SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 2024
There is a debate in the public space today on the reasons for the long delay of 14 years for the Liberation of Goa by the independent Indian government. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, was 58 years when he started the long innings of 17 years as free India's first Prime Minister. History has therefore put on him the onus of the responsibility for this delay. It is important to analyse roles played by leaders and people, especially Pandit Nehru amidst the present controversy that he alone was responsible in Goans not being able to unfurl the Indian tri-colour on Goan soil.
Nehru believed since 1946 that, “Goa was a small pimple on the beautiful face of India and it would not take much time to pinch once India gained independence”. Being fully involved in the fight against British Imperialism, Nehru became engaged in the Goan question after 1947, addressing conferences, rallies, seminars, meeting delegations from Goa and above all making important policy statements on the floor of the House.
Today, much to the chagrin of lovers of history, historiography seems to be influenced by the colour of political ideology. Leaders are either humanised or demonised depending on which side of the political spectrum they belong. Historians, however, cannot view the happenings of the past based on the colour of the spectacles they wear. It is therefore the need of the hour to place on record historical facts and the geo-political compulsions in global politics at that point of time.
On 15th August 1947, Nehru in a message to the press expressed his anguish of the fact that many could not share in the freedom that had come, although they were a part of India and added that they would remain to be so whatever may happen. Goa has always had a distinct linguistic and geographical identity, alongside a cultural and emotional bond as a result of its unique past. This fact was recognised by the national leaders as early as in December 1948, when the INC passed a resolution that if a change over took place, Goan culture and institutions would be maintained within the larger frame work of free India. It is pertinent to understand that respect for the unique Goan identity could never be doubted once Goa was liberated from the colonial yoke.
Nehru had made it clear that his government’s policy was to settle this issue by peaceful means. A Portuguese Consul was stationed in Bombay and the Indian counterpart in Panjim. On 27th February 1950, Nehru’s government initiated negotiations for a peaceful transfer of power, however, on August 14; Nehru announced that this was rejected. On December 6, 1950, he lamented that all these years we have reasoned argued and used peaceful methods, without any results.
Negotiations had been initiated with France in 1947 to integrate the far flung French pockets of Chanranagore, Mahe, Yanam, Karaikal and Pondicherry with India. The French response was positive. By 1955 all the pockets were integrated with the Indian Union. Attempts at similar negotiations with Portugal failed. Portugal argued that Goa was an overseas province of Portugal and belonged to her on grounds of historicity and that culturally Goa was Portuguese. On April 12, 1954 in a speech delivered through the National Broadcast, Portuguese dictator Salazar, made it clear that “Goa was non-negotiable to just let go, as though it was an object to be given away or sold.” Nehru, however, till then had believed that Goa would be a part of India through a peaceful settlement like Pondicherry.
In 1954, India and China enunciated the Panchsheel, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Nehru based India’s foreign policy on these five principles: coexistence and respect for the territorial and integral sovereignty of others as well as non-aggression and non-interference with the internal affairs of others. Committing military aggression meant that Nehru would be criticised of not practicing what he preached. V Gadgil believed that Nehru hesitated to take action not because it was difficult but he feared that he would lose his role as a peacemaker in the world political arena. Dadra and Nagar Haveli were liberated in July and August 1954 respectively, with the Azad Gomantak Dal at the vanguard.
The years 1954/55 were the years of the Satyagraha movements led by the Goa Vimochan Sahayak Samiti. Nehru’s government fearing a backlash on innocent and unarmed satygrahis put a ban on Indians entering Goa. The resulting deportations to Portugal and massacres did not provoke Nehru and he believed non-violence would solve this issue. The Portuguese then sealed the borders and cut off the rail links. In response the Nehru government imposed an economic blockade and a ban on satyagrahis entering Goa.
Nehru in a debate in the Lok Sabha criticised Salazar’s argument the Goa was an overseas province of Portugal and argued that even the pro American bloc of Allies or NATO powers (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) could not be forced to deal with the problem. The hidden fear of this treaty was that if any of its members were attacked the others were to come to its aid. Salazar of course wanted to retain its colonies under one pretext or the other. Two mass rallies were addressed by Nehru in Bombay on October 2, 1955 and June 4, 1956 only on the Goa issue. The Goan Tribune, newspaper printed the entire speech verbatim. He reiterated that no coercion would be used to join India.
Pandit Nehru addressed another Goa rally on June 13, 1958. Nehruismo is a full page write up on the leader’s political philosophy. This article written by the editor Lambert Mascarenhas shows the angst at the uncooperative behavior of the Prime Minister Nehru. “He is said to have played in the hands of Salazar, and is mocked upon as Nehru the patient, Nehru the peaceful.” The author feels Salazar’s ‘heroismo should be dubbed ‘Nehruismo’. Nehru’s assurance that, “The Goa issue will be solved sooner than most people expect.”– was questioned, “How soon is sooner?” was the question raised. The editor was in fact voicing the aspirations of all Goans.
In March 1961, Nehru met a delegation of the Goan political convention in Delhi. This delegation had representatives of different sections of the Goan community in Goa and in India like, Adv Louis Mendes (my father) as the representative of the Goan Clubs Federation. Some other members were Lambert Mascarenhas, Bertha Menezes Bragança, George Vaz, Vishwanath Lawande and Fr H Mascarenhas.
Nehru, Josif Tito, President of Yugoslavia Gamal Nasser President of Egypt were among the leaders who floated the idea of a Non Aligned Movement. Jawaharlal Nehru realised that one of the greatest dangers of India and other newly independent countries lie in joining any of the two power blocs. He advocated all the countries to stay away from the power blocs. The first NAM Summit Conference took place in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in September 1961. The Deccan Chronicle of December 18, 2011, in a report “50 years back”, spoke of Nehru meeting Adv Louis Mendes and assuring him that “the appropriate action would be taken at the appropriate time”.
In October 1961, the seminar of the Portuguese Colonial Possessions resulted in the African leaders requesting Nehru “to show the way”, so that their freedom would follow. At the Chowpatty rally in Bombay the same month for the first time Nehru spoke of the need of using “other methods” to solve the problem.
Thereafter in November, Nehru visited USA, Yugoslavia and Egypt. The Defence Minister, Krishna Menon was responsible for the final decision of Operation Vijay but it could not be done without Nehru’s approval. In a book on India and politics: Krishna Menon’s view of the world by Michael Brecher, Menon admitted that had India driven out the Portuguese in 1947, none in the outside world would have said anything. Ultimately the ease with which Goa, Daman and Diu were liberated and the way in which it was tackled by the Soviet Union and India in the UN Security Council only show that the conditions would not have been different in 1947. On the contrary, Portugal would have been helpless to face Goa’s liberation issue in the Security Council or UN General Assembly of which it was not a member then.
The ultra-nationalists believe Nehru wasted 14 long years; while another section of Goan society who believes the Portuguese should have continued in Goa – both criticise Nehru. If both the groups are against Nehru’s decisions perhaps he can be seen as a non-partisan player who did it right as he believed in peaceful negotiations and avoiding bloodshed at all costs. The dynamics and politics of the liberation struggle of Goa had to consider the national and international geo-politics of that period and therefore we need to refrain today from passing value judgements that suits our ideological stances. This would demean the very essence of a great and collective anti-colonial struggle which also criticised ideology but respected the person.
(The Author is a Sr. Faculty in History.)
