How the US tried to Corner India during the 1961 Goa annexation

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by A.V., Dec 27, 2010.

  1. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    United States of America


    The United States' official reaction to the invasion of Goa was delivered by Adlai Stevenson in the UN Security Council, where he condemned the armed action of the Indian government and demanded that all Indian forces be unconditionally withdrawn from Goan soil.
    To express its displeasure with the Indian action in Goa, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee attempted, over the objections of President John F. Kennedy, to cut the 1962 foreign aid appropriation to India by 25 percent.
    Referring to the perception, especially in the West, that India had previously been lecturing the world about the virtues of nonviolence, US President Kennedy told the Indian ambassador to the US, “You spend the last fifteen years preaching morality to us, and then you go ahead and act the way any normal country would behave.... People are saying, the preacher has been caught coming out of the brothel.”
    In an article titled "India, The Aggressor", The New York Times on 19 December 1961, stated "With his invasion of Goa Prime Minister Nehru has done irreparable damage to India's good name and to the principles of international morality."
    Life International, in its issue dated 12 February 1962, carried an article titled "Symbolic pose by Goa's Governor" in which it expressed its vehement condemnation of the military action.




    Soviet Union

    The head of state of Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev, who was touring India at the time of the war, made several speeches applauding the Indian action. In a farewell message, he urged Indians to ignore western indignation as it came "from those who are accustomed to strangle the peoples striving for independence... and from those who enrich themselves from colonialist plunder". Nikita Khrushchev, the de facto Soviet leader, telegraphed Nehru stating that there was "unanimous acclaim" from every Soviet citizen for "Friendly India". The USSR had earlier vetoed a UN security council resolution condemning the Indian invasion of Goa
     
  2.  
  3. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Ask the US today as to what they feel.

    It will show that all this indignation depends on which side you are on.

    For example, the western media was full of horror stories of the USSR during the Cold War.

    Then they lambasted China and showed the Chinese people in bad light.

    One was called the Iron Curtain and the other the Bamboo Curtain.

    What has happened now?

    In the old days the Liu Xiaobo case would have been spun with gruesome acts by the Chinese and how bad the Chinese are. But today, the semblance of outrage is so toned down that one wonders how come the bad China has suddenly become acceptable? And Putin and Russia allies and friends (in support of Afghanistan (ops).

    It is only the Wikileaks that shows the true feeling of the US towards Russia where the diplomat calls Putin an Alpha Dog!
     
  4. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    I have always maintained that yanks are two faced snakes and will always maintain that.

    Aim of usa was to make India puppet but even then we were poor country but still had some pride running through our veins.
     
  5. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes Received:
    1,858
    the way goa was handled by great guy JN was a blunder becos portugal was in no way any match for india.
    A continued blockade, SIEGE , or other such passive action would have been a far better solution - but the man was a romantic
    The unnecessarily aggresive action by JN gave a bad imAGE AND so 2 years later when prc invaded , it was diffficult to get more international condemnation than was obtained .
    Overall a big mistake by JN - lack of strategic thinking .
     
  6. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    apart from the difference that we took what was, is and always shall be our land. what claim did portugal have on that land when they are on different continent ?

    the method was also correct....kick them out. if only the same could have been done with the british.
     
  7. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    A blockade or siege would have eventually resulted in a war anyway.

    Remember Portugal at this time was ruled by a fascist government. The rulers were intent on keeping hold of Portuguese colonies in Asia and Africa at whatever cost.

    India tried negotiating the return of Goa many years prior to 1961. The native Goans even held peaceful demonstrations, but were met with force by Portuguese military police.

    The stubornness and arrogance of the Portuguese colonial government gave India no choice but to use force.

    Luckily, the Portuguese governor in Goa was a reasonable man who surrendered instead of following his government's order of "defend Goa to the last man".
     
  8. alex13689

    alex13689 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hà Nội
  9. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes Received:
    1,858
    a good reply - i do accept your point of view and you could well be correct - i'm in a sense comparing the smallness of goa to india vis a vis the similar situation between china and say hong kong or even macao - they negotiated and the teroitories were enhanced as a result of a negotiated settlement rather than a war - i believe india could have done something similar - except that the level of mangement expertise was probably not at the chinese level ?
     
  10. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    no, Hongkong or Macao was a different scenario.

    PRC deliberately maintained status quo of Macao and Hongkong after 1949 as gateways to the world in face of embargo by the West. During Korean War lots of medical and strategic supplies were imported through both along with financial channels . Many Hongkong tycoons (ethnic Chinese) joined such 'smuggling' in support of China. Both colonial authorities had to keep a closed eye to all these.

    Macao was even more typical. Before 1999 handover leaders of Chinese community were following Beijing's instructions (pls read family profiles of Mr. Ho Hau Wah and Mr Choi who became 1st and 2nd head of Macao SAR).
    ++
    It's pretty naive to say handover of them was a result of 'peaceful settlement'.

    At the early phase of negotiations, UK (Mrs Thatcher) actually proposed extention of treaties signed off with Qing Dynasty. Or return of sovereignty to China in exchange for UK's continued de facto governance of Hongkong.

    ... Until Deng said "Force will be used if..."
     
  11. rcscwc

    rcscwc Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Delhi
    HK and Macao cannot be compared with. Britain had not declared HK as its overseas province. Nor Portugese tried that with Macao. But Goa was declared a province, like they did with their African possessions. Thus route of negotiations was closed.

    Peaceful blockades do not succeed. USA, eg, could have breached such a blockade. Come on, even Goa could have done it by sending a passenger liner. Even Berlin blockade was eventually lifted by the Soviet Union.

    PS: It was liberation not annexation. Mods may pls note and edit the title.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011
  12. Phenom

    Phenom Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    401
    Blockade was not going to work at all, as it would be a long drawn out process and it would give portugal, ample time to garner European support and force India to lift the siege. The main reason for the success of the military action was its speed. Portugal did not have enough time to raise European and American support in their favour.

    What do you think would have happened if India hasn't attacked Goa and how would that have helped India two years later. IMO, India lost '62 war because it was militarily unprepared, no amount of 'international condemnation' could have changed the outcome.
     
  13. JayATL

    JayATL Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    USA
    then why do you ( most young indians)smoke american cigars, wear american clothes, speak in an american fashion, covet american movies, build american style malls and business, sit at american styled coffee shops and use american free market models?

    what was an attitude nearly 50 years has nothing to do with the present. if you want to a have that attitude I suggest go back to that economic model of that era too... Reagan always said " Trust but verify"- India should apply that adage when dealing with the US. The US is in business of looking out for its interest , is India not? India is exerting its new power over other countries, china is- it's part of the course to look after your own countries interest, when you can influence the debate .

    If one wants to have that attitude or be pissed at anyone, are the Brits really not whom you should target? they ruined, plundered and raped India- but when growing up in India , I never heard a bad word about them in any social circles...
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011

Share This Page