Eugene, I must say that for the first time I am in agreement with most of what you now wrote.
Mathai, Lawrence and other Goa 1961 banned publications are quite revealing. I am not too sure if Mathai was banned because of particular aspects of Nehru's personal life being exposed. The general public already knew the disgusting albeit interesting facts of Nehru's personal life including his affair with Lady Mountbatten which caused great embarrassment and shame not only for Nehru's family but also to Britain. Certainly Lawrence's "Nehru seizes Goa" was not banned because of Nehru's private life, I do not think so. Anyway, it is very interesting to learn the amount of times that Nehru actually lied about the motives for the 1961 action. Prior to the invasion, Nehru stated that Portuguese naval vessels had attacked an Indian fishing boat and an Indian merchant ship (this actually triggered the invasion as it was classified as an unprovoked attack), and that well-armed Portuguese troops were "massing menacingly" along the 180-mile Indo-Goan border. I have recently found out through reading some of Nehru's closest friends memoirs (as I am sure you did too) that the so called Portuguese attack on the Indian fishing boat and Indian merchant ship never happened and it was totally made up by the Indians. Regarding the Portuguese troops "massing menacingly" along the 180-mile Indo-Goan border, we of course know that it is false as nobody can imagine how 3500 Portuguese army in total can do that... Portugal's colonial authorities, Nehru said, were brutally oppressing the Goan people, most of whom were Hindus who eagerly desired to be reunited with India. But as we now learn from the ones close to Nehru, the Indian black list contained equal number of Catholics and Hindus. And we also know that the words "brutally oppressing" are a true exaggeration of what was happening in Goa. Important Refs: 1) Friday, Dec. 29, 1961 - Time Magazine. Available from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,827193,00.html 2) Bandyopadhyaya - "The Making of India's Foreign Policy" which clearly describes the extent of Menon's lie when Nehru asked him to suspend the invasion at the last minute and he replied that the troops had already entered Goan territory (pg. 87). The book also claims that although the cabinet had been informed of the possible invasion, Nehru did not ask his cabinet to approve the invasion (pg.88)(perhaps because he was aware that the cabinet was divided with a strong opposition from Desai) and the cabinet was taken by surprise when the invasion actually started. It appears that not even Nehru was aware of the D date! Cardinal Gracias (who apparently was a friend of Menon) was aware of the date though and through "vino veritas" method, the message was passed to the Portuguese forces who on the 17th were already aware of the D day and asked Rush and Galbraith to intervene. Bandyopadhyaya claims that Nehru learned of the date from Galbraith so it appears that he was not in control but Menon was. Excerpts available from: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PzeFR8lxLrIC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Nehru+Ca binet+opposed+Goa&source=web&ots=Y-u9eIE3wp&sig=Y7nqdqiLWVZrsAhXBeQddMBIJbw& hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result Anyway, this is just to point out the existence of the other side of history. Unfortunately, this is the other side which has not been told and that many of us Goans do not want to know because it says a thing or two about our "liberators" of 1961. It is with references and facts that we can critically analyse events. Again, I am not defending the Portuguese. I am simply stating facts. Nobody is saying that colonialism is/was good. But it would be wrong to agree that the Indian Union was legitimate in doing what it has done in 1961. I think I have managed to dig up some references that demonstrate exactly that and I thank Eugene for agreeing with these facts. Now it is up to the reader to interpret and form an opinion. Yes, 1961 is fait acomplait. However, that does not mean that we Goans should not know the truth about it and how it ended the dream of independence to so many Goans that truly aspire it. They (our so called "liberators") should have at least given us access to a plebiscite to decide the future of our Goa. But what was Nehru scared of? If he was so confident that Goans wanted to unite with India (like he himself claimed several times) why did he deny a plebiscite on the issue? This is the main point. This is why I will never call it a "liberation". Because you cannot liberate and conquer at the same time and, effectively, conquest and subjugation is what the Indian Union did. Not only to the Portuguese who held the title to the territory but also to the people of Goa who would hope to hold the title after the Portuguese. The refusal of a plebiscite took away the democratic will of the Goan people and ended the dream of independence of the real freedom fighters such as Froilano de Mello at al who died saying "Patria ingrata!" (ungrateful motherland). Fait acomplait should not prevent us from knowing the other side of history! And Eugene, you do not need to be pro-Portuguese or pro-Indian to learn about the other side of history. All you need is to read! Best regards Paulo Colaco Dias. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:goanet- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eugene Correia > Sent: 03 July 2008 08:29 > To: goanet@lists.goanet.org > Subject: Re: [Goanet] June 18 and Goa's Liberation/Aggression -- some > points > > 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. > > 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 Rush. 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,