FREE GOA from INDIAN Invasion & it's Continued Illegal Occupation against UN Resolution.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 5,000!

We, the indigenous people of Goa known as “Goans” from the Goa Territory of “Estado da India” {the term ‘India’ meaning “Goa, Damao, Diu, Dadra and Nagar-Aveli”}, (hereinafter referred to as “Goa” for the sake of brevity); displaced Goans from outside Goa, Goans living in exile in other foreign countries; Goan allies and sympathizing citizens of the world; hereby prayerfully petition the United Nation General Assembly and state that:

The petitioners appeal to the current members of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to review the subject matter of this petition with a fresh perspective as the conscience keepers of world peace. The UNSC resolution S/5033 was passed in the 988th meeting on 18.Dec.61 with 7 members out of 11 voting in favour of the motion calling for India to withdraw its forces from Goa to its pre 17.Dec.61 position which was vetoed by USSR, a permanent member. Some UNSC members, at that time, were also frustrated with Portugal for not respecting the UN resolutions, and in the bargain, Goa became the unfortunate victim of these frustrations and vindictiveness towards Portugal. India benefited from these disagreements and frustrations of the member nations and went scot free with the murder of the Charter. The Goa instance is perhaps the only instance in the history of the UN compared to other instances of nations conducting themselves in similar aggressive manner against the UN Charter. Since 1961 several incidents similar to Goa like Falkland Islands, East Timor and Kuwait have taken place, and the UN has dealt with them decisively under the Charter. But the Goa matter which has been brought up repeatedly in the UN debates, was itself improperly handled making it difficult to understand as to how the august UN allowed itself to strike Goa out of the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, to rebuff the Goan delegation of 4 to the Trusteeship Committee, and to attempt to expunge their testimony from the UN records, which was luckily stayed, thanks to some friendly nation members, and finally, the entry into the UN Year Book of 1962 that Goa was nationally REUNITED with India. The aim of the UN Charter is “Peace” but the continuing resultant “Torment” being suffered by the Goans over the past 56 years continues to be, and ever will be held against the UN by future generations and questioned by legal professionals the world over. Therefore there is an urgent need for the current members of the UN to review the matter of Goa’s invasion and continuing illegal occupation by India so that Goans can finally get the ultimate justice and closure. As said by President Bush of the USA, the actions of the UNGA in handling this petition will prove to the entire world whether it is going to be relevant or whether it is going to be a league of nations, irrelevant.

The petitioners hereby also state that the detailed original draft of this petition could not be loaded on the online petition website due to the website's text space limitations, as a result, only the summary of the salient parts was possible to be loaded, which is listed below:

1. INDIA WAS BORN ONLY IN 1947: Until the year 1858 the Indian subcontinent was politically fragmented and comprised of over 560 princely states ruled by indigenous rulers. From 1858 onwards the British captured most of these princely states and formed a unified India, officially a British colony till 1947. The Republic of India was formed in 1947 after it gained independence from the British. 

 2. PROOF OF GOA’S SOVEREIGNTY vis-à-vis UN & INDIA’s ACCEPTANCE: Although geographically contained in the Indian subcontinent, Goa was already politically established as “Estado da India” and was in continuous existence for 451 years since the year 1510, under Portuguese rule and was neither a part of the British Colony nor a part of India, because India did not exist until 1947. The Republic of India subsequently became a member of the United Nations and exchanged diplomatic missions with Portugal on 12th August 1948.

a) India held its General Consulate in Goa till 1955. This is prima facie proof that Goa was recognized by India as a sovereign country. If Goa was an Indian Territory, India would not have had diplomatic relations with its own territory. 

b) India through its Charge d'Affaires in Lisbon, in aide-memoire, requested Portugal to transfer to itself its sovereignty in Goa. This was Indian admission that sovereignty lied with Portugal contrary to its false claims during the UNSC meetings 987 and 988 of 18.Dec.61

c) The ICJ had on 12.Apr.60 ruled in the “Right of Passage Case” that India had no right of claim on the enclaves of Dadra and Nagar Aveli, parts of Damão district, a dependency of Goa and Portugal’s right to passage in exercise of its sovereignty.     Indian General Consulate in Goa  International Court of Justice

3.  INDIA SUPPORTED GOA AS “NON-SELF GOVERNING TERRITORY”: On 15.Dec.60 the UN declared Goa and all Portuguese colonies as Non-Self-Governing Territories (qualifying for self-determination or plebiscite), in light of the provisions of Chapter XI of the Charter, UNGA resolution 742 (VIII) and principles approved in resolution 1542 (XV) on the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee of Six elected by UNGA vide resolution 1467 (XIV) of 12.Dec.59. Indian Ambassador to UN Mr. Chandra. S. Jha was President of the committee who did not claim Goa as Indian territory and voted in favour of the resolution.  UN Resolution 1542   UN Resolution 1467

4.  SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLVES GOA ANNEXATION AS ILLEGAL: In the 988th meeting of the UNSC on 18.Dec.61, USA, UK, France, Turkey, Chile, Ecuador, and Nationalist China, acting on a complaint by Portugal passed a majority resolution S/5033 declaring the annexation of Goa by India as illegal and called for the cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of Indian forces from Goa, and for India and Portugal to solve differences through peaceful means. In the preamble of the draft resolution, Article 1 (2) was recalled and the principle of self-determination by the people of Goa debated. The majority resolution was defeated by the Soviet veto–the 99th cast by the USSR in the UNSC as a favour to India.  Portuguese Complaint to the UN  UN Security Council Resolution S/5033   UN Security Council Record  

5.   INDIA ILLEGALLY INVADED GOA CLAIMING IT AS INDIAN TERRITORY: India in violation of the sovereign rights of Portugal, the UN Charter, and world order, illegally conquered, occupied and annexed Goa on 19.Dec.61. India fabricated a false claim that since Goa was geographically a part of the Indian subcontinent, it was Indian Territory, and that India had a right to put an end to the Portuguese colonial rule unilaterally and illegally, ignoring the fact that a year earlier it had voted in favor of including Goa in the UN list of Non Self Governing Territories. This principle, if accepted would permit Panama, to occupy the Canal Zone, or Spain to seize Gibraltar and Alaska to be a part of Canada. If geography should be the criteria for such claims, there is no justification for the existence of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and other nations in the Indian subcontinent. Sri Lanka is inhabited by a substantial population of Indian origin which was violently fighting for independent North Eastern areas for decades as Tamil Elam, with massive casualties. Indian religious Hindu texts also document religious ties with Shri Lanka from Vedic times. India even sent a Peace Keeping Force to Sri Lanka but never suggested nor claimed it to be Indian Territory. At no time in history was the Indian subcontinent politically united, because historically, there were Hindu empires and kingdoms just as there were Moghul, Bahamani and other empires and kingdoms, and, lastly there was the empire of British India. None of all these empires and kingdoms ever extended over the entire geographical region today known as India. India grew out of a part of the former British India which only held a part of the Indian subcontinent. However the very description of Goa as a "foreign pocket" always showed that the territory was all the time regarded by the people of India and their political leaders as a foreign territory and not a part of India. Goa had nothing to do with the old British Indian Empire. The Chicanery and trickery which India’s UN representative Mr. Jha imputed on Portugal were actually acts committed by India, because behind the violent occupation of Goa also stood India’s economic interest as Goa's export of iron ore would yearly add 212 Million Rupees to the Indian Treasury to build up its money reserves from only 982 Million Rupees according to "Der Spiegel" the West German magazine. There were also rumours that NATO was to set up a base in Goa in alliance with Portugal, This probably prompted India to make a pre-emptive strike on Goa. India sent an invasion force of 46,000 troops, jet bombers, fighter planes, an aircraft carrier, cruisers, destroyers and anti-submarine frigates to overwhelm Goa’s 3,500 Portuguese ill trained and worst equipped defenders, violating all norms of morality. India’s claim that the Portuguese had fortified their defences with 25,000 troops with modern NATO weapons were proven to be blatant lies. This can be verified from the report filed from Goa by acclaimed NBC Bureau Chief Mr. Putnam Welles Hangen an American hero and Ex-First Lieutenant buried on his death after a 21 gun salute in Arlington National Cemetery, USAAmerican Report from Goa by Putnam Wells Hangen 

6.  INDIAN ARROGANCE & INSULTS AT THE UN: India got its own independence by preaching nonviolence and ‘Peaceful Satyagraha’ to the world, but the same India soon turned into a forceful and arrogant invader showing its true colours through insults and defiance of even the UN when Mr. C S Jha, Indian Ambassador stated at the UNSC 987th meeting Quote “The invasion of Goa is a question of getting rid of the last vestiges of colonialism in India. That is a matter of faith for us. Whatever anyone else may think, Charter or no Charter, Council or no Council, that is our basic faith which we cannot afford to give up at any cost” Unquote. Krishna Menon, the then Indian Defence Minister boasted Quote “Had the Security Council intervened, we would not have stopped the action (to take Goa by military force). We had learned some lessons. ….The nation that behaves well is always in a bad position” Unquote. Mr. Jha also stated in the UNSC, Quote “International Law should be cast into the dustbin of history and its founders, Grotius, Bodin and the rest of the great family, should be relegated to the museums because they were Europeans whom my country does not like” Unquote. The same India is now going around the world like a wolf in sheep’s clothing seeking support from the very same USA and Western and European countries it defied and insulted and did not like, to get a permanent seat at the UNSC. India now wants the world community to reward an aggressor for its open and arrogant contempt for the Charter, International law and its subordination. This is the same Indian delegate, member of the ad hoc Committee of ‘Six’ of the UNGA who had earlier voted to include Goa in the list of “Non-Self-Governing Territories” now voicing an “India does not care for the United Nations” attitude. India in a display of arrogance, admitted to illegally executing the commitment of the UN of eliminating colonial regimes by forcefully annexing one of them by war and disrupting world peace against the Charter. India was gaining legitimacy through defiance of the Charter. It is clear that Mr. Jha resorted to false syllogisms and sophistry in his arguments and the world community saw through those arguments for what they were to vote against India’s action in Goa.     UN Security Council 987th Meeting Record dated 18th Dec 1961       UN Securit Council 988th Meeting Record dated 18th Dec 1961     India's Legitimacy through Defiance     India Not Ashamed remark of Mr. C. S. Jha in the UN at Page 142   

7.  INDIA CRITICIZED BY INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY: A host of countries including the United States, England, Australia, France, Germany, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, New Zealand and Pakistan criticized India at the time for preaching non-violence to the world but indulging in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Convention by using brutal military force in Goa. Referring to the perception, especially in the West, that India had previously been lecturing to the world about the virtues of nonviolence, US President J. F. Kennedy told the Indian ambassador to the US, Quote “You spend the last fifteen years preaching morality to us, and then you go ahead and act the way any normal country would behave.... the preacher was caught coming out of a brothel’ Unquote, clearly hinting at the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru’s rhetoric on non-violence. 

International Reaction to Goa Invasion    Goa Invasion - US Congressional Record

8.   ABDICATION OF DUTY BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL: After the Soviet veto, the UNSC totally abdicated its duty and ignored the matter of illegal occupation of Goa by India. The vetoed resolution was for cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of Indian forces, and a solution to differences between India and Portugal through peaceful means. The veto did not permit India to take unilateral action to invade Goa. The veto also in no way obstructed, stopped nor hindered the UNSC from taking steps against India for invading and annexing Goa by force against Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant as well as Articles 75-85 of UN Charter especially as Goa was a Non Self Governing Territory.

9.  INVASION & ANNEXATION OF GOA IS ILLEGAL AS PER LAW & CHARTER: In order for its use of force in Goa to be considered legal under the UN Charter, India had to argue one of three points:

a) Its use of force was not “against” any other state, because Goa was really a part of India,

b) Its use of force had the approval of the Security Council; or

c) Its use of force was in self-defence to a Portuguese “armed attack”.

     Unfortunately for India, it pursued the first line of argument. Its delegate in the Security Council debates argued without citing specific laws, that it was the colonization of Goa by Portugal that was illegal and thus Goa was not Portuguese. Defence Minister of India argued, “India had not violated any one’s territorial integrity” Unfortunately for India, just a year earlier the UNGA had declared Goa as a “Non-Self-Governing Territory” under Portuguese administration and India was a signatory to the declaration and did not claim that Goa was Indian Territory till that time. That same year the ICJ acknowledged Portugal’s sovereignty over Dadra and Nagar Aveli, two Portuguese possessions in the Indian sub-continent with the same colonial history as Goa. Therefore India’s first main argument was out. 
     Next, the Security Council did not approve use of force by India in Goa. Unfortunately disagreement at the time prevented the UNSC from reaching a decision on the Goa conflict and the ICJ was not asked to arbitrate or provide an advisory opinion. So the second argument was not available.
     Finally, India did not argue self defense to a Portuguese “armed attack”. So by all conventional interpretations, India’s annexation of Goa breached Article 2 of the UN Charter.

     Illegal Indian claim of acquisition of Goa. Key agreements like the 1907 Porter Convention, the 1920 Covenant of the League of Nations and the 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact, culminated in Article 2(4) of Chapter I of the UN Charter, which is in force till today: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". Since the use of force against territorial integrity or political independence is illegal, title or sovereignty cannot be transferred in such a situation. It is generally held that countries are under obligation to abide by the Stimson Doctrine that a state: "cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto, nor recognize any treaty or agreement entered into between those Governments... not... recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris of August 27, 1928". These principles were reconfirmed by the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration.  1970 Friendly Relations Declaration

    Indian annexation of Goa by India is illegal because annexation is a forcible, violent or unilateral seizure and or incorporation of a territory belonging to a sovereign state into the domain of another sovereign country. Annexation has been strictly rejected and prohibited in terms of American President Woodrow Wilson’s No-Annexation Doctrine soon after WWI. This is why and how Mandate System and Trusteeship System were instituted, in the first place, and formalized in terms of Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant as well as in terms of Articles 75-85 of the Charter, respectively. Moreover during World War II, the use of annexation deprived whole populations of the safeguards provided by international laws governing military occupations. The Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) of 1949 amplified the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 with respect to the question of the protection of civilians. The authors of the Fourth Geneva Convention made a point of giving the rules regarding inviolability of rights "an absolute character", thus making it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation. GCIV Article 47, in the first paragraph in Section III: “Occupied territories”, restricted the effects of annexation on the rights of persons within those territories: Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”

     India cannot claim conquest over Goa as conquest is also illegal because conquest is the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished power to submission of its territory. Conquest does not, per se, give the conquering state plenum dominium et dominium utile (meaning “full ownership” and “equitable ownership”). Moreover, conquest is generally unacceptable as a means for acquiring sovereignty under current norms of international relations.  The acquisition of territory by force of arms (i.e. aggression or similar violation of international law) has, in any event, been illegal in international law since 1945 after the UN Charter came into force. Resolution 1541 (XV) has laid down the principles which the United Nations should follow in respect of territories called colonial. Principle VI mentions only three ways, in which non self-governing territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-governments, namely:

a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State

b) Free association with an independent State; or

c) Integration with an independent State.

     Obviously, alternatives (a) and (b) are both inapplicable to the case of Goa, as it has neither emerged as an independent State nor has it freely associated with an independent State. Goa’s change of status has been brought about by illegal and criminal force. Only the third alternative remains, therefore, to be considered: integration with an independent State.

     First of all, no reason can be found why integration with the Indian union should be regarded as of a higher order of values. Resolution 1541 (XV) also specifies the circumstances in which such integration should come about. In this connection Principle IX states:

(a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions, so that its people have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;

(b) The integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic progresses, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. 

     The United Nations could, when it deems necessary, supervise these processes. These Principles cannot be reconciled with the violent and illegal annexation of Goa, by India. So flagrant is the violation of the UNGA resolutions committed by India that India’s representative who stated in the Security Council – “Charter or no Charter, Council or no Council”, might have also added “Resolutions or no Resolutions”.  India not only violated the Charter and defied the Security Council but infringed on the very anti-colonial resolutions of the General Assembly, which it had itself subscribed to.   Rule of Law, Institute of Australia

India argued that Portugal had failed its administrative responsibilities to Goa required under UNGA resolution 1514 of 1960. This resolution passed by 90% of the UN members required that “immediate steps” be taken “to transfer all powers” to the people of Non-Self-Governing Territories like Goa.  However, nothing in Resolution 1514 suggested that a failure to comply, meant the administrating power could have a Non-Self-Governing Territory unilaterally seized and absorbed by another country. Indeed UNGA Resolution 1541 states that the integration of a Non-Self-Governing Territory with an existing State “should” come about from the territory freely expressing its wishes democratically.  Portugal had refused to hold a referendum in Goa, but, again, the resolution did not provide for any punishment for this transgression.
   What is remarkable about the Goa incident is that the international community, without changing a letter of this law, chose to bend these rules in India’s favour. Not only was Goa being gradually recognised by the community as a legal part of India, but, within 18 months of Goa’s annexation, the UNSC was imposing sanctions on Portugal for continued colonial repression elsewhere in the world, letting India go scot free for its war crimes, crimes against humanity and human rights abuses it was committing under its Martial Law in Goa which continued under the so called civilian rule.  Nor was the law changed retrospectively to exonerate India. In 1967 the UNSC noted the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, making no apparent distinction between lawful war, unlawful war, and/or war in the pursuit of decolonisation. Ironically this resolution was passed with the help of India, which had gained respect and legitimacy for its defiance of the Charter, to be elected to the Security Council on five separate occasions from 1966 to 1990. Eventually this bending of the rules culminated in 1974 with Portugal itself recognising Goa as a part of India. But what is even more confusing for rule-of-law proponents is that this rule bending did not set a legal precedent.  The General Assembly repeatedly endorsed the right of subjugated peoples to achieve decolonisation “by all available means”, yet no exception has yet been made for the forcible annexation of a Non-Self-Governing Territory by a neighbouring country. 
     In 1982, for example, the Security Council rejected Argentina’s attempted annexation of the UK’s Falkland Islands, despite the Goa precedent being discussed and several members accepting Argentina’s argument that the territory belonged to it. Similarly in 1975, the Security Council, whilst noting Portugal’s failure to uphold its administrative responsibilities, unanimously denounced Indonesia’s annexation of East Timor. How can we reconcile this with our understanding of the rule of law? India violated its legal obligations, and yet it suffered no sanctions.

11.  EXCEPT FOR GOA, MOST PORTUGUESE COLONIES GOT INDEPENDENCE: Almost all Portuguese colonies listed along with Goa as “Non-Self Governing Territories” by the UN like Portuguese Guinea got independence in 1974, Angola, Cape Verde Archipelago, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe in 1975 and East Timor as late as 2002 through the intersession of the UN except Goa. The UN at whose behest all these colonies gained independence mysteriously ignored Goa. Goans now re-colonized by India appeal to the United Nations to end its complacency on the matter of the continued illegal occupation of Goa by India. This petition is not seeking something that is too difficult or impossible, as the UN has previously gone to the extent of allowing multinational force in many similar instances like Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Eastern Zaire, Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, , Bunia in the DRC, Liberia and Kuwait.Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories (1945-1999)

12.  THE UN ACQUIESCED IN INVASION OF GOA BY INDIA: The UN acquiesced in the matter of the invasion, annexation and illegal occupation of Goa by India for 56 years on the mistaken notion that Goans have wholeheartedly and peacefully accepted the illegal invasion of Goa by India as their liberation, and also that Goa was Indian Territory because the peace loving Goans did not get violent over the Indian invasion and illegal occupation. Perhaps the UN would have acted swiftly if Goans had started a mayhem in Goa, killing and burning people and property in opposing the Indian invasion of their motherland. The UN charter is to have peace in the world, and since the Goans did not retaliate and indulge in violence and mayhem against India, the UN wrongly and conveniently concluded that the objective of peace was attained. Certainly the violence in East Timor, convinced and impressed the UN to give them independence ending 20 years of Indonesian occupation. This means that the UN steps in to enforce the Charter only if there is resistance, brutality, killings and war. The UN seems to have penalized the Goans for displaying civilized non-violent behaviour by denying them independence of their motherland just because they did not violently resist the invasion and illegal occupation of their motherland Goa by India.

    Unfortunately, it is difficult to understand what actually motivates and influences the UN, especially the UNSC, to act or to remain silent. One illustration of this point is the case of the civil war that has ravaged Sudan for decades with an estimated two million casualties. And yet the only resolutions passed by the UNSC in relation to Sudan concerned Sudan’s failure to extradite suspects in the attempted assassination of President Mubarak of Egypt, which failure was determined to have threatened international peace and security. If Goans had engaged in violence against the mighty and ruthless India, the entire tiny population of Goa would certainly be massacred to extinction by the Indian might and the UN might have just overlooked it, as it did in Sudan. The UN in this case would have attained “Peace” for India with the elimination of the entire Goan population. Legality Versus Legitimacy: Humanitarian Intervention, the Security Council, and the Rule of Law  

13.  ONLY VIOLENCE AND MAYHEM GETS THE UN ATTENTION, WHILE ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE IS CONSIDERED PEACE: Goans are peaceful, simple, humble, honest people having trust and faith in law and natural justice. Peaceful Goan people detest unruly behaviour, public disorder, riots, strikes, marches, sloganeering, killings in the streets and burning of property for redressal of grievances and show of opposition. The people of Goa have the culture of reason and debate. They argue and plead for their demands and genuinely believe in due process of law to attain justice. When India invaded and occupied Goa, the Goans did not go about braving the Martial Law and intermittent curfews India imposed on the so called “India’s own liberated people of Goa”, to demonstrate and kill people in the streets opposing the invasion. The Goans looked up to and kept their faith in the UN, the civilized and sensible member nations, and rule of international law. Goans were convinced that it was just a matter of time till the UN stepped in and ended the illegal occupation of Goa by India. Goans who are well educated and well informed in International Law, the Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter, perhaps took it for granted that the temporary Indian aberration and foolish aggressive enterprise would soon be ended by the UN intervention and the mighty force of International Law, and did not find it necessary to get violent. Goans did not want to destroy peace and behave like hooligans following in the Indian example of unruly behaviour. The moment for which Goans patiently waited since 1961 for deliverance by the UN has still not arrived. We Goans have now woken up to the reality that only War, Blood Bath, Killings, Burning, Mayhem and total destruction of peace propels the United Nations into action. It seems that for any aggrieved people to get the UN to act, they must aggressively display violent resistance, like they did in East Timor, and only then the UN will take notice and act. 
     The United Nations also failed to consider that Goans were muzzled with a ruthless Martial Law and intermittent curfews and intimidation of people who resisted the invasion. The backs of Goans were ruthlessly broken by the then military administration of Goa by committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.  In the bargain, Goans have been subjugated, forced to accept political, economic, social and cultural institutions which are entirely alien to their tradition under Indian colonialism.

14. GOANS UNFAIRLY SILENCED BY THE UN TRUSTEESHIP COMMITTEE: Goans did not take the path of aggressive resistance to protest the Indian invasion of Goa, but a civilized and decent path through the United Nations. As an example, at a conference on the 3rd December 1963 at Hotel de Palais d’Orsay in Paris, Goans from all over the world met and unanimously resolved to send a four member delegation of Antonio da Fonseca, Wolfgang de Souza, Prof. Leo Anthony de Souza, and Romeo da Silva to the “Trusteeship Committee” of the General Assembly on 10.Dec.63. The Goan delegates were given a hearing before this special committee which hears petitions from oppressed people. But all four Goan delegates were mysteriously silenced by the Committee Chairman, Achkar Marof of Guinea, who, for very curious and suspicious reasons was openly biased towards India and against Goa. He cut their statements short on the grounds that they had been given a hearing solely to express their views exclusively on the Portuguese Non-Self Governing Territories included on the list approved by the United Nation and that Goa was not included in the list. A motion to expunge their testimony from the record was however dropped, as a result of the opposition by the USA, Western members and Liberia. (Reported in The New York Times on 11.Dec.63.) It has come to the attention of Goans from a visiting Goan to the UN that an entry has been made in the UN Year Book that “Goa and its dependencies have been nationally reunited with India.” The petitioners are now incensed having lately confirmed upon checking the records of the UN that indeed the UNGA has struck Goa off the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1962 itself as recorded at page 410 of the UN Year book of 1962. Goa is missing in the list of territories as on 31.Dec.62 at page 408 of the said Year Book. The petitioners have also, to their horror, confirmed that the UN List of Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories (1945-1999) lists Goa and Dependencies as “Change in Status” in 1961.Yearbook of the United Nations 1962   REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES UNDER PORTUGUESE ADMINISTRATION    Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories (1945-1999)  Anniversary of a 36 Hour War - Armed Invasion of Goa - Goan Delegation of 4 Silenced by Trusteeship Committee Chairman PAGE 31

15. GOANS OBJECT TO THE ENTRY – “GOA REUNITED WITH INDIA”: The UN must resolve to replace the entry in its records which reflects in the Year Books “Goa and its dependencies have been nationally reunited with India.” or any other record,  with an appropriately phrased entry conveying the true and realistic meaning amounting to “Goa and dependencies were illegally invaded and annexed by India without authorization of neither the UNSC nor the UNGA, against the Charter while the territory was on the UN list of Non-Self Governing Territories eligible for independence” As already stated in this petition Goa was never ever a part of India to be reunited with it by illegal invasion and annexation. The said entry is false and seems to be at the behest of India and to favour the aggressor India against all relevant facts favouring Goa’s independence. The people of Goa cannot understand how the UN can be so blinded to ignore the truth and make such notations to benefit India.  

16.  APPEAL FOR RETROSPECTIVE ACTION ON ILLEGAL INDIAN OCCUPATION OF GOA. The UN is bound by its Charter to revisit and reconsider the historical illegality of the forceful invasion, annexation and illegal occupation of Goa by its member nation India against the Charter retrospectively and to act in spite of the illegal Treaty between India and Portugal, and the subsequent illegal declaration of Goa as a state of India. India’s previous illegalities against the UN Charter and the world order, including the Geneva Convention, cannot stand legalized nor condoned by subsequent additional illegal acts, as the right to self-determination, plebiscite and independence had already accrued and passed on to the Goans vide the UN resolutions prior to the 19.Dec.61 invasion of Goa. Indo-Portugal treaty is primarily against international law and conventions so established and its intent is to transfer sovereignty over Goa from Portugal to India with retrospective effect at a point of time when Portugal was not vested with any ownership title or sovereignty over Goa. At that point of time Goa was already under the protection of the UN by virtue of being included in the list of “Non-Self Governing Territories” as of 15.Dec.60, eligible for right to self-determination, plebiscite and independence. The Portuguese also seem to be of the same opinion as Dr. Inocencio Galvao Teles, Portugal's principal attorney in the Rights of Passage case against India at the ICJ, who was also Minister for Law in Dr. Oliveira Salazar’s cabinet, in an interview with the journal, O Diabo, of Lisbon on 18.Feb.92 has stated that the Indo Portuguese Treaty of 31.Dec.74 has failed to meet the requirements of International Law and is not valid as it offended the fundamental principles of International Law.

17.  GOA REMOVED FROM THE UN LIST IN A HURRY: The UN is bound by its Charter to reconsider the hurried removal of “Goa and dependencies called the State of India” from the UN list of “Non-Self Governing Territories” within a few months of Goa’s invasion by India, with fresh eyes, and the legality of such hurried removal. The Goans are of the opinion that the illegal invasion of Goa by India may have been considered as a ‘fait accompli” by the UN which legally or illegally removed yet another territory from the long and cumbersome list of “Non-Self Governing Territories”. The UNGA has to introspect, do some soul searching and determine whether it is morally and legally justified in its hurry to take territories off the list of Non Self Governing Territories. Goa certainly is an unfortunate victim as elaborated by R.M. Marty M. Natalegawa, Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization which, since its establishment in 1961, had monitored the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. “The aim appeared to be the hurried removal of those Territories from the United Nations list, even as they remained Non-Self-Governing. The international community could not countenance such acts, but must decide if it was going to remain true to the relevant provisions of the Charter” With this background, the Goans wonder whether it was just a matter of convenience for the UNGA to hurriedly remove Goa and dependencies from the list by readily agreeing with false Indian claims of liberating its own people of Goa and that Goa was a part of Indian Territory. (GA/SPD/422 5 OCTOBER 2009)    Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization

18.  RE-INSTATE GOA IN THE UN LIST OF “NON SELF GOVERNING TERRITORIES: The petitioners state that the UN is duty bound under the charter to re-instate Goa in the UN list of “Non-Self Governing Territories” as originally listed in light of the provisions of Chapter and UNGA resolutions. Goans intend to petition the UN (Committee of 24) Special Committee on Decolonization for relief. However they are unable to do so because the said committee, in the matter of the petition signed by 1.80 million West Papuans, has declared that it is not mandated to consider territories not included in the current list of “Non-Self Governing Territories” before it. Since Goa has been unfairly excluded from the said list, the people of Goa are handicapped in petitioning the said Special Committee and hence prayerfully petition all the member nations of the UNGA to rightfully re-instate Goa in the said list. 

19.  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ON GOA: The United Nations must consider or re-evaluate the rulings and advisory opinions of the ICJ already on its record and more particularly its judgement of 1960, delivered in the matter of the “Right of Passage Case”, in which it ruled that India had no right of claim on the enclaves of Dadra and Nagar Aveli, parts of the district of Damão, with the same colonial history as Goa and that Portugal has sovereignty over these enclaves, or seek a fresh ruling or advisory opinion from the ICJ on the illegal invasion and annexation of Goa by India in terms of established international law and conventions as stated in the aforesaid Para 9 of this petition.    ICJ JUDGMENT OF 12 APRIL 1960    ICJ CASE CONCERNING RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER: INDIAN TERRITORY

 20.  GOA NEVER DEPENDED ON INDIA’S PATRONAGE: Before the Indian invasion, Goa was economically far ahead of the Indian Union and never depended on India’s patronage, and on the contrary, had prospered in every way. Goa was well settled, developed and through the centuries became un-debatably prosperous in the Indian subcontinent. This prosperity never escaped the eye of the world press, which had to connect it with India’s intentions to annex it. The few examples from the world press are as follows:

 "Der Spiegel" a well-known German political news magazine, issued an article on 10th January 1962: "Behind the violent occupation of Goa by India stands the economic interest as Goa's export of iron will yearly add 250 million DM into the Indian Treasury to build up its money reserves from only 982 Million Rupees (825 million DM)." 

"The Daily Telegraph" of 5th December, 1961, reported: "Goa earns more than 10 Million pounds a year at present from her mining operations by exporting mostly to Japan and West Germany. This incidentally is a good reason for grabbing the colony so far as hard-currency hungry India is concerned."

Indian rule has wrecked Goa’s economy and ended its prosperity, impoverished it with mounting accumulated debts and interest on loans. Goa’s current total accumulated debt is almost Rs.70,000 Crores and the 2015-16 government loan interest liabilities stood at 1,846 Crores. None of the loans have ever been repaid as there is no money to repay borrowings. Most loans finance construction projects like roads and bridges which are a good source of kickbacks to the political class from overpriced projects with substandard quality as bridges and roads in Goa do not last very long. Newly constructed roads mostly get washed out with the slightest hint of a monsoon rain shower. With the inevitable failure of the Tourism and Mining Industries the main income and employment generators for Goans, Goa is on the verge of State Bankruptcy. 

 21.  GOA UNFAIRLY SUSTAINS THE INDIAN ECONOMY TO A SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT: Goa’s current annual budget is about Rs.15,000 Crores while the total revenue of the Indian Union in terms of Federal Taxes collected from Goa is almost double of Goa’s annual budget. According to an Indian formula (formerly Gadgil Formula) of sharing this revenue with Goa, based on population, per capita income, area, infrastructure, tax effort, fiscal discipline and literacy Goa gets classified as a rich state. It gets classified as such, because Goa has a smaller population, higher per capita income (mainly earnings by Goans employed overseas,) smaller area, fairly good infrastructure, honesty in tax payment by honest Goans and highest literacy rate as compared to most Indian states. As per this formula Goa’s total share of Union Taxes and grants was 2,459 Crores or 16% for 2005-2010, as compared to 90% to the Indian state of Manipur, 56% to Uttarakhand and 53% to UP. Goa contributes a greater percentage to the National GDP of India than its share from the pool of central taxes that are redistributed. Goa’s mineral wealth of iron and manganese ore has been depleted by illegal mining by giving mining concessions to a select few industrialists in a corrupt environment without any benefit to the Goans who are actually the owners of this mineral wealth. The only beneficiaries of this over exploited environmental hazard have been India, the mining companies and the politicians, one of whom is Digambar Kamat, a former BJP Minister for Mines and later a Congress Chief Minister cum mines Minister. He, presently as a Congress MLA, is being prosecuted by the ruling BJP government due to his indictment by the ‘Shah Commission which investigated illegal mining in Goa. Digambar Kamath’s alleged illegalities cost Goa Rs. 35,000 Crores. If recovered, this amount count have paid off half of Goa’s public debt of Rs. 70,000 Crores, but in a perfect Indian style ‘Match Fixing” Goans know that he will inevitably be acquitted of all charges when he rejoins his parent party, the BJP, with the Rs. 35,000 Crores of illegal mining booty forgotten and/or condoned. On the other hand If the Indian union had only matched Goa’s budget of 15000 Crores under a Special Status for an illegally occupied territory, Goa could have a Tax Free Economy, infrastructure could be developed to international standards and Goans could even get dividends and pension benefits paid to them by the state from the excess of state revenue over expenditure. On the contrary Goa is unfairly and unjustly sustaining the Indian economy to a substantial extent as income extracted from Goans is being spent to develop Indian states like UP and Uttarakhand while Goa is burdened with a debt of Rs. 70,000 Crores. The Goan politicians have no objection to this unfairness as most governments in Goa belong to Indian national political parties like BJP and Congress. They do not want to upset the Indian Government in the interest of their own political comfort at the cost of the Goan economy and welfare of the Goan people. Unfortunately under the Indian illegal occupation, the indigenous Goans do not get a chance in managing their own destinies. Analysis of State Budget Allocation of Goa     Goa Economic Survey 2016-17      Finance Commission of India   'Give Goa a higher share in central taxes'

22.  BROKEN PROMISES OF GRANTING SPECIAL STATUS: Goans are now frustrated with the broken promises made to them by national and political leaders of India. Since 1961 the people of Goa have been repeatedly promised that the unique identity of Goa will be preserved and a ‘Special Status would be given by amending Article 371 of the Indian constitution. These promises have been made repeatedly by India’s first Prime Minister Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru to the current Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi and everyone in between. In 2007, as the President of the Congress Party, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi promised ‘Special Status’ for Goa in a public ‘election’ speech at Campal, Panjim, which was promptly forgotten after the elections. The current PM in a public election speech in Goa in Jan. 2014 (video link below) declared that the demand for Special Status for Goa is genuine and reasonable and promised that he will grant it once elected PM. But once he became PM he had the audacity to declare that Goa does not qualify for the Special Status. The State Legislature of Goa on 15.Apr.13 unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Indian government to grant a ‘Special Status’ to Goa under Article 371 of the Indian Constitution.. The Goa Chief Minister Mr. Manohar Parrikar, on this day, stated in the House, that out of Goa’s total 3,702 sq kms of land, only 362 sq kms were left for the future development, which he said was a cause for concern. He stated "Goa is only demanding Special Status to preserve its land mass and cultural identity," adding that it should be granted on lines of the Indian states of Mizoram and Uttarakhand. Presenting a case for Special Status before the House, the Chief Minister said that Goans will lose their identity due to unprecedented inward migration from Indian States. Mr. Parrikar is a Goan strongman of the BJP and the most favourite Goan friend of the PM Modi who was even rewarded by the PM with the post of Defence MInister of India. Unfortunately he does not get for Goa what he boldly talks about in the Goa Assembly. Modi on Goa Special Status  Goa assembly passes resolution seeking special status     India’s 10 Most Indebted States

23.  INDIAN CONSTITUTION CONTRARY TO GOAN INTERESTS: To the utter disappointment of Goan aspirations, the Indian Union Minister Kiren Rijiju stated in parliament that Goa's demand for ‘Special Status’ under article 371 of the Constitution is not justifiable and hence not agreed to since it contravenes article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(d) gives Indian citizens the right "to move freely throughout the territory of India" while article 19(1)(e) accords the right "to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India". The fundamental disagreement Goans have with India is that Goa is not, and has never ever been a territory of India and is an illegally occupied territory. Therefore Article 19(1)(e) must not apply to Goa especially in terms of the Geneva Convention which mandates that “in and out” flow of population has to be controlled in an occupied territory. The provisions of the Indian constitution are contrary to Goa’s interests. We Goans did not invite India to invade, illegally occupy and force Indian Constitution on Goa. India not only forced itself, its constitution and it’s citizenship on us, but is not willing to make any promised amendments to its constitution to protect Goa’s unique identity and interests. Goa being an illegally occupied territory cannot be treated on par with other Indian states to allow Indians to freely buy land, settle in Goa or to add to the illegal vote banks living in illegal shanties and slums for the Indian political class to outnumber the Goan voters and devastate Goa further.  India needed to treat Goa differently like the Indian states of Mizoram and Uttarakhand. This by itself justifies the demand for Goa’s Independence from India. The people of Goa can no longer trust the Indian Union to honour any of its promises nor to prevent their motherland and their unique identity evolved over centuries from getting demographically diluted under the illegal Indian occupation. Centre rejects Goa's special status demand

24.  STATE LEGISLATURE ENACTING LAWS ULTRA VIRES THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: As an example of the Indian lawlessness, the Goa Daman and Diu (Administration) Act 1962, passed by the Indian Parliament after annexation of Goa by India provides that all existing laws in Goa as on 20.12.1961 shall remain in force unless amended by the Indian Parliament within two years. None of the laws have been amended nor repealed by India. The Uniform Civil Code and the Code of Comunidades are two of Goa’s ancient laws which are in force. Under the Indian electoral system, illiterate, semi-literate and uneducated persons who have absolutely no legal sense are eligible to contest elections and become legislators and parliamentarians. As a result most of the so called legislators in the Goa Legislative Assembly have no clue about legislating and tend to pass laws that are illegal by force of majority in the house. Law in Goa has not been clear since 1962 and the legislators and parliamentarians who are responsible to clear the lacuna are not aware of the problem and do not have the mental faculties to understand the subject. As per legal interpretation of the Indian law applied to Goa Vis a Vis the Goa Daman and Diu (Administration) Act 1962 the Indian “Revenue District” system is illegal in Goa as the Code of Comunidades under which most land in Goa belongs to Village Comunidades, does not recognize the Indian Revenue Districts. As a consequence, the local self-governments like the Panchayats, Municipalities including the Collectorates and the full revenue system based on the Indian administrative model is illegal in Goa. The Goa State Legislature without any locus standi under the central act keeps passing amendments to local laws like the Code of Comunidades, which are primarily ultra vires of the Constitution of India. Most of the amendments passed are to take over and dole out community and agricultural land for political gains at a pittance. This is just one example of how under the Indian rule illegal legislations are passed by the state legislature which are ultra vires the country’s constitution. Very often the Judicial Courts in Goa tend to deliver faulty judgements by not considering Goa’s local law because the Indian Judges posted in Goan courts are not aware of the existence of Goa’s unique laws. Goans have to repeatedly approach High Courts and even the Supreme Court of India in Delhi seeking proper interpretations and judgements over the faulty orders of the lower courts and are frustrated by the slow moving legal system, the decades that it takes to get a judgement and the tremendous amount of money and resources that it takes. The Indian electoral system elects illiterate and uneducated street smart opportunists to its legislature and successive governments whose only aim is to shamelessly enrich themselves by scamming the exchequer in any possible way. While criminals and law breakers are usually sent to jail, the Indian electoral system sends them to state legislatures and parliament as law makers. As of now 34% of the current Indian parliamentarians have criminal cases against them and the present ruling party BJP tops the list as per newspaper accounts. The State of Goa under Indian rule and its functionaries have allowed ingress of systemic anarchy, throwing propriety to the winds possibly harbouring the attitude of utter indifference and nurturing an incurable propensity to pave the path of deviancy. THE GOA, DAMAN AND DIU (ADMINISTRATION) ACT, 1962   UK parliament debates massive corruption in Goa    One-third of new MPs face criminal charges    BJP has highest no. of MPs, MLAs with cases of crime against women: ADR study


 The petitioners pray that the UN General Assembly resolve to, and re-instate Goa in the UN list of “Non-Self Governing Territories” as originally listed on 15.Dec.60 in light of the provisions of the UN Charter and UNGA resolutions and more particularly UNGA resolution 742 (VIII) and principles approved in resolution 1542 (XV).

 Goa might not have attained sovereignty but that right does not lapse, a right that cannot be assumed by others, a right which is inherent to people. In this case, the right belongs to the Goans and has to be exercised consciously and freely within the framework established by the United Nations Charter. The actions of the United Nations General Assembly in handling this petition will prove to the entire world whether it is going to be relevant or whether it is going to be a league of nations irrelevant.