In response to Eugene Correia's post on the matter:
Having read the book from cover to cover over several weeks, I could proffer
the following thoughts.
1: I am unable to believe many of the vague charges contained in the book. They
are just as 'believable' as the pre-invasion propaganda on the Indian side.
2: There are some other parts which are believable - based on conversations
with those who were in Goa at the time, and based on how events have unfolded
post1961.
3: The book would have been totally unbelievable IF Goa was not then treated as
"spoils of war".
4: I would NOT make a judgement on a book based on 'bits and pieces' . If I
did, I would be like my colleague from Ahmedabad who would look at the posters
and photographs in the windows of El Dorado and relate a whole story of the
film .as though he had seen it.
5: Not all who challenge the status quo are pro-Portuguese. How does Eugene
know that they are not just pro-Goan? Would he say, for instance that Rajan
Parrikar's writings are pro-Portuguese?
6: Personally, I believe (like Santoshbab) that the invasion was not legal.
Like him and others, I too believe that it is NOW " water under the bridge".
Time to move forward.
7: Am I saddened by the continued filthification and the continued land grab?
I am. The fact of the matter is that one can do nothing about it. Conquests are
like that. You lose You snooze. I have accepted it. Perhaps, others too will
accept it, albeit grudgingly..and move on.
8: As far as the book is concerned, I cannot dictate to others WHAT they should
think about the book, at least until they have had the opportunity to read it.
9: That might not be possible IF the book is banned or otherwise not available.
jc
Pardon any Typos. This IPad does some curious auto- corrections
On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Eugene Correia wrote:
> Those who believe that the book, Nehru Seizes Goa, is their bible
> there's nothing one can say. Leo Lawrence guided the pressmen who came
> to Goa before and after the Liberation. I was going through some
> scanned clippings from foreign newspapers before and after the
> Liberation. Also went through the chapter on Goa in Salazar and Modern
> Portugal by Hugh Kay where the author says that the diplomatic
> standoff between Salazar and Nehru with Salazar trying his best to
> hold on to Portugal under constitutional amendments and some
> historical examples of countries giving away their colonies and Nehru
> sticking to his guns that must be absorbed into India, the Indian
> government saw no option but to move its army into the colony.
> I have said here that it was a war and, as they say, everything is
> fair in love and war India did what it was best in the circumstances.
> From a diplomatic war to armed struggle was a long way.
> Does it surprise that NATO allies didn't come to the rescue of
> Portugal despite Salazar's pleading? It was the time when the last
> bastions of colonialism were falling if not already fallen and African
> nations wanted that one boost to give them the reason to demand
> freedom. Like a domino effect, it happened. That's what history is and
> one has to understand that "ifs and buts" are something one looks at
> in hindsight.
> As I mentioned earlier the whole thing is now academic, more so after
> Portugal has recognized India's sovereignty over Goa the matter
> between the two countries should be considered closed. But we have
> here and elsewhere, particularly on a vehemently anti-Indian website,
> people crying over split milk, by which I mean that Goa should have
> got Independent nation status. This is one "if" of the tussle for the
> prized colony.
> As Vivian said that it's old matter and we must see forward, a
> statement that was seconded by Merwyn. This world is largely
> post-colonial and I advise those wanting to see the Asian world
> through the lens of post-coloniality to read Between the Lines: South
> Asians and Post-Coloniality, a collection of essays. I don't have my
> book with me right now to quote from it.
> Leo has acknowledged reporters from the foreign press, and many of the
> reports from these reporters and editorials from global media were
> complied together in a book form by the Portuguese information
> department. I happened to read the copy borrowed from a fiercely
> pro-Portuguese who by the mid-70s had tempered down. The book also
> carried many anti-Nehru and anti-Gandhi cartoons and the ones I
> remember is of a Nehru wooden statue with a olive branch (symbolism
> peace) and soldiers coming out of the back door. It was a reminder of
> the Trojan Horse of Greek history. Gandhi was shown seating in his
> trademark pose, crosslegged, with his head bowed down and a dragger
> shoved into his back. I wished someone had drawn a cartoon of Nehru
> seizing Salazar by his b***s.
> Gandhi himself didn't approve of the method to gain Goa but in the
> post-Independent India Gandhi's voice carried not much weigh
