Yes RKN, you are partly right. Manipur was forcibly annexed by the Republic of India in a rather shocking way: http://www.manipuronline.com/Opinions/September2002/annexation26_1.htm
Hyderabad was also forcibly annexed by the Republic of India: http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr45/findohyderabad1948.htm http://joy-of-books.blogspot.com/2006/12/hyderabad-integration.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._3_Squadron,_Indian_Air_Force And so many other states were forcibly annexed by the Republic of India. There are two main differences though. 1st difference: =============== Most of these states, forcibly or not, signed an instrument of accession and an instrument of merger (except Kashmir). Goa did not. So legally, those states merged or were annexed to the Republic of India through an Instrument of Accession and an Agreement of Merger. Of course they were forced to sign but at least there is a document and in most cases, the rulers of those states did sign to keep their rights and privileges. They know who to blame - the rulers themselves. Such document does not exist in the case of Goa! That is a big difference. Hence the Supreme Court of India determined that the case of Goa is an Act of Conquest and all the other cases are Acts of Annexation through signed instruments. 2nd difference: =============== All those princely states were under British rule. For a considerable amount of yeas, they were already under a same umbrella through British rule - a huge country which was called British India. I believe there was some kind of understanding for them to become independent from the British in 1947 and then join either the Republic of India or Pakistan. I am not sure the extent of this understanding, if it was just an understanding or a commitment, a possibility or if the local rulers could opt out and become independents. I think they could indeed opt out. Manipur certainly tried going the independence route but failed as you can very well read from the article referenced above. The map of Goa was a Portuguese invention. Its territory map pre-dates the map of British India. Goa was never part of the Republic of India and was not part of the negotiations of independence of British India from the British. In fact, an independent Republic of India post 1947 did recognise that Goa was not part of the Republic of India and even maintained diplomatic representation in Goa. Conclusion: ========== You ask a very valid question: "So what do we do about it now?" Well, we can only live with it. I have learned to accept it. What is done is done and there is no going back. However, I am not stupid to call it a "liberation" when the Supreme Court of India itself calls it an "Act of Conquest". Things are what they are. No point in pretending it did not happen. It did happen. >From a legal point of view and international law, the Indian army were in 1961 as foreigners to Goa as the Spanish army is to Portugal. I think people can understand very well this parallel. So, if you really want to know what we now do about it, I will tell you quite frankly: Celebrate 19th Dec 1961, celebrate Indian culture, embrace it fully. I do it and I think it is the right way to go about it now that the past is past. But stop fooling yourself, face reality and stop calling it a "liberation". Because it isn't and you very well know it. Best regards Paulo Colaco Dias. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Radhakrishnan Nair Sent: 26 November 2008 10:06 To: goanet@lists.goanet.org Subject: Re: [Goanet] 25 November Real Liberation Day of Goa Okay, Paulo, Goa was conquered. So were Hyderabad, Travancore and a good chunk of modern India. What do we do about it now? Do you "unbrainwashed Goans" have any idea to remedy the situation? If not, Paulo, hold your peace! Cheers, RKN