BJP leaders blame India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru over Goa's Liberation whenever possible. Whether it's the occasion of Goa Liberation Day or Revolution Day, the delay of 14 years to free Goa from the Portuguese regime is churned over and over again. Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Dr Rajeev Chandrasekhar has been no exception to this either. In his speech as a guest during 18th June Revolution Day at Margao, he accused Congress of causing delay in initiating action to free Goa from the Portuguese rule. He also added that the State would have gained freedom earlier had Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel lived for a few more years. This is an intentional perversion of truth and an attempt to blame the then Prime Minister Nehru.
It is no longer a surprise that the Central ministers in the BJP-led government including the Prime Minister himself often find ways to target Nehru. The stance taken by the PM is carried forward by the leaders under him. The government changed the name of the Nehru Museum in Delhi without any reason. What is more agitating perhaps, was when the news emerged that the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh replaced the name of the park from Nehru Park to put in the name of the son of the chief minister. BJP's hatred towards the country's first Prime Minister reflects in all their actions and it is a part of their anti-Nehru campaign. Goa was still under Portuguese rule when India gained independence in 1947. The smallest State was later annexed by the Indian armed forces in 1961. Hence, the day is celebrated as Liberation Day and not as Independence Day. Dr Chandrasekhar is of the opinion that the Nehru-led Indian government delayed to initiate this very operation, the opinion that is echoed by PM Modi and CM Dr Pramod Sawant. There is causality behind every incident which should influence the opinion of the thinkers regarding the respective incident. Hence, the delay to liberate Goa has to be analysed. If the question is about why there was 14 years of delay to free Goa that means it is implied that the State should have been freed when India gained independence. However, was it really possible? The Crown's 150-year long British regime had to be dethroned in order to free the country which took a lengthy battle led by Congress. Country's economic, social, political and educational conditions prevalent at that time should be taken into consideration as well. India, as a newly freed country, had many challenges of its own and coming out of the situation was a gigantic task. The strength of the military was not up to the mark and building that was primal. Mainly, and probably the biggest work the leaders had cut out for them was to create the Constitution in order to establish democratic rule in the country. In short, the government had a humongous task of rebuilding the nation from scratch. Hence, it was not possible to work on freeing a small territory such as Goa, when they already had their hands full. The situation at international level was such that the country could not have won Goa by war. Portugal was a part of NATO and any attack on a NATO member was construed as an attack on all NATO members. If Goa was attacked, we can prognosticate a scenario where it could lead to an attack on India from all NATO members. Therefore, Nehru's policy was to first earn it through peace and if that does not work, then initiate an armed action. The approach was ideal given the situation prevalent at the time. Nehru utilised all his diplomatic prowess with the Portuguese to free Goa and had even shut down the Indian embassy in Portugal. Portugal had taken the issue to UNO the same day when the Indian government carried out the armed action in 1961. The discussion which took place then contains all the information regarding India's efforts to free Goa. Hence, it is absolutely wrong to say that the Indian government did not do anything for 14 years to free Goa. Dr Chandrasekhar should first read history before making any statements.
Secondly, he stated that Goa would have been freed sooner if Sardar Patel had lived longer. But what is the basis for this? Patel persuaded almost all the princely states to integrate into India to form one, independent nation. So, is Chandrasekhar implying that Patel could have acceded Goa into India? However, one thing should be noted here is that the princely states were not directly governed by the British and were ruled by Indian rulers under a form of indirect rule. This was not the case with Goa and so, these incidents cannot be compared. And if Patel was not backed by Nehru, would he have been able to persuade princely states to merge as one union? The credit of forging a united India cannot be given to Patel alone. All in all, Dr Chandrasekhar's statements are baseless.