and the British); before that, we supposedly lived in a Golden Age. But this was a Golden Age of only the dominant castes, and the sooner we recognize this, the earlier our real liberation.  


The occupying party i.e. the Indian State, is ultimately responsible for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by local authorities such as Jack Sequeira and or proxy forces.

1. Does applying occupation law to Goa affect the status of the territory that India occupies? 

Applying the law of occupation, or determining India to be an occupying power for the purposes of international humanitarian law, does not in any way affect the sovereignty of the territory. Sovereignty is not transferred to the occupying power.

Local authorities organised the Opinion Poll in Goa without the authorisation of the Comunidades/Gãocarias and the Poll has not received broad-based endorsement by other countries. It cannot be considered a transfer of sovereignty that would end the state of belligerent occupation.

2. What law relating to occupation is binding on Goa?

While much of occupation law is also a matter of customary humanitarian law, the primary treaty sources of the modern law of occupation are the Hague Regulations of 1907 (Hague), the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (Geneva IV), and certain provisions of the First Protocol of 1977 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention notes that the obligations of the convention begin as soon as there is contact between the civilian population of a territory and troops advancing into that territory; that is, at the soonest possible moment. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, protected persons are all those who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict or an occupying power of which they are not nationals. While all of the duties imposed on an occupying power may not become applicable immediately (some presuppose the presence of the occupation authorities for a fairly long period), the entirety of the provisions relating to the rights enjoyed by protected persons and their treatment become applicable immediately.

In addition to the rules found in international humanitarian law, the occupying power must respect international human rights law and national law, subject to certain exceptions. With respect to human rights law, limitations on certain rights are permitted if they are “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation,” but any limitations must still respect the standards in international humanitarian law.

3. What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law underlying military occupation?

International humanitarian law provides that once an occupying power has assumed authority over all or part of a territory, it is obliged to restore and maintain, as far as possible, public order and safety (Hague, art. 43). The occupying power must also respect the fundamental human rights of the territory’s inhabitants, including non-citizens (Geneva IV, arts. 29, 47), and ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation (Geneva IV, arts. 55, 56). Collective punishment and reprisals are prohibited (Protocol I, art. 75). Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities (Geneva IV, art. 63).

4. What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law underlying military occupation?

International humanitarian law provides that once an occupying power has assumed authority over all or part of a territory, it is obliged to restore and maintain, as far as possible, public order and safety (Hague, art. 43). The occupying power must also respect the fundamental human rights of the territory’s inhabitants, including noncitizens (Geneva IV, arts. 29, 47), and ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation (Geneva IV, arts. 55, 56). Collective punishment and reprisals are prohibited (Protocol I, art. 75). Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities (Geneva IV, art. 63).

5. What are the protection obligations of an occupying power toward the local population?

An occupying power is responsible for respecting the fundamental human rights of the population under its authority. Everyone is to be treated humanely and without discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, or any other basis. This includes respecting family honour and rights, people’s lives, and private property, as well as religious and customary convictions and practice.

Women are to be especially protected against any attack, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Everyone is to be treated with the same consideration by the occupying power without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion, or political opinion. Private property may not be confiscated (Hague, art. 46; Geneva IV, art. 27). However, an occupying power may take such measures of control and security as may be necessary as a result of the war (Geneva IV, art. 27).

An occupying power is specifically prohibited from carrying out reprisals and collective penalties against people or their property (Geneva IV, art. 33) and from taking hostages (Geneva IV, art. 34). In general, no one may be punished for acts they have not personally committed. All parties to a conflict are required to provide information on prisoners of war (Geneva III, art. 122) and “protected persons” (civilian nationals) in their custody (Geneva IV, art. 136).

The occupying power is prohibited from forcibly transferring or deporting protected persons outside of the occupied territory irrespective of motive (Geneva IV, art. 49).

6. What obligations does the Indian State as an occupying power have with respect to the actions of Goan authorities, as well as local forces?

India is bound by the law of occupation wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of Goa – currently, all or at least part of Goa – without the consent of the Comunidades/Gãocarias. Even where local authorities remain in place, India remains bound by its obligations to the civilian population to ensure public safety and welfare. That means India is responsible for preventing and taking action against human rights abuses by local forces acting as proxies for India. In the event that political groups are acting independently of local authorities, India has a responsibility to take appropriate action to maintain security.

7. What are the obligations of an occupying power to provide for well-being of the population?

Generally, an occupying power is responsible for ensuring that food and medical care are available to the population under its control, and to facilitate assistance by relief agencies.

An occupying force has a duty to ensure the food and medical supplies of the population, as well as to maintain hospitals and other medical services, “to the fullest extent of the means available to it” (Geneva IV, arts. 55, 56). This includes protecting civilian hospitals, medical personnel, and the wounded and sick. Medical personnel, including recognised Red Cross/Red Crescent societies, are to be allowed to carry out their duties (Geneva IV, arts. 56, 63). The occupying power is to make special efforts to assist children orphaned or separated from their families (Geneva IV, art. 24) and facilitate the exchange of family news (Geneva IV, arts. 25, 26).

If any part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the occupying power is to facilitate relief by other countries and impartial humanitarian agencies (Geneva IV, art. 59). However, the provision of assistance by others does not relieve the occupying force of its responsibilities to meet the needs of the population (Geneva IV, art. 60). The occupying power shall ensure that relief workers are respected and protected.

8. Must parties to a conflict provide humanitarian organisations access to prisoners-of-war and other detainees?

The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions require parties to a conflict to permit access by the ICRC and other relief agencies to prisoners-of-war (POWs) and interned civilians. The ICRC must be granted regular access to anyone deprived of their liberty to monitor the conditions of their detention and to restore contact with their families. The ICRC has full liberty to select the places it wishes to visit and to interview people confidentially. Visits may only be refused for reasons of “imperative military necessity,” and as an exceptional and temporary measure. Other humanitarian agencies may request access to POWs and detained civilians. The detaining authority shall facilitate such visits, though it may limit the number of humanitarian agencies visiting a person who is being held.

9. When can civilians be detained or taken prisoner by an occupying power?

The Fourth Geneva Convention permits the internment or assigned residence of protected persons for “imperative reasons of security.” This must be carried out in accordance with a regular procedure permissible under international humanitarian law and allow for the right of appeal and for review by a competent body at least every six months (Geneva IV, art. 78). The Fourth Geneva Convention provides detailed regulations for the humane treatment of internees. The ICRC must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

10. What obligations exist concerning the property and resources of the occupied territory?

In general, the destruction of private or public property is prohibited unless military operations make it absolutely necessary (Geneva IV, art. 53). Cultural property is entitled to special protection; the occupying power must take measures to preserve cultural property (Cultural Property Convention, art. 5). As a rule, private property may not be confiscated. Religious, charitable, and educational institutions are to be treated as private property. The occupying power may requisition food and medical supplies for occupation forces and administrative personnel so long as the needs of the civilian population have been taken into account and fair payment is made (Geneva IV, art. 55). Taxes and tariffs may also be imposed to defray the administrative costs of the occupation, including the cost of occupying forces (Hague, art. 49).

Public properties are treated as either movable or immovable property. Movable government properties that may be used for military purposes (transport, weapons) are considered “spoils of war” and may be seized without compensation (Hague, art. 53). Immovable government properties (public buildings, real estate) may not be appropriated; however, they may be used and administered by the occupying power so long as their assets are maintained (Hague, art. 55). Any loss of value from their use must be compensated.

11. To what extent does international human rights law apply?

International human rights law is applicable during armed conflicts and occupations. Indian State is a party to international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. These treaties outline guarantees for fundamental rights, many of which correspond to the rights to which civilians are entitled under humanitarian law (e.g. right to life, prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, nondiscrimination, liberty and security of the person, due process). While in a time of war or public emergency restrictions on and derogations from many of these rights are permitted (e.g. restrictions on freedom of assembly and right to privacy), such restrictions are limited to those that are strictly required by the necessity of the situation and that are compatible with obligations under international humanitarian law.

In particular military actions, which might entail breaches of the Convention rights of the civilian population, including putting their life and health at risk, and to comply with their engagements under the Convention, notably in respect of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).