MEMORABLE ANNIVERSARIES
JOHN DE FIGUEIREDO
This article is protected by Copyright. No part of it should be reproduced without the author’s written permission. This article was published in “Revista da Casa de Goa” and it is reproduced here with the Editor’s permission. The opinions expressed by the author in this article are exclusively his own.
A DAY OF JOY FOR GOANS
“1st Portuguese India does not renounce the right of peoples to reach the fullness of their individuality, until they become units capable of directing their destinies, since it is an original right, of its organic essence;
2nd Recommends that, maintaining the organization of the Portuguese State established in the Political Constitution of the Republic:
a) There is no discrimination between the Metropolis and the Overseas Provinces of individual rights and guarantees expressed in Art. 3 and its Constitution numbers and the representation of India in the Congress of the Republic is maintained
b) The regime of administrative decentralization and financial autonomy of the Overseas Provinces is reestablished in the terms defined in Articles 67 B and 67 F of the Constitution as a starting point for representative institutions of broader action.
c) The principle of majority elected in the highest deliberative body in the country is reestablished in India, the intervention of that majority being recognized, through its representatives, in the special function of the “examination and visa”, of ordering the expenses and accounts of management"
Unlike the founders of the United States, Menezes Bragança, Gomes Pereira, Naraina Bandorcar, and Cipriano da Cunha Gomes did not ask for political independence for Goa. Nor was their desire to transfer sovereignty to the Indian Union, which, at the time, did not yet exist as a nation. Known as the “Greatest of All”, Menezes Bragança thought that the people of Goa had an individuality and psychology fundamentally different from the peoples of the rest of India, the result of Portugal's assimilationist policy, and it was always of the opinion that Portuguese India was part and portion of the spiritual unity of the Portuguese Nation. Despite his vehement opposition to the Colonial Act, he simply asked for the people of his homeland democratic representation and maximum administrative and financial autonomy under Portuguese sovereignty.
To say that Menezes Bragança was the “Tilak of Goa” shows ignorance of what he wanted for his homeland. Lokmanya Tilak wanted, for his India, complete and immediate independence (‘Swaraj”) from the British colonial rule. Menezes Bragança was always loyal to Portugal and during the First Republic he was praised by Dr. Jaime de Morais, Governor of Portuguese India, for his loyalty to Portugal and his honesty. Unfortunately, the little he asked for, he did not obtain, and the Colonial Act was promulgated and incorporated into the 1933 Constitution. Menezes Bragança's reaction was to state that “the 1933 Constitution betrayed the spirit of the 1911 Constitution”. His newspaper “Luz - Pracasha” was closed by order of the Government, forever silencing his voice.
In this manner was born the historical fatality of the people of Portuguese India. As the Viceroy of Portuguese India Count of S. Vicente said so well, “Portuguese India is only seen from far away and only heard too late”. The voice of Portuguese India echoed in the desert and died. Goa's fate was decided by others, not by the Goans themselves. The human right of self-determination, an “original right, of its organic essence” was never exercised by the Goans through a plebiscite, and will never be exercised, but the protest of the Goans against the Colonial Act and the expression of their natural desire to “reach the fullness of their individuality” were recorded forever in the annals of history.
Sonia Gomes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/979926520.966876.1783225706084%40mail.yahoo.com.
John de Figueiredo
On Jul 5, 2026, at 12:25 AM, Sonia Gomes <rgs...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CAG_LhYMqfUiiEWCdTuyZWmhXnrjfM8W5Q%2BW%2BMPw_yw3maJo5Vw%40mail.gmail.com.
Alberto
John amigo
The 13 colonies revolted against England because they refused to be considered second-class citizens. Whites born in America were forming a resistance against the white colonizers who imposed high taxes. The true Americans, the so-called Indians, were meanwhile being exterminated.
In Goa during the Portuguese colonial regime, there never were "democratically elected representatives of the people of Goa." Only Christians were well regarded by the unelected government in Lisbon, and most Hindus in Goa were treated with disdain. As for "it is the 96th anniversary of the Goan Declaration of Self-Determination," only a minority group of Christians defended that declaration.
The majority, through integration with Mother India, was led by Ram Manohar Lohia, Julião Meneses, T.B. Cunha, Luís Menezes Bragança, Evágrio George, P.D. Gaitone, and even Jack Sequeira.
António Anastásio Bruto da Costa, a landowner and admirer of Salazar, did not want a break with Lisbon and defended dependence with limited autonomy from foreigners, second-class citizens.
Goa, today, as one of the states of India, is governed by Goans elected democratically. The rulers are natives of Goa and speak Konkani, and Lisbon does not send a governor-general who only spoke Portuguese and defended foreign interests.
A day of joy for Goans occurred on 19/12/1961.
Alberto
Mensagem de JOHN DE FIGUEIREDO <>Data: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 04:28:26 +0000 (UTC)De: JOHN DE FIGUEIREDO <>Assunto: [GRN] MEMORABLE ANNIVERSARIESPara: Goa-Research-Net <>
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to.To view this discussion, visit.
----- Fim da mensagem de JOHN DE FIGUEIREDO <> -----
Alberto
John
António Colaço
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CAG_LhYMqfUiiEWCdTuyZWmhXnrjfM8W5Q%2BW%2BMPw_yw3maJo5Vw%40mail.gmail.com.
John de Figueiredo
On Jul 10, 2026, at 5:02 AM, 'Alberto' via Goa-Research-Net <goa-rese...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/20260708120456.Horde.ccxY4P-W4DUD8gRedG913lI%40mail.sapo.pt.
Sonia Gomes
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CAGt%3DGnP2UrJ_RP_p4B_trz%2Bhe56%3D6iD_MxvzAC61T%2BzM-dkX3A%40mail.gmail.com.
JOHN DE FIGUEIREDO
Frederick Noronha
“July 4, 1930 was the 96th anniversary of the Goan Declaration of Self-Determination.”
“The democratically elected representatives of the people of Goa to the Government Council issued the Declaration.”
“The Declaration was a protest against the Acto Colonial that had condemned the Goans to perpetual servitude.”
“The Declaration was approved by the Council by unanimity.”
“Governor Craveiro Lopes continued to condemn the Acto Colonial and defend Goan self-determination after returning to Portugal, risking his career.”
“They did not seek transfer of sovereignty to the Indian Union because it did not yet exist as a nation.”
True. But the Indian independence movement already existed, and some Goan nationalists were already linked to it. Saying it was impossible to seek transfer to India because India did not exist as a nation is anachronistic; political movements can anticipate future states and political trajectories. The 1946 movement (a few months before 1947) could be seen as a good example of this.
“Menezes Bragança believed Goa had a distinct individuality and psychology.”
True. Menezes Bragança did emphasise Goan distinctiveness. But his views also evolved, and he combined Goan identity with Portuguese cultural affiliation at times. Possibly the jury is still out among the historians on how to interpret his views.
“Menezes Bragança was always loyal to Portugal.”
He has sometimes been described as a Portuguese constitutionalist and a Goan autonomist. He criticised colonial domination, demanded rights, and opposed Salazar's colonial system. So he's more complex than being "loyal to Portugal".
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ AUDIO https://archive.org/details/@fredericknoronha
_/ http://goa1556.in +91-9822122436 784 Saligao Goa
_/ http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/
JOHN DE FIGUEIREDO
“July 4, 1930 was the 96th anniversary of the Goan Declaration of Self-Determination.”
The term Declaration of Self-Determination seems like a latter idea transplanted on the developments of 1930.
Well, it was a Declaration and it clearly stated that the people of Goa were not giving up their right to self-determination. Therefore, it makes sense to call it the “Declaration of Self-Determination.”
“The Declaration was approved by the Council by unanimity.”
That is true. But it should not be taken to suggest that all Goans unanimously (or in large numbers) supported it. At best, it represents the vote of that institution, and not a referendum of the population as a whole.
They were democratically elected representatives of the people of Goa and speaking on behalf of the people of Goa. Therefore, the Declaration represented the will of the people. It was not the vote of an “institution.” It was the opinion of the people of Goa expressed through its democratically elected Representatives.
“Governor Craveiro Lopes continued to condemn the Acto Colonial and defend Goan self-determination after returning to Portugal, risking his career.”
Are there any references that support this claim or suggestion?
Here is what the AI told me: “Despite his high-ranking administrative role, Craveiro Lopes made headlines later in his life when he famously defied the press censorship of the Estado Novo regime. During a public conference, he condemned the very Acto Colonial he had once managed, siding with fundamental human rights and pointing out that Goans would not give up their autonomy to a caducious centralizing system.” I am still researching this topic.
“They did not seek transfer of sovereignty to the Indian Union because it did not yet exist as a nation.”
True. But the Indian independence movement already existed, and some Goan nationalists were already linked to it. Saying it was impossible to seek transfer to India because India did not exist as a nation is anachronistic; political movements can anticipate future states and political trajectories. The 1946 movement (a few months before 1947) could be seen as a good example of this.
This happened in 1930. If I remember correctly, that was the year when Gandhi launched the Civil Disobedience movement. You are correct that some Goan nationalists were linked to it. Still, India did not exist as a nation. In fact, for several years after India became independent on August 15, 1947, the Government of India recognized the sovereignty of Portugal over Goa by maintaining a Consulate of India in Goa. The intent of the Declaration of Self-Determination was not to demand a transfer in sovereignty to India or any other nation but to assert that the people of Goa were not giving up their right to self-determination, i.e., to choose their own destiny.
“Menezes Bragança believed Goa had a distinct individuality and psychology.”
True. Menezes Bragança did emphasize Goan distinctiveness. But his views also evolved, And he combined Goan identity with Portuguese cultural affiliation at times. Possibly the jury is still out among the historians on how to interpret his views.
Sounds like we agree on this one. As far as I was able to determine, Menezes Bragança never stated, not even once, not even by mistake, that Goa should transfer its sovereignty to India or any other nation. He and his co-signatories simply demanded that the right of the Goans to determine their future should be respected.
“Menezes Bragança was always loyal to Portugal.”
He has sometimes been described as a Portuguese constitutionalist and a Goan autonomist. He criticized colonial domination, demanded rights, and opposed Salazar's colonial system. So he's more complex than being "loyal to Portugal"
By “loyal to Portugal” I mean “loyal to the Portuguese nation or the Portuguese people.” In particular, he believed that the departure from the principles of decentralization stated in the Constitution of 1911 was a mistake. Criticizing a Government is not the same as criticizing the people governed by that Government. Menezes Bragança’s admiration for Portugal as a nation is best expressed in the opening paragraph and several paragraphs of his essay, “A Educação e o Ensino na India Portuguesa.”
So, to conclude, viva Menezes Bragança and his co-signatories for producing a permanent record that we, Goans, were not giving up our right to self-determination. I think that Declaration should be framed and placed at a prominent place in the house of every Goan all over the world as a reminder that we, Goans, never exercised this right and will never exercise that right. It is a well-established fact the Portuguese rule in Goa did not end because of the travails of Tristão de Bragança Cunha, Aluísio Soares, Francisco Correia Afonso and other Goans who wanted that rule to end. It ended largely because (a) Nehru was caught in a dilemma caused by the pressure from African nations whose experiences with the Europeans were different than ours and his personal belief in peaceful coexistence; and (b) because Krishna Menon broke that dilemma by lying to Nehru as he himself describes in his autobiography. He lied because he wanted to win the election, and he won that election, not for love for Goa. There was no plebiscite, and therefore we do not know what the majority of Goans have wanted and we will never know
JOHN DE FIGUEIREDO
I am not an expert in the history of the United States so I cannot comment on this in detail. I can say, however, that history is a process and today the United States is a far “more perfect Union” (to borrow the expression of the authors of the US Constitution) than it was in 1776. Let us not forget that the Portuguese found in Goa a caste system legitimized by religion in which an entire segment of the population was condemned to perpetual servitude, a system that even the Jesuits and Christianization could not completely erase. So let us pause before we cast stones on other countries.
"In Goa during the Portuguese colonial regime, there never were "democratically elected representatives of the people of Goa."
Sounds like “Alberto” believes that the history of Goa started on 28 May 1926 when the “Revolução Nacional” (National Revolution) in Portugal established the “Estado Novo.” But as we all know, the history of Goa is much longer than that. Between 1822 and 1926 (i.e., for 104 years) the elections in Goa were democratic and they were fair. In fact, they were so fair that in one of the elections Bernardo Peres da Silva (a Goan) defeated the Viceroy of Portuguese India (a European) who had decided to run to stop Peres da Silva. It was during this period that the people of Goa elected distinguished Parliamentarians like Bernardo Peres da Silva, António Caetano Pacheco, Francisco Luis Gomes, Cristóvão Pinto, Prazeres da Costa, and many others. After 1926 and during the Estado Novo the elections were rigged, but they were rigged everywhere in the Portuguese Nation, not just in Goa.
"Only Christians were well regarded by the unelected government in Lisbon, and most Hindus in Goa were treated with disdain."
This is not correct. To give a few examples, in the 16th and 17th centuries, Goan Hindus occupied key positions in every trade and profession more so than Christians. Goan Hindus were praised by the Portuguese for their skill, and the Portuguese preferred them to the Goan Christians. Later, many Goan Hindus received titles of nobility awarded by the King of Portugal (Barão Dempó, Visconde Quencró, Visconde de Perném, etc.). More recently, Panduronga Pissurlencar was awarded a well-deserved honorary Doctorate (“Doutor Honoris Causa”) by the University of Lisbon. The Rao family had monopoly of the cinema business in Goa for many years as owners of the “Cine Teatro Nacional.” Even Dayanand Bandodkar was allowed to build a big business in the mining industry in Goa. This does not mean that there was no racism or discrimination in Goa. The 451-year history of the Portuguese rule in Goa is complex, full of paradoxes, contradictions, and upheavals, not easily amenable to simplistic generalizations.
"As for "it is the 96th anniversary of the Goan Declaration of Self-Determination," only a minority group of Christians defended that declaration."
Where is the data to support this statement? The Declaration was issued by democratically elected Representatives to the Government Council, and they spoke on behalf of the people of Goa.
"The majority, through integration with Mother India, was led by Ram Manohar Lohia, Julião Meneses, T.B. Cunha, Luís Menezes Bragança, Evágrio George, P.D. Gaitonde, and even Jack Sequeira."
This is also not correct. There was never a plebiscite in Goa, and therefore, we do not know what the majority of Goans wanted, and, sadly, we will never know. Ram Manohar Lohia was not a Goan and his entry into Goa was repudiated by several Goans in a statement published in the newspaper “A Vida.” Pedro Correia Afonso wrote this statement, and among the signatories was his brother Francisco Correia Afonso. You may want to read “Goa: A Terceira Corrente” by Mário Bruto da Costa where he discusses this in detail. Luis de Menezes Bragança was never in favor of transferring the sovereignty of Goa to India or any other nation. As far as I know, Jack Sequeira was never involved in politics until after the annexation of Goa in India. Jack Sequeira played a major role after the annexation of Goa. Had it not been for Jack Sequeira, Goa would have been a colony of Maharashtra.
"António Anastásio Bruto da Costa, a landowner and admirer of Salazar, did not want a break with Lisbon and defended dependence with limited autonomy from foreigners, second-class citizens."
I did not speak of Bruto da Costa in my article or my post. I doubt he was an admirer of Salazar. From reading “Goa: A Terceira Corrente” I am under the impression that he treated Salazar with respect, but he was firm in his opposition to the dictatorship and the “Acto Colonial,” and therefore, he followed the political tradition of Menezes Bragança. On the other hand, you, “Alberto” should admire and applaud Salazar. In his “Acto Colonial” Salazar said exactly what you said: that the Goans to “objects of possession” of the Portuguese, a position that was condemned by Menezes Bragança and Bruto da Costa.
"Goa, today, as one of the states of India, is governed by Goans elected democratically. The rulers are natives of Goa and speak Konkani, and Lisbon does not send a governor-general who only spoke Portuguese and defended foreign interests."
Obviously, you are entitled to your views on this. Just remember that as of this date, Bernardo Peres da Silva, whom I consider as the greatest leader Goa has ever known, remains as the only Goan who had the distinction of being Governor of Goa. He lasted only 3 weeks, not because of the racism of the Portuguese, as it was falsely stated by respected historians like Teotónio de Sousa and Leopoldo da Rocha. He was deposed by Absolutists because he was a Liberal. Many Portuguese Europeans and their descendants were slaughtered because they defended him. Several Portuguese Europeans followed him in his exile, and the Editor of the newspaper that defended him was a Portuguese European. These facts are shoved under the rug by some historians because they did not find them politically palatable.
Frederick Noronha
Continuing the discussion with reference to what Alberto wrote:
“In Goa during Portuguese colonial rule, there never were democratically elected representatives of the people of Goa.”
It is true that Goa did not have a modern democratic legislature representing all Goans with universal suffrage. However, there were institutions with limited representative functions, especially in the later colonial period: (i) the Conselho Legislativo da Índia Portuguesa (Legislative Council of Portuguese India), (ii) municipal councils, (iii) elected or partly elected bodies. Agree that their powers were restricted, and representation was limited by colonial rules.
“Only Christians were well regarded by the unelected government in Lisbon, and most Hindus were treated with disdain.”
Religious inequalities were part of the colonial past; and this varied across different points of time. (It is not something unique to Europeans alone, though.) However, by the 19th and 20th centuries the colonial state had Hindu officials, landowners, lawyers, intellectuals, and politicians. Dr Sharmila Pais had focussed on this aspect quite recently. Many prominent anti-colonial figures were themselves Christians, while many Hindus also participated in different political currents. To portray it simply as “Christians favoured, Hindus despised” would be misleading; it involved class, caste, education, occupation, political loyalty as well as religion.
“The 96th anniversary of the Goan Declaration of Self-Determination… only a minority group of Christians defended that declaration.”
It is true that many early Goan nationalist leaders were Christians, including Tristão de Bragança Cunha. It is incorrect to reduce the movement to “only a minority Christian group.” Goan anti-colonial politics included Christians, Hindus, Muslims and people of different ideological positions. Some Goans favoured autonomy within Portugal; others favoured merger with India; others wanted independence.“The majority, through integration with Mother India, was led by Ram Manohar Lohia, Julião Menezes, T.B. Cunha, Luís Menezes Bragança, Evágrio George, P.D. Gaitonde, and even Jack Sequeira.”
Ram Manohar Lohia was extremely important in mobilising the 1946 civil disobedience movement in Goa. Tristão de Bragança Cunha was a major Goan nationalist figure. Julião Menezes played an important role in inviting Lohia to Goa. But the statement that they represented the majority of Goans is difficult to prove. Besides, Jack Sequeira could be seen as especially problematic in this list: he later became the leader of the anti-merger movement and defended Goa's separate identity in the 1967 Opinion Poll. Including him as a straightforward advocate of integration with India is historically inaccurate, even if these nuances have been largely overlooked in our times.“António Anastásio Bruto da Costa, a landowner and admirer of Salazar, did not want a break with Lisbon…”
António Anastásio Bruto da Costa represented a current/trend among Goans who preferred continued association with Portugal and greater autonomy, rather than immediate integration with India. However, describing him simply as defending foreign interests reflects one political interpretation. His supporters saw their position as preserving Goan identity, institutions and cultural links.“Goa today is governed by Goans elected democratically. The rulers are natives of Goa and speak Konkani…”
Goa is indeed an Indian state with elected local governments. Many political leaders are Goan and Konkani-speaking. But “the rulers are natives of Goa” is not always true; Goa has also had political leaders and ministers from outside Goa. Part of the post-1961 discourse reflects this. The issue of 'deputationists' in the 1960s still echoes in some debates here. Some old-timers make the claim that the top bureaucracy in Goa in 1960-1961 was more "Goan" than it is now. The lack of an IAS cadre for Goa, and its police force being part of the Central bureaucracy has also been pointed to. We can read the situation in any which way we wish. Post-1947 India also has its own tensions involving language, identity, migration and Central influence over its various regions.“A day of joy for Goans occurred on 19/12/1961.”
For many Goans, especially those who supported integration with India, 19 December 1961 was a day of liberation and celebration. For others, especially those who preferred continuity with Portugal or feared military intervention, it was experienced as what could be called a traumatic rupture. The annexation/integration remains historically interpreted in different ways. Also, these interpretations have not remained frozen in time. As the governance of Goa improves or worsens, one can see current perspectives too changing here.
In short, your narrative that frames Portuguese rule as colonial oppression and Indian integration as inevitable liberation. Some points you make are valid; especially about colonial inequality and the lack of full democracy. But it also exaggerates religious divisions in Portuguese Goa, overstates the representativeness of integrationist leaders, incorrectly includes Jack de Sequeira as an integrationist and offers some interpretations that could be called contested, as if these were settled facts. There were multiple Goan political traditions: pro-Portuguese autonomy, independence, and integration with India. It would also not be wrong to say that both Catholics and Hindus were represented in all three "currents".
FN
_/ AUDIO https://archive.org/details/@fredericknoronha
_/ http://goa1556.in +91-9822122436 784 Saligao Goa
_/ http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/20260705140440.Horde.F1gC7i7VdCEIZtuh81XENRS%40mail.sapo.pt.