Talk:Annexation of Goa/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

TAP Super Constellation CS-TLA, Afonso de Albuquerque and Vega Naval Combats

TAP CS-TLA "Vasco da Gama" (ironic name for the aircraft chartered for the evacuation of Goa) This was the Super Constellation chartered by the Portuguese government to evacuate civilians, having arrived at Goa on Dec. 17th, due to constant threats by India, especially since Dec. 14th. On board were female Portuguese Paratroopers, sent to assist in the evacuation. Crew all TAP personnel (i.e. civilians), namely: Captian: Manuel Correia Reis Co-pilots: Anselmo Ribeiro, Alcídio Nascimento Navigator: P. Reis Radio-operator: A. Pereira Mecanics: A. Coragem, H. Dias Steward: Madeira Stewardesses: Carlota, Prazeres You can check TAP air route registers, Montijo airbase reports regarding the controversial decision to send a civilian TAP Constellation instead of two Portuguese Airforce DC-6 aircraft which were on alert at Montijo Airbase, near Lisbon. The choice for TAP was derived from the Portuguese Airforce not being permitted to land for refueling at airports in the 8 500kms that seperate Lisbon from Goa. The following sites, in Portuguese, are a good start. But there's lots more at various archives in Lisbon: http://www.supergoa.com/pt/read/news_cronica.asp?c_news=521 http://goancauses.com/9.html http://clearedfortakeoff.blogspot.com/2009/07/santacruzenses-em-defesa-da-patria-na_12.html http://www.asa-virtual.org/tapv/pt/m1049.php Many confuse the TAP Constellation with an Indian Navy constellation which was abandoned at Dabolim after the invasion; the Indian aircraft had initially served on Air India, being of the same class as the TAP plane. The TAP Constellation flew until being retired from service with all of the TAP Constellation fleet in 1967. There's a picture of the TAP Constellation that had evacuated Goa, taken three years after the invasion, in Mozambique in 1964: http://voandoemmozambique.blogspot.com/2009/11/633-cs-tla-da-tap-em-lourenco-marques.html There has been confusion and false claims from Indian sources that CS-TLA had been damaged, but proof and pictures are non-existent. Portuguese records on the other hand are available on-line or from TAP Portugal(http://www.flytap.pt).

The Goan airline, TAIP was dissolved and integrated into the Portuguese Airforce to serve in transport missions in Portugal and Africa. All of the DC-6 were already out at the time of the invasion (helping in Portugal's African campaigns), and the DC-4 that escaped on the night of the 18th, the last plane out, was integrated into the Portuguese Air Force. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_da_%C3%8Dndia_Portuguesa

Afonso de Albuquerque Various registers, but one of the most complete essays is that of José Augusto Sarmento Gouveia, the young second officer/chief of navigation of the NRP Afonso Albuquerque in the Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86, Lisbon. Pages 175 - 206. (One of the Portuguese navy's most brilliant officer's he was held POW in deplorable conditions by India, but once released he went on to fight in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea where Portugal was already confronting Soviet and Chinese backed guerrila movements at the time and progressed to Admiral in the 1990's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.130.75 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The route undertaken by the Afonso de Albuquerque was aimed at avoiding the artillery barrage from the Indian fleet (composed of seven ships) and to simultaneously keep the merchant vessels anchored at Marmagao from being hit. In this manner the Afonso Albuquerque was highly successful, since only one sailor on board died (the radio-operator) and the Afonso managed to hit two Indian frigates (which has much higher fire capacity, speed and manueverability than the obscolete Portugues frigate). Nonetheless, the Indians hit two civilian ships, the British "Ranger" received at least one direct hit. The Indian airforce was just as inaccurate as the Indian navy. The Afonso de Albuquerque managed to use all of its munitions (almost 400 rounds) and maintain full comunications with Lisbon before being beached.

Vega The unproprtional use of force by the Indian invaders was most revealing in the combats between the Indian cruiser New Delhi and the tiny fibre-glass patrol craft Vega, with a crew of six. Nontheless, the Vega attacked the New Delhi and managed to thwart off Indian airforce attacks for hours before running out of ammunition and being sunk.

Troop Numbers: 3 300 Portuguese Infantry After February, 1961 many of the troops and equipment in Goa were sent to Angola and Moçambique to aid in the campaigns there. It was due to this weakness that Indian leaders took action and invaded Goa, which was practically demilitarized and isolated from possible reinforcements.

I dont think I need to explain why I reverted your fiction after this[1] --18:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be confusing your sources: Pictures of the TAP Constellation (the Vasco da Gama, which evacuated civilians from Goa on the night of the 18th flew for TAP for another 6 years (check the pictures above) and later served for covert operations in the Biafran War. The TAIP airplane was a DC-4 (not 6); your sources are very inprecise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.138.228 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not the question here. If you insist on mixing constructive edits with fiction aimed at glorifyng the Portuguese bravery, it is a violation of Wikipedia's, Neutral point of view policy and will be reverted. Please note that this is an encyclopedia, not a novel that we use prose. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. D´Souza, cite sources or provide proof: 1.The information inserted is cited and provable (pictures of the Constellation CS-TLA are verifiable by TAP Portugal's registers and on the sites mentioned initially). 2.The combat of the last Portuguese frigate at Marmagão are also verified and cited. Fiction is the use of the word "invasion" of Goa's total area by a small fleet of Portuguese sailboats in 1510. 3. Numbers: 3300 Portuguese troops divided between Goa, Diu and Daman + Sailors of the Afonso Albuquerque - Portuguese KIA = 3306 POW's. 4. Revisionism? From an analysis of your inputs, deletions, talks and reviews, it seems to be that that's your task. I'm simply trying to provide accurate information, in line with Wikipideia's policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.138.228 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes The Portuguese invasion of Goa in 1510 is a fiction! The Portuguese never invaded Goa! did they? Actually they are native to Goa, right? In fact, it is the Indians who came from a distant continent and colonised Goa! (Is this what they teach you in Portugal? :-D) And Im sure your information has to be more accurate than mine; by virtue of being Portuguese you do have a god-given monopoly over truth!

Ok, I do not wish to indulge in an edit war, so I am not reverting your last edit. As it is you have violated the Three revert rule and I am not interested in breaking it too. Nonetheless ,lets be civil and discuss each point ,one at a time and achive consensus. Till then I have placed an NPOV tag on the article. It would be good if you register an ID and edit so that your comments can easily be tracked on this talkpage. Can you start by listing your changes, starting with the most controversial ones, one at a time so we can discuss the accuracy of the sources, one at a time. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Goans are native of Goa, India did not exist as a unified nation state in 1510 and the various people who inhabited the sub-continent didn't have any perception of a politically unified India at that time. On the other hand, Portugal did have a unified governance in 1510, in fact it had been formally established as a state since 1128 (recognized by neighbouring states and the Pope in 1143). Is there some fear of Goan differentiation with respect to your idea of a unified India? I suggest you apply the criteria effective to the time your dealing with instead of using the filter of your current time and political orientation: 1510 is not 1961, 1961 is not 2010; context and politics change. Nations last longer than empires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.137.124 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How does the fact that India did not exist as a nation state in 1510 justify calling the Portuguese invasion as "foundation of Goa"? Please stick to the topic and discuss edits to the article; dont use WIkipedia talk pages for idle chat. Any self-respecting Goa will find your charachterisation of the Portuguese invasion of 1510 as "foundation of Goa" insulting. Are you saying that Goa did not exist before the Portuguese came here? was it some uninhabited place ?. Since you havenot botehred to discuss your recent edits, nor justify them with sources, i am reverting your edits. Please discuss the changes here before adding them to the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say, but the Portuguese could have 'founded' Goa only if Goa was uninhabited at the time of their arrival, or if it was inhabited by aboriginals (as per accepted definitions of this term). Otherwise, they merely conquered the place, and renamed it to 'Goa' from its original indigenous name. Christiphor Columbus 'founded' the colonies in the West Indies. Vasco Da Gama discovered a sea route to India, and later Alfonso De Albuquerque 'conquered' parts of India.In any case, Goa had a unique cultural and political identity long before the arrival of the Portuguese, even if it was part of a larger Konkan identity that stretched from Modern day Ratnagiri to Mangalore.

Mr. 85.88.137.124...... Its very good that you have found excellent in depth information on the Portuguese evacuation of Goa, and about the naval strategy of the Alfonso along with some very good sources. I advise you to add these to the article in all the detail you can along with their sources. However, you must not include anything that reflects your personal judgement or opinion of the matter. For example, the idea that the Vega is a 'tiny' boat is your opinion. if you wish to highlight its size, place list out its seating capacity and weapons, then list out the weapons and displacement of the New Delhi, allowing the reader to draw out his own judgements. Also its not correct to say that the Vega 'thwart'ed off Indian air attacks for hours, when the source mentions that it evaded detection by air patrols for hours.

Oh.... and do take care not ot get into edit wars. Mr. D'Souza here is an old hand and will get away with anything. You on the other hand may face a strict warning and may even have your IP address banned by the administrators. remember.... the article will stay here for ages... there's no need to get worked up and revert reverts that have been reverted all in the span of 24 hours. :)Tigerassault (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Tigerassault. The intent is not to offend, but only to provide insight and clear-up some mistaken information which was being conveyed. I hope it can be useful to all and not offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the Issue: Dabolim Airport and the Portuguese Evacuation of Women and Children

The only aircraft that ever used Dabolim Airport before India invaded Goa were civilian aircraft. The only two that were parked on the apron on Dec. 18th, 1961 were a Goan DC-4 (Transportes Aereos da India Portuguesa) and a TAP Portugal Super Constellation (register CS-TLA, name "Vasco da Gama"). Upon bombing Dabolim airport, the Indian airforce missed the apron and hit the control tower. Most of the runway was damaged, however the Portuguese Army managed to recover 700m of the runway at nightfall and the evacuation effort proceeded with the aid of a small contingent of Portuguese female paratroopers. BOTH AIRPLANES ESCAPED TO KARACHI that night as described in the discussion above; the Super Constellation stayed in Kaarachi until Dec. 23rd initially to be repaired from 25 holes in the fuselage and a flat upon take-off. Logs are available from Museu da TAP at Lisbon Airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.138.244 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Goan Airlines - Transportes Aéreos da Índia Portuguesa

Goan airline DC-4 (register CR-IAE) escaped during the night of 1961.12.18 carrying women and children in an evacuation effort coordinated with a woman's paratroop contingent which flew into Goa on the TAP Constellation on 1961.12.19. Both CR-IAE and CS-TLA, the only two aircraft at Goa escaped Indian bombing and air sorties, heading onto Lisbon via Karachi. The Constellation remained in Karachi for 4 days, awaiting further orders from Military H.Q. in Portugal before proceeding back to Lisbon.

The DC-4 was integrated into the Portuguese Air Force (FAP) with register 6608, sold to a Congolese airline in 1964 to the Congo Airforce, with register 9T-THY. The 2 Goan DC-6's were transporting Portuguese troops to Angola and Moçambique at the time of the Indian invasion, since Portugal was being attacked by independence movements. As Goan airplanes the DC-6's registers were CR-IAG and CR-IAH, both were integrated into the FAP (with FAP registers 6709 and 6710 respectively). In 1975 these DC-6's were sold to a Portuguese air carrier and received new registers CS-TAK and CS-TAM where they flew until 1978.

Source: Cardoso, Adelino. Aeronaves Militares Portuguesas - Cem Anos de Aviação em Portugal. (coord. Ayala, Bernardo). copyright Cardoso. Lisboa. 2009. ISBN: 978-989-20-1801-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.187.245 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we have sources for this please:

1. "This claim served to justify the bombing of the civilian facilities"[2]
2. All other Goan aircraft had been sent to participate in Portugal's campaign in Angola and Mozambique which were involved in a colonial war which started a few months prior.
3. 34 Indians ...were killed
4. Indian infantry strenght : 45,000.
5. The Portuguese followed their actions up with a purge of supporters of annexation, many of whom had been infiltrated by the Indian Union activists(Actually this doesn't make any sense: If they were supporters of the annexation why would they need to be infiltrated :-))
6. the Azad Gomantak Dal (The Free Goa Party) and the United Front of Goans conducted indiscriminate terror attacks against Portuguese nationals, whether european or Goan( why would they attack theior own, if you can first give reliable proof that they did attack Goans?)
7. A Portuguese investigation into the matter revealed that the boat had also been fired upon a seven days earlier, when it deliberatelly strayed into Portuguese waters, in order to provoke incidents that could justify an indian violent response.The deliberatelly provoked incidents were successfull as they lent themselves to foster widespread public support in India for military action in Goa, thus justifying violent actions by a government that advocated non-violence.( Any neutral relaibale sources, which means non-Portuguese and non-Indian which state that this was deliberate?)
8. This claim served to justify the bombing of the civilian facilities.(again, netural sources please)
9. The Indian light aircraft carrier INS Vikrant was deployed 75 miles (121 km) off the coast of Goa to head a beach landing of Indian Marines,(again netural sources)
10. Leonid Brezhnev ...the soviet dictator urged Indians to ignore the rule of law and western indignation

Please cite the sources here so that we can discuss them here. If you inist on adding them without discussion and consensus I will duly revert it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources:

1. Regarding the Indian bombing of civilian facilities at Dabolim airport and the postal telegraph station at Bambolim, the city centre at Panjim or the British merchant ship Ranger these are self evident. They occurred and there were never any F-86 Sabres at Goa airport. The Indian intelligence which had infiltrated Goa since the late 1950's (source: P. Correia and G. Verhof. University of Johannesburg. 2009) knew that there had never been any military aviation at any of the Portuguese territories. It was a lame excuse to justify India's ambitions. Nehru was aware that violent uprisings in Angola (which started in Feb. 4th 1961) and Guinea-Bissau (July 1961) would require a great military effort, far from Portugal or Goa, and he took advantage of this to strike. (In fact, in 1960 Francisco Costa Gomes ordered the reduction of Portuguese infantry in Goa, which numbered almost 10 000 to the 3 300 that were present in Dec. 1961. Source. Sarmento Gouveia. Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86. Lisbon. 1986.)
2. From all sources except yours, the number of Indians reported killed is 34 (possibly more). Maybe you are only including infantry, remember that 5 dead were Indian sailors in the two frigates that were hit by the Afonso de Albuquerque's gunfire (Indian Navy officers told the Portuguese POW's at Bambolim. Source: Sarmento Gouveia. Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86. Lisbon. 1986.). Where are your sources for these figures?
3. Indian infantry of 45 000 (P. Correia and G. Verhof. University of Johannesburg. 2009 also C. Morais. A Queda da Índia Portuguesa - Crónica da Invasão e Cativeiro. Editorial Estampa. Lisboa. 1999. also Sarmento Gouveia. Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86. Lisbon. 1986.) Are you including the reservists that were mobilized also? Regarding Portuguese troop numbers they amount to under 3300 ill equipped infantry plus the sailors from the Afonso de Albuquerque (and you can verify this if you look at the POW count taken at the Bambolim concentration camp that India built to house them, which numbers approximately 3300 also). The Portuguese female paratroopers who arrived at Goa on Dec. 17th, to coordenate the evacuation effort of women and children all escaped on the TAP Constellation and TAIP DC-4.
4. You repeat the question twice. Remember India bombed Goa's airport which only became a military facility after India invaded the territory; Portugal never had any military aircraft at Goa, Diu or Damão.
5. So what was the aircraft carrier "Vikrant", the cruiser "Mysore", the 3 destroyers and 4 frigates doing, vacationing in Goa's beaches? Don't tell me India expected the aging "Afonso de Albuquerque" to face all 9 ships with its max. speed of 18 knots and 4 guns to hold off all 8 ships (all faster and heavier equipped)?
6. Brezhnev: That's the best example you have?

Why are so many Goans in Australia, Canada, Goa, Great Britain, Portugal, South Africa, U.S.A and elsewhere mostly contrary to your points of view? Why is there a movement called "FREE GOA" [3]? Why do you need to censor, edit, delete, reword and manipulate information regarding Goa and its history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.130.89 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the issue mr. Deepak: The sources regarding the airplanes were provided by the user: Source: Cardoso, Adelino. Aeronaves Militares Portuguesas - Cem Anos de Aviação em Portugal. (coord. Ayala, Bernardo). copyright Cardoso. Lisboa. 2009. ISBN: 978-989-20-1801-0 another note: TAP Portugal never flew DC-6 aircraft (and the payload of the DC-4 or Constellation didn't allow for carrying much gold - but that claim is ludicrous). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.137.124 (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sticking to the issue. The issue here is your rather cotroversial edits. And your cites do not cover them. The TAIP issue is less controversial and we will deal with it later. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deepak, you insist on reverting everything anyone writes. So here's a consensus for you.

SQN LDR I S LOUGHRAN of the Indian air force confirms in Bharat Rakshak the following: 17th/18th Dec. Vamp NF X, No. ID608. After landing at Poona, we were ordered off again at about three thirty, (A/C No. ID 608, same crew) to intercept a target aircraft heading in a NNW direction off the coast, we never made contact. This target turned out to be the Super Connie that took off from Dabolim and hugging the deck went to Karachi. see here: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1960s/Goa03.html

I think we can conclude that the Super Constellation did escape Goa. If there was a Super Constellation parked in Dabolim Airport when the Indians got there, it was another aircraft and not the one that arrived on the 17th. Tigerassault (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I reverted this edit[4] was not because of the SC but because you inserted disputed numbers which were under discussion, not because I disputed the events. You know better than to reinsert disputed material, which is being discussed, back into the article before a consensus has been reached. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There were no other aircraft at Dabolim when the Indian Forces arrived at the airport; TAIP's fleet had been redirected to Portugal's war effort at her African Colonies prior to hostilities; the DC-4 which remained with the company's director (Solano de Almeida), and the TAP Super Constellation both managed to escape loaded with women and children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.137.124 (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear 85.241.130.89. You made a comment "Why are so many Goans in Australia, Canada, Goa, Great Britain, Portugal, South Africa, U.S.A and elsewhere mostly contrary to your points of view? Why is there a movement called "FREE GOA""

I take strong offence to such juvenile statements.

As a non -resident Goan in touch with a lot of Goans around the world, i can assure you that i have yet to meet a single Goan who supports Portuguese Rule in Goa. There are a few who claim that Portuguese Goa had a lower crime rate and less corruption, but I am yet to meet a single Goan who has said that Goa should not be part of India.

As part of Federal India, Goa is a seperate state with its own democratically elected government. Except for foreign policy, defence and maybe currency, Goa is an independant nation by all means. Add to that the immense freedom one enjoys in India, and no Goan has anything political to complain about.

Free Goa? Its nothing but a few Goans who were in Europe in '61, and lapped up all the propaganda Salazar fed them. Ask Free Goa if even one single Goan Expatriate Organisation anywhere in the world has ever lent them any kind of support or acknowledgement.

Consider that the last update news item to Free Goa's website was added in April 2000.

Tigerassault (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No offence intended, just trying to keep all well informed and being open to different viewpoints. Thank you for your advice (as in the preceding section). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: There's a detail in SQN LDR I S LOUGHRAN's statement that doesn't match with the information regarding the escape of CS-TLA, because the TAP Constellation took off from Dabolim at 15:30 Lisbon time (GMT time) according to Manuel Correia Reis' pilot log (which meant that it was 20:30 Goa time).(see TNR - Transporte Não Regular, Viagem Especial 74/61 on the flight logs at TAP Museum: Diário de Navegação n.º 13 - CS-TLA. Museu da Tap. Lisboa.)

Note 2: Why the text changes regarding the damage on the Connie? If it was damaged on take-off due to the debris and had a flat, why remove these details from the main article? Why not try to be credible and true instead of changing the facts? — [Unsigned comment added by 85.88.137.124 (talk • contribs).]

Since this section is getting cluttered I will be making a new talk section below for the contentious points. Please wait until I say that Im done. Again I request our anon friend to get an account to facilitate discussion. Again, please hold on to new edits and discuss them here and achieve consensus before adding them to the main page. And yes, no irrelevant chat please! --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm done. Awaiting your sources. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Free Goa

May I remind the editors that Wikipedia talk pages are meant to discuss discuss improvements to the article, not for general chat: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. I would love to discuss the "Free Goa" movement too but Wikipedia is not a place for this. Please read WP:TALK for talk page guidelines --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also , may I also point out No personal attacks and Wikipedia policy on references and verifiability for our anon editor here.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Points of Contention

Below are the contentious points:--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Claim v/s beleived

"This claim served to justify the bombing of the civilian facilities"[5]

Regarding the Indian bombing of civilian facilities at Dabolim airport and the postal telegraph station at Bambolim, the city centre at Panjim or the British merchant ship Ranger these are self evident. They occurred and there were never any F-86 Sabres at Goa airport. The Indian intelligence which had infiltrated Goa since the late 1950's (source: P. Correia and G. Verhof. University of Johannesburg. 2009) knew that there had never been any military aviation at any of the Portuguese territories. It was a lame excuse to justify India's ambitions. Nehru was aware that violent uprisings in Angola (which started in Feb. 4th 1961) and Guinea-Bissau (July 1961) would require a great military effort, far from Portugal or Goa, and he took advantage of this to strike. (In fact, in 1960 Francisco Costa Gomes ordered the reduction of Portuguese infantry in Goa, which numbered almost 10 000 to the 3 300 that were present in Dec. 1961. Source. Sarmento Gouveia. Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86. Lisbon. 1986.)

No they are not self-evident. They must be cited from reliable and verifiable sources. In this case you will have to show us the "source" . And, it must be corroborated with other sources. Just one source is not enough.

"My specific question here is about your statement that "India claimed this to justify the bombing of civilian facilities. Even if we accept your (unverifed)premise that "Indian infiltrators had verified that there were no military planes in Dabolim, why shouldn't the Indians bomb it anyway. That is a standard procedure in modern warfare meant to deny the enemy the use of civilian airfields for military purposes. And since Goa had just one airfield, it would be used for both civilian and military purposes. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree.

In war, any airfield is considered a military target even if it has no military aircraft or weapons stationed. If you are invading a foreign country, the first thing you usually do is to incapacitate its airports and air bases, or - if you can - capture them. Diu for instance, is very close to the pakistani border, and a functioning airfield could have easily been used to bring in infantry reinforcements.

Airfields, along with ports and communication facilities are always targets in a war. In the Goa Ops, the Indians effectively blockaded the ports and bombed all airfields and communication facilities.

Also note this: The Indians could have bombed some very real military targets: the portuguese military barracks in Ponda and Verna, as well as at all border entry points. But they did not. Tigerassault (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Goan Aircraft

All other Goan aircraft had been sent to participate in Portugal's campaign in Angola and Mozambique which were involved in a colonial war which started a few months prior. -- deepak d'souza

Angola, not Mozambique. The colonial war had started in Angola in February 61 with a massacre of the white population by UPA rebels. Mozambique flared up only by 1964.

However, the TAIP had seven aircraft in its fleet by 1961 and was operating regular flights to Karachi and Mozambique. If at the time of the invasion, there was just one aircraft stationed in Goa, then we can assume that the others were somewhere else - whether they were in Angola or stationed in karachi is irrelevant and can be verified quite simply. Tigerassault (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're only partially correct; Mostly Angola, possibly Portuguese Guinea (now Guinea-Bissau) which were already in the midst of a guerrilla war against Portuguese interests (initiated in February and July 1961, respectively) and most probably Moçambique. By the end of 1961 Portugal was expecting the beginning of hostilities in Moçambique and reinforcment of its troops and logistics there were considered crucial by the Autumn of 1961. The TAIP aircraft were most probably present at Moçambique, since one of the air corridors operated by the airforce DC-6's was Lisbon-Luanda-Lourenço Marques, and TAIP became integrated into FAP's transport squadron, unofficially prior to the invasion, officially afterwards. An important fact regarding the invasion of Goa by India, is that a large contingent of infantry were sent by General Francisco Costa Gomes, from Goa to Moçambique just a few months prior to the invasion by India, and no doubt the well infiltrated Indian intelligence and Nehru's general's were aware of this when planning the invasion. Costa Gomes refers to the decision to send troops to Moçambique in an interview he had in 2001 to the Lisbon newspaper Público: .85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but that does not lead to the conclusion that the TAIP aircraft remained in Africa and did not return back after ferrying the soldiers. The article on colaco.net also does not shed any light on this[6]. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

None came back, its all on the Portuguese Air Force registers and logs. Note that all TAIP pilots were Portuguese Air Force pilots (Major Solano de Almeida was in charge since 1957, transferred from Lajes Airbase to Goa), the aircraft were mostly the same as the Portuguese Air Force's transport planes, not TAP's fleet, and the priority was Africa, not India. TAIP (and Dabolim, Diu and Damão airports) were an intelligent solution from a small distant country to avoid India's belligerence at the time. You can start at[7].85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! For the last time dear, please provide some source instead of making statements. You are simply assuming that the planes didn't come back. Unless you have a source that specifically says that the planes didnt come back, you don't have any proof. TAIP flew aircraft to various locations including the gulf states and Karachi which had small Goan communities (again ref to Figuerdo's article on Colaco.net). The planes could have been en-route to any of these destinations when the hostilities began. You cannot assume that just because they were not on the tarmac at Dabolim, that they necessarily were in Africa. And yes, I went through a google translation of the link you provided. The only part of the article that comes close to what you have stateed is that two planes were loaned to Angola. So that leaves another 5 still with the TAIP. --Deepak D'Souza (talk)

1 was at the Goa Airport at the time of hostilities and was used to evacuate civilians. That leaves 4.Tigerassault (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, that would leave the fleet to 3 because CR-IAD one of the TAIP Vikers Vikings was wrongly accounted for, it had crashed in Karachi (with no fatalities) on Nov. 2, 1957. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19571102-1 As for Deepak's brilliant Portuguese communication skills (or was it another Bollywood romance?), here's the excerpt: http://www.supergoa.com/pt/read/news_cronica.asp?c_news=521 Nas semanas que precederam a invasão de Goa, Damão e Diu os TAIP montaram uma ponte aérea entre Goa e Karachi para a evacuação das famílias dos civis e militares. No dia 18 de Dezembro de 1961, dia da invasão encontravam-se no aeroporto de Dabolim um avião DC-4 "Skymaster" dos TAIP e um "SUPER CONSTELATION" dos TAP – Transportes Aéreos Portugueses; apesar da pista e a torre terem sido atingidos pelos maciços bombardeamentos da Força Aérea Indiana, durante a noite foram feitas as necessárias reparações na pista que permitiram aos dois aviões levantar voo com destino a Karachi donde posteriormente seguiram para Lisboa.

To keep it short: Two aircraft at Goa, both escaped, runway and tower damaged. If you are curious as for the complete Goan fleet and its whereabouts you can look it up through its international aircraft register code: CR-Ixx. Otherwise contact the Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil: http://www.inac.pt85.241.129.216 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'llignore your barb about my Portuguese skills since I don't know Portuguese(and i have already mentioned that I have used a google translation). Anyway, anybody can see that your (mostly unverifiable) edits include more romanticism. Anyway, your source still does not say anything about the other two aircraft. As always your sources do not stand up to scrutitny, o we will keep this edit out. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Using Google translations says something about the credibility of your research... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.184.156 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the quality of my research you should provide English language sources. Anyway, not a single one of your edits has stood up to scrutiny, not even by sources you have provided, so I think you shouldn't be worrying about my "credibility". Take this as a final warning. I'll revert any more personal comments you make. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Description by a female paratrooper -in Portuguese- of the evacuation of women and children, matches 85.241.129.216's information, claims of destroying aircraft at Dabolim airfield seem to be unfounded (where are the sources for these, pictures, anything?): http://historiaeciencia.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/049503.html; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.187.245 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian Casualities

34 Indians ...were killed

From all sources except yours, the number of Indians reported killed is 34 (possibly more). Maybe you are only including infantry, remember that 5 dead were Indian sailors in the two frigates that were hit by the Afonso de Albuquerque's gunfire (Indian Navy officers told the Portuguese POW's at Bambolim. Source: Sarmento Gouveia. Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86. Lisbon. 1986.). Where are your sources for these figures?

"All other sources except yours", in this case meaning just one: Sarmento Gouveia? What are these "other sources". Can you point us to these sources. And there is no way for me to verify what Gouviea has written. Apart from that it must match the numbers given by other sources. If not, the reliability of this source may be questionable. Before asking me for sources you should remember that as per wikipedia policy: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.. That would be you. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets list them out: 11 Indian marines were killed on Anjidiv Island, when they ventured out of cover to accept what they thought was a Portuguese surrender. An unspecified number (can be verified on the bharatrakshak forums) at Diu when the Rajput company attempted to take Gogol at Diu without air support. As for the Goa and Daman ground hostilities, there were a few WIAs, but no fatalities for both the Indians and for the Portuguese. With regard to the naval battle at Mormugao, I know from Portuguese sources that one officer was KIA on the Alfonso. I cannot verify that 5 Indian sailors were killed too.

May I suggest that unless we can list out all individual instances where fatalities occured, we remove the casualties figure and replace with a request to help us out with it. Tigerassault (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Once I've compiled Portuguese casualties, I'll insert them in this discussion section.85.88.137.124 (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualities table

Indian casualities

Location	Army	Navy	Air Force
Goa	4	Navy	0
Daman	Army	Navy	0
Diu	Army	Navy	0
Anjediva	0	7 or 11	0

Portuguese casualities

Portuguese Casualties

Goa: 15

Diu: 7 (including two rural guards)

Damão: 3

• All names of Portuguese dead are refered to in the article
• The article "Area Militar" states that India claimed 14 KIA initially (to appear lower than Portuguese KIA), later India claimed 30, and the real amount will never be known. The Indian Navy officers claimed at Bambolim that 5 KIA due to the combat with the NRP Afonso de Albuquerque.

sources: 1. O fim do estado português da Índia, Francisco Cabral Couto, Editora Tribuna da História, 2006. 2. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, C.R.Boxer, Pelican, 1965. 3. A queda da Índia Portuguesa, Carlos Alexandre de Morais, Editorial Estampa 1995. 4. Em Nome da Pátria, João José Brandão Ferreira, Leya/Livros D’Hoje 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.137.124 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but India isn't exactly Namibia. Its very difficult even for the government here to fudge the KIA numbers in any conflict. Every dead solider will be accorded a state funeral and his family will be given gratuities and the like.... making it very difficult to cover up anything. Also, every event in the Goa Invasion was extensively covered by international press and any casualty figures released would have been closely cross examined and corelated by the press.

The Portuguese casualties at Diu have to be much higher than just three. The place saw an intense ground fight involving artillery and machine-gunfire and was was repeatedly bombed by the Indian Air Force. There must have been more than just three dead portuguese soldiers - otherwise I can't see why the Portuguese governor there surrendered. Tigerassault (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

i just read the following in the article area militar: "De facto, em Diu, um mês após o fim dos combates ainda havia cadáveres de soldados indianos a boiar no rio que separa a ilha de Diu do continente. (ver invasão de Diu)." which translates something that one month after the battle at Diu, the bodies of Indian soldiers were still floating around the sea. All the journalists from all the newspapers and radio stations in the world did not report on such an incredible sight - which makes the article sound suspiciously like propaganda straight from Salazar's office. I think the Portuguese casualty figures must have come from the same place.

Also, the Indian commanders mentioned 5 casualties which would have probably referred to 5 WIA and not KIA. Please upload the scanned copy of the document you have referred to. Tigerassault (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Tigerassault, here's the link: http://www.areamilitar.net/Analise/analise.aspx?NrMateria=52&p=8

You can also check this Goan article, it accounts for 26 KIA: http://www.supergoa.com/pt/read/news_noticia.asp?c_news=603

Regarding numbers I believe that Area Militar is correct, and it has a great report on the invasion from a Portuguese military point of view, nonetheless a request will be made to the Comissão Portuguesa de História Militar.85.88.137.124 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the source you have given for the Portuguese casualities; I see no reason to doubt them. However, I find it difficult to accept your implication that the Portguese have a more accurate count of Indian casualities than Indians do :-). As Tigerassault has alreay pointed out, the Indian army is no rag-tag guerrilla band. I have not seen any site, Indian or Portuguese, apart from this one which claims that 200 died; and the inflated numbers are more likely to be Portuguese propoganda. Besides, the families and comrades of the supposed "200" dead would have made a ruckus when they came to know that a monument was being built for only a few of them. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian force strength

Indian infantry strenght : 45,000.

Indian infantry of 45 000 (P. Correia and G. Verhof. University of Johannesburg. 2009 also C. Morais. A Queda da Índia Portuguesa - Crónica da Invasão e Cativeiro. Editorial Estampa. Lisboa. 1999. also Sarmento Gouveia. Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86. Lisbon. 1986.) Are you including the reservists that were mobilized also? Regarding Portuguese troop numbers they amount to under 3300 ill equipped infantry plus the sailors from the Afonso de Albuquerque (and you can verify this if you look at the POW count taken at the Bambolim concentration camp that India built to house them, which numbers approximately 3300 also). The Portuguese female paratroopers who arrived at Goa on Dec. 17th, to coordenate the evacuation effort of women and children all escaped on the TAP Constellation and TAIP DC-4.

Again, the two sources that you have cited cannot be verified. Besides, even if they can be verified, both have been authored by Portuguese writers; one of them being a Portuguese military publication and may exaggerate the number of enemy troops. That is specifically why I asked for neutral(meaning third-party sources). This article in time magazine states 30,000 troops[8]. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How exactly do you put a figure on the Indian forces involved in Goa Ops?? Is it the number of troops who could have been brought to bear upon the conflict? The Indians had a standing military force of 800,000 to 1,000,000 at the time, most of which could have been - theoratically - used in the conflict. Is it the number of troops placed at the disposal of the task force assigned the invasion of Goa? Then that would be close to 45,000 men. Is it the troops who were actually used in the operations? That is a far smaller number. I think the forums at Bharat rakshak can assist us with this.Tigerassault (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As an example, take the instance of the aircraft carrier INS Vikrant. This vessel had 1200 men on board and was deployed off the waters of Goa, not to directly engage the Portuguese, but to dissuade the Pakistani navy from interfering with the Goa invasion. Are we including the 1200 complement of the INS Vikrant in the Indian troop count as well? Tigerassault (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The total Portuguese military presence at Goa, Diu and Damão was limited to aproximately 3 300 including both army and navy present at all three enclaves. The exact figures have been requested to the Comissão Portuguesa de História Militar and will be published.85.88.137.124 (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For the Indian strength, I will again agree with Tigerassault's contention that theoretically the entire Indian army could be take as "reserve". And reserves are just that "reserves". They are not counted as combatants till they have called for combat at least once. As I have alredy mentioned only one neutral source puts the number at 30,000. Portuguese sources may, as expected, inflate the number, for obvious reasons, or, may simply not have an accurate count and put in some guesswork. The number of sailors on the Vikrant cannot be taken as combatants because the ship acts as a whole unit. The sailors cannot act without the ship and vice-versa. Besides they are not a part of the army anyway.

Regarding the Portuguese strength I feel that the figure of POWS (once verified) can be taken as accurate. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This source gives the precise figures of the Portuguese POWS:[9]. Far more than the 3300 you have claimed.

In all, 4668 prisoners are taken, including military and civilian personnel, Portuguese, Africans and Indians (Goans) – numbers as given in the "Operation Vijay" report; 3412 in Goa, 853 in Damão, 403 in Diu.

I will updated the article accordingly. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Infiltration fo "supporters of annexation

The Portuguese followed their actions up with a purge of supporters of annexation, many of whom had been infiltrated by the Indian Union activists(Actually this doesn't make any sense: If they were supporters of the annexation why would they need to be infiltrated :-))

Azad Gomantak Dal

The Azad Gomantak Dal (The Free Goa Party) and the United Front of Goans conducted indiscriminate terror attacks against Portuguese nationals, whether european or Goan( why would they attack theior own, if you can first give reliable proof that they did attack Goans?)

Sabarmati

A Portuguese investigation into the matter revealed that the boat had also been fired upon a seven days earlier, when it deliberatelly strayed into Portuguese waters, in order to provoke incidents that could justify an indian violent response.The deliberatelly provoked incidents were successfull as they lent themselves to foster widespread public support in India for military action in Goa, thus justifying violent actions by a government that advocated non-violence.( Any neutral relaibale sources, which means non-Portuguese and non-Indian which state that this was deliberate?)

Claim (again)

This claim served to justify the bombing of the civilian facilities.(again, netural sources please)

You repeat the question twice. Remember India bombed Goa's airport which only became a military facility after India invaded the territory; Portugal never had any military aircraft at Goa, Diu or Damão.

Sorry about that. :-)I wanted a cite for this change:

The Indians believed that the Portuguese had a squadron of [[F-86 Sabre]]s stationed at Dabolim Airport—which later turned out to be false intelligence.

to

The Indians claimed that the Portuguese had a squadron of [[F-86 Sabre]]s stationed at Dabolim Airport—which later turned out to be false intelligence.

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You tell me...85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So you admit you don't have a source for this change, right? Here's the source:

Within a month of her arrival in India, VIKRANT was deployed for the Goa Operation. On patrol 75 miles seaward of Goa, her task was to counter any action by the Portuguese Air Force F - 86 Sabres (which according to intelligence reports were operating from Dabolim) and to forestall any interference by Western NATO allies of Portugal. VIKRANT steamed up and down at high speed for two days on 18 and 19 December, with Seahawk combat air patrols airborne from dawn to dusk. No Portuguese Sabre aircraft or any other intrusive air or naval activity was observed.

You believe what you want.85.88.137.124 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No dear, its not about believing what you want. It's about writing encyclopedic articles based on unbiased reliable sources. Since your edit is unsourced, we will not include it in the article. End of discussion. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

INS Vikrant

The Indian light aircraft carrier INS Vikrant was deployed 75 miles (121 km) off the coast of Goa to head a beach landing of Indian Marines,(again netural sources)

So what was the aircraft carrier "Vikrant", the cruiser "Mysore", the 3 destroyers and 4 frigates doing, vacationing in Goa's beaches? Don't tell me India expected the aging "Afonso de Albuquerque" to face all 9 ships with its max. speed of 18 knots and 4 guns to hold off all 8 ships (all faster and heavier equipped)?

You are guessing what the Indian strategy must have been in positioning the Vikrant at the harbour. Unless you have a source that specifically says that Vikrant was to be used for an amphibious assault( an unlikely posibility, IMHO) you cannot change it. And your comments are funny, but they do nothing to improve Wikipedia. Vikrant was an aircraft carrier not an amphibious assault vehicle. , so it could hardly have been used for a beach landing.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire complement of the Indian navy deployed in the locaility was more to dissuade any chances of Pakistani interference than to target the Portuguese. Tigerassault (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the naval threat from Pakistan due to India's invasion of Goa is absurd. Pakistan didn't even allow Portuguese civilian aircraft carrying reinforcements or ammunition to refuel in Karachi so why would they interfere in a conflict that had nothing to do with their own agenda? The same applies to Portugal's only other so-called ally in the vicinity, Great Britain, who refused bases to a NATO partner at Cyprus, Diego Garcia, etc. (Verify the presence of British observers during the operations, especially aboard the INS Vikrant). India deployed the fleet for naval support and possible amphibious operations during the invasion.85.88.137.124 (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply stating that India deployed a fleet for "possible amphibious operations" is not enough , irmao, you need a source. Heres what bharatrakshak.com has to say on the navy's objectives during the war:

The tasks assigned to the Naval Task Force were on the outbreak of hostilities, firstly the establishment of effective control of the seaward approaches to the Portuguese territory of Goa (including Mormugao bay and Aguada), Daman and Diu and capture of Anjadiv Island. Secondly, to neutralise the coast batteries defending these ports and sink or immobilise units of the Portuguese Navy deployed inside Goa harbour or patrolling its sea approaches

Ref:

and here is the navy site:

The Naval task was to gain control of the seaward approaches to the Bays of Marmagao and Aguada, prevent interference by Portuguese naval units, occupy Anjadip Island and provide fire support to the troops.

Ref:

There is no mention of an amphibious assault. Nor did I find any other site which alluded to this posibility. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan did not allow the passage of reinforcements etc to Goa under international pressure. However the threat of interference was still there. It was considered severe enough, that precautions were taken at Jamnagar Air Base near Diu: "Micky and his staff decided that all precautions would be taken against an air attack. As such a complete blackout was enforced in the airfield and the camp. Gp Capt Godkhindi and Micky also impressed upon the Jamnagar Electricity Board (JEB) that in case of an impending air raid they were to blackout all of Jamnagar.".

You're right about the UK or any other country for that matter. Nevertheless, the Indians decided to be safe than sorry.

You are not right about anything to do with amphibious assaults. An aircraft carrier is used as a platform for air operations and cannot stage an amphibious assault on its own. It can, of course, support such an assault with air cover, or use its air power to assist in blockading a port, but thats about it. Tigerassault (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon's edit is not only unsourced, but also contradicts the navy's stated aims during the war. This edit is also dismissed. End of discussion. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The soviet "dictator"

Leonid Brezhnev ...the soviet dictator urged Indians to ignore the rule of law and western indignation

Brezhnev: That's the best example you have?

Why are so many Goans in Australia, Canada, Goa, Great Britain, Portugal, South Africa, U.S.A and elsewhere mostly contrary to your points of view? Why is there a movement called "FREE GOA" [10]?

Im sorry, but is this supposed to be a citation? In case you dont, understand, a {{fact}} tag means that you have to provide a source for that particular statement, not talk about something else.

So here you have to cite two things:

1. that Brezhnev was a dicator
2. Brezhnev (specifically) told Indians to ignore the rule of law --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

can we just inform the public that Brezhnev's designation was and what he actually said? There is no need to place judgement on his political methods and on his statement all in the same line.

Didn't you mention somewhere that this wasn't the place for "irrelevant talk"? (a simple question from your Portuguese friend) 85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes , it isn't; and before you ask , that was primarily meant for you. Now a simple question: Do you have any relaible citations for these two additions or not? If you have, we would like to see them; if not , have the honesty to admit that you don't and stop re-adding anything you cannot source. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All relevant information is resourced, personal commentaries should be out of this site's scope. Most important:

1. The 2 aircraft at Goa escaped contrarily to your false claims;

2. No F86's were ever in Portuguese India

3. The NRP Afonso de Albuquerque, and the Vega, offered the resistance they could;

4. Portuguese casualty figures are listed and sourced

5. Indian casualty figures are unreliable -possibly due to political motivations regarding the invasion and justifying this violent option-.

6. The number of Portuguese military in the campaign was requested and will be provided in full.

7. All Portuguese sources are available publicly, sourced, logged and names provided, from the original sources not only from third reports or books. (e.g. TAP Portugal logs, Portuguese Navy navigation registers, Death registers etc.) Unfortunately the same can't be said of all Indian figures.

On our part no more comments will be made in this section.85.88.137.124 (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

According to your source, after an intense battle in Diu, 200 Indian soliders and 3 Portuguese soldiers were killed, following which the Portuguese surrendered for unknown reasons. Does Wikipedia look like the place to vent out 1960s fascist propaganda??? The same can be said for most of your other 'sources'. Tigerassault (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ill take that as an admission from anon that he doesn't have any sources. Again, edit dismissed --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NRP Afonso Albuquerque's Combat (Errors in the Wikipedia Article)

How can you claim the crew of the Portuguese sloop Afonso Albuquerque were imprisoned as POW's at 13:00 on Dec. 18th 1961 yet they were being barraged by the Indian frigates until 14:00 and replying fire, and still managed to take the ship's captain António Cunha Aragão to Pangim Hospital at 17:15 that day, go to the Naval Club and only surrendered with the remaining Portuguese troops 26 hours later? Were are your sources on this? The same as those who saw the TAP plane escaping 5 hours before it flew? (Sources: A. Cunha Aragão captain's brief, Portuguese Navy, Lisboa, 1962.07.01; also in Sarmento Gouveia, Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86, Lisboa) 82.155.184.156 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was the same source that stubbornly claimed the destruction of the TAP Constellation on Goan tarmac... But be aware, you'll be labelled a Fascist for not accepting their rhetoric... 85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tone down your combative stance and stop making everything a personal issue. Be polite! Do you have a source we can verify for the changes you propose? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The ferocity of this discussion seems excessive. I don't see a need for the IP to use terms like 'Fascist' if they have actual sources to offer. Everyone should bear in mind the policy on WP:No personal attacks. Let's find out what the sources say. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Analyse the text, look at the issue, it's common sense that the imprisonment of the ship's crew doesn't hold for the timeline of events. Anon provided sources, awaiting contrary sources regarding the matter (Ed's, Deepak's, Tigerassault's, anyone)? 85.88.137.124 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent updates temporarily. I will need time to verify the source and alkso check Indian sources to verify against the one. Ill need some time over the weekend to do this. And also , please don't assume that Tigerassault and I have written the article entirely. This article has been in existnece for a long time before we editied it so , we are not in any way custodians of this article that you can specifically point fingers at us for percieved inaccuracies in the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The existing article is full of inaccuracies: Proof? The aircraft, the NRP Afonso Albuquerque, the combats at Diu and the Vega, the numbers that were presented, even the Indian Airforce excerpts are manipulated.85.88.137.124 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating your habbit of making statememtns and expecting others to treat them as "proof". I did not have time to go through the sources but I am less inclined to do so after your latest statement. It is difficult to assume good faith with you given not just that your edits have not been verifiable by the sources you yourself have provided. Your latest insinuation that "Indian Airforce excerpts are manipulated" only reveals your bias. Have you considederd the other side of the coin: that Portuguese sources are just as likely to be "dressed up" in order to make themselves look braver in an unwinnable war? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the descrip of the Alfonso's last battle is very clear in its time line. The battle commenced at 1200 hours on the 18th and by 1235, the Afonso's propulsion system was heavily damaged - making good its plan to escape to high seas. By 1250, the ship was abandonned, and the crew made its way to shore. Where is the dispute?Tigerassault (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Do NOT Erase Sources

These are credible online sources, for anyone's verification as long as they can understand Portuguese. Some have very clear graphical information and photographs.

• Acção da Marinha Durante a Invasão do Estado da Índia Revista da Armada
• Goa, a Invasão Área Militar

• 50 Anos Depois, Recordando os TAIP e Dabolim, Francisco MonteiroSuper Goa
• Como Eu Vi a Invasão de Goa, Francisco MonteiroGoan Causes

85.88.137.124 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry old chap.... but some of these sources - in particular the areamilitar one - clearly give opinions of their writers, and not facts. This one goes against all official versions and all versions reported by the international press to state that in the battle of Diu, 3 Portuguese soldiers, and a whopping 200 Indian soldiers were KIA - because some unknown 'fontes na União Indiana' said so.

I could find sources on the net to say that Hitler was an extra terrestrial. That doesn't mean I can treat that as the truth and list it out on Wikipedia.

Most respectfully.... please spare us the horror of your sources, and don't get offended if we take them down. Tigerassault (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Could you guys (User:Goali, User:Deepak D'Souza, User:85.88.137.124 and User:89.152.190.205) stop this Edit War, please!!! Deepak you're a serious editor that has been here for more than 3 years and with more than 4 thousand edits, you should now better. If you have a claim against these other editor, file it! The Ogre (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks The Ogre, I did take it to ANI shortly before you posted this message. The article has been protected and Goali's scok has been blocked. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

POW count

According to various sources, both Indian and Portuguese, the number of Portuguese POW's is 3306. This number corresponds to the count taken by the Indian Armed Forces, and equals Portuguese figures regarding its military contingent divided between the three enclaves of Goa, Diu and Damão and the island of Andjiva, during the invasion (Dec. 16th-19th, 1961).

Considering that the Portuguese contingent totalled approximately 3300: 3100 Portuguese Army (2200 regular infantry and 900 local militia) and 200 Portuguese Navy (180 crew on the NRP Afonso de Abuquerque [11], 6 crew on each three patrol craft: Vega, LFP Anthares and LFP Sirius [12]), minus 26 killed in action (21 Army + 5 Navy).

Note that the only Portuguese airborne contingent involved in the conflict were the 4 Portuguese Army Female Paratroopers, flown in from Lisbon on Dec. 17th on a civilian TAP Portugal Super-Constellation, who successfully evacuated women and children on the night of Dec. 18th, after the airport had been bombed and escaped hours before the fall of Goa; The female paratroopers managed to complete their mission successfully and leave on the last airplane out, a TAIP (Goan airline [13]) DC-4. http://historiaeciencia.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/049503.html For a more in-depth analysis: Grão, Luís António Martinho "Enfermeiras Pára-quedistas 1961 - 2002", Prefácio, 2006. Lisboa ( ISBN: 972-8816-90-1 ).

Regarding the Portuguese source quoted by Deepak D'Souza, the number mentioned by the author, Azeredo, is of "roughly 3500 prisoners". You can read his interview in the Lisbon newspaper Diário de Notícias: [14] or on the TV network, RTP [15].

Portuguese sources for losses (KIA): Portuguese Navy [16].

Names and ranks of all Portuguese military KIA [17].

Indian sources for POW count: Indian Armed Forces [18].

Therefore from cross-referencing and simple mathematics we can assume that regarding the POW count, both Portuguese and Indian numbers coincide: 3306.

(Now a question for Deepak: What's the use of consistently distorting figures such as the POW count, or facts such as the claims disputed previously in various Wikipedia sites regarding Goa? It only turns your information less credible and weakens the virtues of Wikipedia. Why not strive to contribute positively to a greater knowledge base by being a little less of a "control freak" and analysing the various sources in-depth, achieving for a more objective and comprehensive database? Trust me, it'll work better, you won't waste time and users will be better informed.) Goali (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy on WP:Synthesis discourages us from adding up figures provided by different sources. if you believe that Dinesh D'Souza has been 'constantly distorting figures', please provide diffs to back up your assertion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, its User:Deepak D'Souza, not Dinesh D'Souza he's talking about:-D. Thanks! It was nice being equated with a a famous chap. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate being repetitive[19].

In all, 4668 prisoners are taken, including military and civilian personnel, Portuguese, Africans and Indians (Goans) – numbers as given in the "Operation Vijay" report; 3412 in Goa, 853 in Damão, 403 in Diu.

This source is refferenced (and it is from Azaredo too) and quotes the exact number of POWs; so what exactly is the "distortion" you accuse me of? Anyone can read the discussion on this page and decide who has been distorting facts.

I take strong exception to your allegation of "distortion" and being a control freak". You have already taunted me enough and this is the last instance of incivility I am putting up with from you. Next time you do it, I will ask the admins to take action against you. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your source (Figueredo) has a few inaccuracies, such as the doubt regarding the TAP Portugal airplane which you so adamantly refused had escaped when in fact this has been confirmed. Your other source (Azeredo) never mentions the numbers you insist on but those I mentioned above (i.e. "roughly 3500").

Pardon the insistence, but the numbers you so adamantly defend just don't match. From the source checks mentioned above, the total count is 3306 according to all Indian and Portuguese sources verified.

Portuguese combat personnel defending Goa between Dec. 16th-19th: Diu 406, Damão 367, Goa 2565 (excluding the 4 female paratroopers who conducted the air evacuation during the conflict).

Total Portuguese military contingent: 3338

Crew of the Anthares who escaped to Karachi: 6

Portuguese military killed in combat: 26.

Portuguese military taken POW: Diu 403, Damão 360, Goa 2543.

Goali (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick observation that definitive figures for military operations are often hard to come by (as I well know, working on the Normandy campaign articles), but there's no need for them to be a source of contention. Where sources disagree there's nothing wrong with giving a low-high range or even quoting each sourced figure in turn with appropriate citations - leave it to the reader to add them up if they want to. An explanatory footnote is another option. What we mustn't do though is try to decide on a single 'correct' figure (see WP:OR for why). EyeSerene^talk 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable; The inclusion of the sources mentioned above and erased by Deepak can be useful in providing some of the information from a Portuguese or Goan viewpoint (see previous discussion topic, above).Goali (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that definetive numbers are often unavailable numbers; but what if definitive numbers are available and they are different from a bunch of other rough numbers thrown about by other sources. Its pretty straightforward that definetive numbers easily trump rough guesses. Secondly all those rough numbers could be based on a single inaccurate source and hence they agree with each other. In this case Azaredo ( and not Gabriel Figueredo, as stated by Goali, who only translated Azaradeo's article to English) has given definite number of POWs including the exact breakup. It is hard to beleive that such precise numbers are less accurate than a rough figure like 3300. I would not have insisted on putting up 4668 if Azaredo had not given a detailed breakup and thorwn up another rounded figure such as 4600. It seems to me that Goali has decided that 3300 seems to be some sacred upper ceiling which cannot be violated. What exactly is the source for this: "Diu 406, Damão 367, Goa 2565", may I ask ? www.marinha.pt is a flash based site for which I cannot use Google translator. Can you tell me which page these numbers are on? http://www.areamilitar.net does not give any POW figures , only KIA(besides we have already discussed the facifullclaimes on this page). www.bharat-rakshak.com clearly states "3306 Portugese troops of European origin". something you have deliberately ignored. Which means it is not counting the native and African troops. Add the 900 odd native troops (excluding unpsecified African troops) and you have well over 4200. Besides , Figuerdo has clearly stated where the numbers came from "numbers as given in the "Operation Vijay" report" Since these numbers come from an official report and a loyal Portuguese soldier has quoted them without any counter-figures I see no reason to doubt it.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me to the interesting part. For someone who was insistent that Indian sources were innacurate or even manipulated; it is surprising to see Goali suddenly argue that a Portuguese source is innacurate and claim that an Indian source is accurate! Of course, this is only one recourse out of many that Goali has taken to keep his magical number of 3300 including, at first, claiming that the numbers did not exist in the source --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Because the article comes under the Military histort WikiProject, I've mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Input_requested_at__1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa. Some additional outside opinions might be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 18:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is really really lame. Please know that Azaredo referred to 4500+ prisoners which included non military personnel including several Goans who worked in administrative/support capacities for the Portuguese army when they surrendered at Mormugao. There were 3,306 military personnel under the Portuguese Army (including officers and the Governor General) who were taken prisoner. In addition, military personnel under the Portuguese navy were also taken prisoner, but were kept in the custody of the Indian Navy.

If you want listed official sources on the exact number of military personnel involved, please refer to PN Khera's 'Liberation of Goa' published by the Government of India - not to some marinha.pt or areamilitar.com sources. Tigerassault (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of Portuguese Armed Personnel at Goa, Diu and Damão during the Invasion

Regarding the discussions above, I received a reply from the General Alexandre de Sousa Pinto (Portuguese Army, retired), of the Comissão Portuguesa de História Militar, quoting the following numbers for Portuguese military and police units present in Goa at the time of the invasion (Dec. 16th-19th, 1961):

Total Portuguese armed personnel divided between the three enclaves of Goa, Diu and Damão: 5 595

Portuguese Army: 3 995

Portuguese Navy: 200

Police: 1040

Border Guard (Guarda Fiscal): 400

Therefore the total Portuguese commitment to the three enclaves, geographically divided and including police and border guards are:

Goa: 4 344

Damão: 808

Diu: 443

Of these 810 were Goan Army (Exército de Goa) servicemen, while 85% of the policemen and border guards were also from and trained in Portuguese India.

Two sources recommended by Gen. Sousa Pinto, of the Comissão Portuguesa de História Militar are:

Morais, Carlos Alexandre. A Queda da Índia Portuguesa – Crónica de Invasão e Cativeiro. Estampa. Lisbon, 1995.

Couto, Francisco Cabral. O Fim do Estado Português da Índia – 1961 – Um Testemunho da Invasão. Tribuna da História, Lisbon, 2006.

Pardon my previous lapse regarding the numbers, these will now be substituted with those provided by the Comissão Portuguesa de História Militar since it is an official source, connected to the Portuguese Armed Forces.

I have also discussed this conflict in person with Admiral Sarmento Gouveia (ret.) Portuguese Navy who was the navigation officer on the NRP Afonso de Albuqurque on Dec. 18th, 1961 and had commanded the LFP Sirius on several patrol missions in the tense weeks prior to the invasion. He was held POW in Goa with the remaining Portuguese military and civilians detained.

If you're interested in obtaining more information regarding the invasion from a Portuguese point of view you can leave me a message. Concerning this discussion I am finished and hope that have aided in clearing up some imprecisions, including my own.Goali (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Naval Cruiser New Delhi

The article states in 'The action at Diu' that

The Indian naval cruiser New Delhi was anchored off the coast of Diu and offered a continuous barrage of artillery at the Diu Fortress where the Portuguese were holed up. Commanding Officer of the Indian Air Force operating in the area reported that some of the shells fired from the New Delhi were bouncing off the beach and exploding on the Indian mainland. However no casualties were reported from this.[32]

Except that the Indian Navy never had a cruiser by that name. Change effected. --Madmonk11 (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title: Invasion vs. Annexation

I haven’t edited this article before and I’m unlikely to linger here long but I thought I’d just add this one comment concerning the article title. The article’s been titled 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa for awhile so maybe people are content with it but in searching the history I did notice that the move was done without any real discussion by a user (History Sleuth) who hadn’t edited the article previously and hasn’t since. Basically want I wanted to say is that, far from being a Portuguese colonial term, I think “invasion” is in fact a neutral one. To illustrate this, I’ve found nine different articles on Allied operations during WWII, all that use the word “invasion” in the title (list below). I think it would be silly to suggest these titles represent a pro-Axis bias. Also it’s my understand that an annexation is a political action that typically occurs following an invasion. That’s just my two cents.

• Invasion of Iceland
• Invasion of the Kuril Islands
• Invasion of Lingayen Gulf
• Invasion of Normandy
• Invasion of Palawan
• Allied invasion of Italy
• Allied invasion of Sicily
• Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran
• Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)

--Lairor (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would request XavierGreen (talk · contribs) to discuss any moves here. "Invasion" is a POV title, so it is necessary to discuss such controversial moves here first. --Ragib (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think you read a word I wrote.--Lairor (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Move warring

I've protected the article against further moves, since both of the recent moves were done with no obvious support from any other editors. Either use the WP:Requested moves process, or conduct a discussion here and get a clear verdict before attempting to change the title again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Title

The title 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa is not the title of the conflict as used in schollarly media. The most commonly used name for the conflict is the Invasion of Goa. To leave the title it is currently reflects an indian point of view. I do not see how labeling the title as invasion of Goa is a POV statement when it is the title used by most english sources.XavierGreen (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This title is, at least, an euphemism. Goa was up and prosperous as an entity way before the Indian Union. By that time, having invaded Goa, was the same as having invaded Alentejo or Algarve. I'm sorry that some people don't understand that. Even if i don't agree with colonialism, that's the way things were. By this title it looks like Goa was a no man's land just waiting to be annexed by someone. Stop kidding around and be serious. That was an invasion no matter how we want to see it. Even if you call it liberation it was made with an invasion because it had opposition. The act was an invasion. By the way, was this an annexation too? I don't want to enter in an harsh argument with nobody. Past is past, but the current title is not suitable with what happened. --Bluedenim ^(talk) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Annexation does not mean that the territory being annexed is a no-man's land or somehow an impoverished one (think of the annexation of alsace-lorraine) and OED does have appropriation as one of the meanings of annexation. However, on reading this article, I have to agree that what it describes is the 'invasion of Goa' and, assuming that that is the term used by reliable sources, I think the move is warranted. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there is not a lot of discussion on this thread, I will post a note at Wikipedia:INB so that we can have more discussion on this and reach a consensus on the name issue. --Ragib (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I also want to place a note at any Portugal related or Goa-related noticeboard, but can't find any. So, please feel free to post my note (shown below) to the appropriate places so that we can get more opinions on this topic.

A discussion thread has been started at Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#Title regarding the title of the article (i.e., whether to use "Invasion of Goa" or "Annexation of Goa" in the title). If you are interested in the topic, please discuss the issue there.

--Ragib (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "annexation" is the correct word. India invaded Goa for annexing the territory permanently. The examples of world war I and II invasions is not appropriate, because the invading powers did not intend to stay (or could not stay) permanently as the ruler. But here it is a case of pure territorial annexation. More like the USA taking over parts of American south west after the Mexican-American War. I dont' see how "annexation" represents Indian POV. Indian POV (as taught to us in schools) is we "liberated" goa from "bad colonialists". --Sodabottle (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a pro-indian stance, and not one supported in scholarly english media. From an outside observer the indian attacks on portuguese positions in goa were an invasion. Note that just because one nation is invading another does not mean that the conquered nation or territory will be incorporated into the invader. See Invasion of Panama and Invasion of Grenada for examples. If India did not invade goa, then how was it able to annex it? The United States and several other nations condemed the invasion, and the actual annexation did not occur until after the invasion had occured. The annexation itself is a different event, though related to the invasion. Note how the Mexican-American War is not titled the annexation of new mexico, as this was a seperate event in history.XavierGreen (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that just because one nation is invading another does not mean that the conquered nation or territory will be incorporated into the invader.' Thats true and in this case India had a clear intention of incorporating the teritory into itself from the very begining. IMO, that justifies the "annexation" in the title. In the examples that you have given, the invading forces left and did not incorporate the territory; which is not the same as this case. As far as the popularity of the term "invasion of goa" in English media is concerned, most of these scholars came from Nato countries allied to Portugal and were probably sympathetic to them. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Invasion of Goa" seems to be European/Portugal's POV, India's POV is "Liberation of Goa" (in the Goan language called Goa Mukti - the official name in India). "1961 Indian Annexation of Goa" is a neutral, factual title. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This was first and foremost a territorial annexation. It was neither a punitive expedition nor a regime change operation (unlike Grenada or Panama). The military invasion was the way that finally accomplished it. The article gives enough coverage on what other tactics India used to annex Goa - including political agitation, negotiations, the threat of invasion etc. Even going by the Mexican-American example - it is not titled "Invasion of Mexico". In fact there is an article titled Mexican Cession which describes the takeover of the southwest.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

An annexation is a political event, not a military conflict. The primary subject of the article is the military conflict between portugal and india. The majority of english sources describe the event as the Invasion of Goa. Can any of you find any scholarly source to back up your claim that the current title is the most commonly used name?XavierGreen (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The military conflict was about the political annexation. The invasion didn't occur in a vacuum. It happened for one reason and one reason only - annexation of Goa. And Annexation gets 46 hits while invasion gets 111 - not that much of a difference. And who made the claim about "annexation" being the most commonly used name?. If we go by numbers, "Liberation" will win out because of Indian language sources will outnumber everything else (and please dont attribute the "scholarly" tag to eurocentric descriptions of the conflict). We are pointing out "annexation" is the most apt title here (which for some reason comes across as Indian POV to you). --Sodabottle (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Users will not be looking for what the most common indian language source title because this is the english wikipedia. The manuel of style guide states that an article title should be the one used the most by scholarly sources. There is no precident for the title to be labled as it currently is, there are no other military conflict articles on wikipedia labled as Annexation of (insert region name here).XavierGreen (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Support renaming to Liberation of Goa. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My dear friends, as per the above mentioned logical reasoning, I would be forced to support a renaming per Shyamsundar. Btw, XavierGreen, we are not talking about Indian language sources here, (if you think or believe that English is an Indian language, that's a totally different case altogether) and when it comes to scholarly articles, we can probably rename this article as this. Do you agree? Shovon (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you call it "Salvation of Goa". "Liberation" isn't laudatory enough... --Bluedenim ^(talk) 21:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Find any example, any at all of an article about a military conflict between two states that has annexation in its title. The title does not conform with the accepted naming conventions as adopted by wikipedia.XavierGreen (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the manuel of style the titles of articles must be consistant with other similar articles which this article is not.XavierGreen (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the hostilities perpretrated by India upon Goa, the word "liberation" is rhetoric and is only heard of in India, and "annexation" is a paliative for what really happened, an all out military invasion (to satisfy the political ambitions of a small Indian elite at the time). Surely Goa, and most importantly, Goans, would probably be better off had they not been invaded by India. Portugal would surely grant Goa independence in the 1970's as it did with other colonies such as Cape Verde, Angola, Macau, etc. giving it priviliged relations to the vast Portuguese speaking world, membership in the Portuguese Community - CPLP, exceptional relations with NATO, the European Union, and first world development and expertise (Goa's, Diu's and Daman's airports, harbours and over 90% of its developed cities and most important monuments were built before the invasion, by the Portguese). But above all, had there been no invasion by India many lives, both Goan and Portuguese, and Indian, would have been spared. Unfortunately there's a constant revising of this site as with all Wikipedia articles relating to Portuguese India, as we can see in previous discussions and the constant rewording of all insertions not consistent with their view. (User:Goali). —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

It's amusing how every time a discussion on the title of this article comes up, Portuguese editors insist on discussing "Indian attrocities" and validating Portuguese/Indian claims to Goa. For your kind information (not that you don't know but wilfully ignore), Wikipedia talk pages are meant to discuss edits to the article and not general chatter about the topic itself. SO will you please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines again and familiarise yourselves with the guidelines? ANd if you still insist on still discussing on Goas love for Portugal and how India enslaved the Goans, blah blah bla, etc. do get your facts and figures in place. For one, get a good neutral book on the history of Goa. Count the number of revolts during Portuguese rule. Then count the number of revolts agains "Indian occupation". Then please let us know. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen, can you point us to the rule that says that sasy that titles must be consistent? Here's what WP:TITLE has to say about consitency:

Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles. Emphaisis on the fact that conistency is a last option not the first. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what i was citing yes. Manual of styles' Recognizable and Easy to find are also not satisfied. The current title is primarily recognizable to those from the indian subcontinent. It should be noted that i have no affiliations watsoever with the portuguese or the indians. My primary concern is that the annexation and invasion are two different events. This article deals almost entirely with the military events of the invasion and with virtually none of the political aspects of the annexation.XavierGreen (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We have Liberation of Paris, Western Front (World War II)#Liberation of France, Liberation of Bulgaria, Liberation of Arnhem and a whole lot of other liberations. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the title of the page was Liberation of Goa until two years ago. T he renaming back to Liberation of Goa is justified. Shyamsunder (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

All of those examples concern nations that were occupied during world war two and had their governments restored. The conquest of Goa did not see it returned to its former owners, as they had become extinct as a polity. Thus the invasion of goa did not liberate anybody in the sense that these world war two events did, though i would support renaming some of theose events as well.XavierGreen (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your view. the territory of Goa existed within the boundary of India and was colonised by a European nation, as was the case with the rest of the landmass. When the colonial rulers (England & France) had to leave, starting in 1947, the Portuguese did not. This ultimately led to the annexation by force. In this case also, governance by the locals was restored by this action. Having said all these, I would support retaining the current title and not changing it to either Invasion or Liberation. Shovon (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? The republic of India did not exist until 1947, and its predecesor the British Raj did not exist as a polity before 1858, and that entities predecesor the East India Company did not control any territory on the subcontinent befofre 1757. On the other hand the Portuguese gained possesion of Goa in 1510, hundreds of years before any of the republic of indias predecessor polities were created. India as a polity did not exist in 1510, so how can goa or any other portuguese possesion have existed within the boundries of india when portuguese goa predates india?XavierGreen (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Discussion on whether this was an invasion, liberation, or annexation, is best conducted on the pages of peer reviewed academic journals. The only questions we should be trying to answer are 'what is the event commonly referred to as' and 'how do historians talk about the event'. I suggest we confine the discussion to those questions. On the face of it, all three titles appear feasible, so the only question should be which one is generally accepted in academic circles. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer that question, it appears that Indian circles use Liberation of Goa, while those outside use Invasion of Goa or sometimes Portuguese-Indian War as a name for the conflict. For example John Pike of globalsecurity.org uses Invasion of Goa as the title for the war. In the english version of Google Scholar, there are over 9000 hits for Invasion of Goa, while at the same time only 1900 for annexation of goa, and some 8600 for liberation of goa the majority of which are from sources written by indian authors. I think it has clearly been established that the current title is not commonly used as the title for the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be relevant to point that searching for "invasion of Goa" gives results not just for the 1961 invasion by India but also for the Portuguese invasion of Goa in 1510 and others, so it may be necessary to comb thorugh the results. Searching without quotes gives a whole lot of spurious results such as this [20]. Searching with paranthesis gives the following results:

1. "Invasion of Goa": 131
2. "Liberation of Goa": 222
3. "Annexation of Goa": 59.

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many of the articles include all three within their text, and that there are virtually no articles that use Annexation alone. Virtually all of the articles that use Liberation of Goa are from Indian sources or take an indian point of view. The majority of non indian and non portuguese sources simply refer to this as the invasion of goa.XavierGreen (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As you are pointing towards the origin, may I add that practically all the sources which refer to this event as Invasion of Goa are from NATO countries, of which Portugal is a member. Shovon (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are indian sources that refer to it as the invasion of goa as well. I see reason why the opinions of authors from respected journals in the UK and the US can be considered biased, these countries did nothing of substance to prevent the invasion and the authors themselves take an outside view of the conflict. Additonally authors from non-nato countries such as australia also use invasion of Goa.XavierGreen (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deepak have you ever talked to Goans outside India? Try it, you'll learn lots, and you might actually broaden your horizons. Goans are a mix of Portuguese and Indians, they're a great cultural wealth, so what's the chip on your shoulder? It was an invasion by all means, so don't try to manipulate history with your (Indian nationalist) revisionism, so typical of large new empires who require self assurance to subsist.Goali (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Goali, I have already told you this many times: Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for general chat. Period. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So from what you say, when Indian sources say "Invasion of Goa" they lend credence to the name, but when Indian sources say "Liberation of Goa", they are not credible?! and should be chucked away altogether! I fail to see the logic. DO articles on American wars similarly exculde American sources while deciding the name? I thought that article names were based on "most common name used by reliable sources in the English language". Now apparently the goalpost has been selectively narrowed down to "most common name used by reliable sources in the white world".--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable indian sources that use Invasion of Goa as well, the simple fact is that outside of india no one calls this conflict the Liberation of Goa and i think we can both agree that virtually no schollarly source refers to the military conflict as the Annexation of Goa. To simply label it as is or to change it to Liberation of Goa would not represent a worldwide view.XavierGreen (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question dear. I don't see any rule that says that you can specifically exclude one particular candidate simply because a majority of the sources come from one particular side and isn't approved by anyone else. in this case the "anyone else" specifically being chosen to support your viewpoint. What about African countries who supported India; don't they count. And if you look carefully you will find sources from the Anglosphere too which refer to the event as "Liberation". Heres Webster:[21] for one example. Also look for Goan authors and check how many of them use the term "Liberation" or "Invasion". Indian sources are acceptable as long as they say "Invasion of Goa" but totally rejected when they say "Liberation". On what basis? Why not apply the same criteria to Mexican–American War. Reject all American sources; that only leaves you with "First American intervention in Mexico"! The Spanish name for the event isnt even included in the lead para, it is buried in the third para. At least this article is better in that respect. All titles are mentioned in the first line itsef. And how many non-American sources does that article have: Absolutely none. Compare that with the number of non-Indian sources here and maybe you would like to move your "globalize" tag over there. By, the way that was a neat trick after your google scholar count proved incorrect. If you inist on using the google scholar count as a reference it will be "Liberation of Goa"; not "Invasion of Goa" or "Annexation of Goa" which do not have sufficient numbers in Google Scholar or even Google books. That is the norm in deciding the name of disputed articles. If you do not agree the only solution is status quo or else seek some other remedial measures available in Wikipedia. But please stop changing rules to your convinience. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all non-indian sources that use liberation use invasion as well within the same text. The most common title in sources outside of india is Invasion of Goa, with some sources inside of india using that title as well. As for the Mexican American war case, the source you provide is not in english and does not reflect the title used in english language sources which is virtually always Mexican-American War. The reason why the spanish name isnt included is because this is the english wikipedia, someone looking for the spanish name would be looking in the spanish wikipedia. In otherwords i am arguing that the same critera that apply to the Mexican-American war apply here. There is a requirement for wikipedia articles to posses a world wide view, by leaving the title as it currently is or changing it to liberation of goa you are reflecting only an indian point of view as the rest of the world uses invasion of goa as its title. As for african sources in english, i challenge you to find them and to post them here.XavierGreen (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some African sources: [22], Raido Ghana hails the "liberation of Goa", [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and an arab source. Of course Im sure you will find some fault with them. I stand by my comparison with Mexican–American War. The article( and its title) is based exclusively on American sources, English or not. I have taken a count of all sources, English, and from Google scholar , without bias towards any particular country and reported the count. That, my dear, is a global view. Wikipedias "world-view" does not mean a selective approach; it simply means that all alternative points of view on an issue should be discussed in equal weightage. Your so called "world view" specifically calls for a rejection of Indian sources which use "liberation" while determining the count and a preference for Anglo-american sources with the support of Indian sources which use "Invasion". That IMO is your personal bias. I hadnt even specifically asked for "liberation of Goa" to begin with but now I will insist on sticking to the GS count. I do not see any consensus between you and me on this. So please escalate the matter if you wish. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact of the matter is that one can find sources from any country using Invasion of Goa (including india), but only authors that take a pro indian stance use liberation of Goa. A review of the african sources you've provided confirms this, they do not take a neutral point of view are clearly pro indian and are aimed as non-scholarly anti-colonialist pieces. Many are either speeches or similar types of media releases by anti-colonialst individuals.XavierGreen (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Anyone who disagrees with globocop cannot be neutral, can they? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral sources do not instert political viewpoints into their texts, as the ones you listed above do.XavierGreen (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Can you please list some in this case fulfilling the criterion listed by you above satisfying the move to Invasion of Goa? Shovon (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry i don't think i understand your question, can you rephrase it? What exactly would you like me to list?XavierGreen (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

hello all. This article was called 'Operation Vijay' in all its years as a stub, untill 2008 when I enlarged it and called it 'Liberation of Goa'. As the article grew with combined efforts of several editors, someone suggested that liberation was too POV and changed the name to 'Invasion of Goa' sparking off the exact very same debate we have here (deja vu anyone?). Maybe we can use Wiktionary to analyze each term:

Liberation:, from 'liberate' - to free; to release from restraint or bondage; to set at liberty; To say that Goa was 'not free' is not something that the Portuguese at the time would agree with. Hence (as I agreed all that time back) 'liberation' is defenitely a POV name for this article.

Annexation, from 'annex' - To add something to another, to incorporate into. Did the Indian government incorporate Goa into the Indian Union? Yes. Annexation is a NPOV name... however, this is not what the article is about. The actual incorporation of Goa into the Indian Union is dealt with only summarily in the last paragraphs, whereas the bulk of the text deals with the military hostilities prior to this incorporation.

Invasion, from 'invade': To enter by force in order to conquer.

Did the Indian armed forces enter by force? Yes.

Did they come in order to conquer? Consider the definition of conquer: to defeat in combat; to subjugate. Did the Indian armed forces 'subjugate' Goa? Not really in my opinion... they came to subjugate the Portuguese regime, and did nothing to subjugate Goans in particular - and to say that Goans had to be subjugated infers that they were unwilling which is another debate (and is the very reason why so many Indian editors are up in arms against this title).

If you wish to explain exactly who was subjugated in this event, it was about Indian armed forces overpowering and forcing the surrender of the Portuguese regime in Goa. The ideal NPOV name for the article would therefore have to be 'Indian Subjugation of Portuguese Regime in Goa'. However I believe that our Indian friends here wouldn't mind a shorter title like Invasion of Portuguese GoaTigerassault (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, please add disclaimers. Portuguese Goa was previously invaded by the British, and by the Marathas. But Invasion of Portuguese Goa may be a good NPOV name. Unless someone here wants to argue for the sake of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerassault (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am complete fine with titling the article Invasion of Portuguese Goa, but your definition of Invasion is extremely flawed for example the Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, and the Invasion of Czechoslovakia were not undertaken to conquer any territory. An invasion is simply an intrusion into a territory by a hostile force. But all that aside i think the Invasion of Portuguese Goa is very acceptable.XavierGreen (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should "Invade" Portugal, maybe then they will understand what Invasion really means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.204.74 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You did. When you invaded Goa. That's the point of this discussion. --Bluedenim ^(talk) 23:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I have an idea to please both parties. What was Goa's official name when it was under Portuguese control? It was called *Estado da India Portuguesa*..... which translated into English means *State of Portuguese India*. Incidentally, the WP article on Goa under the Portuguese is called Portuguese India - primarily because Portugal controlled the enclaves of Daman, Diu and the island of Anjidiv which were quite some distance from Goa.

I propose that we name the article **Invasion of Portuguese India**.

I trust that this will remove any misgivings or misinterpretations that the article is trying to infer that the conflict was about bringing Goa and Goans to heel. Tigerassault (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Xavier, an invasion is when you enter an area with ground troops (whether or not supported by air and artillery) to take control of ground territory - regardless of whether one intends to stay on as an occupying force, or leave immediately after installing a friendly regime, for eg. an aerial or remote bombardment of an area does not constitute an 'invasion'. The Invasion of Panama saw US troops take physical control of Panamian territory, even if the goal was to hand it pover to a friendly Panamian regime. In this case, I would rather say Invasion of Portuguese India than 'invasion of Goa' since the former refers to the official name of the territory being invaded. Goa on the other hand has a thousand connotations that make for POV.Tigerassault (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the title - "Invasion of Portuguese India" - incontestable. This episode of history is always called "Invasion of Goa" for a matter of simplification. But the collectivity of Portuguese territories in the Indian subcontinent was called Portuguese India (Estado Português da Índia / Portuguese State of India). And call it "Invasion of Portuguese India" really shows the nature of the act - invading foreign territory. I salute the efforts of Tigerassault that came up with the most suitable title for this article. --Bluedenim ^(talk) 11:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No way. "Invasion of Portuguese Goa", "Invasion of Portuguese India" are only good as redirects not as the main title of this article. Reason: Neither is the most common name for the event; only 11 and 2 hits in Google scholar respectively. Fails WP:COMMONNAME by a long shot. The terms "State of India", "India" and "Goa" were used interchangeably by the Portuguese to refer to their territories collectively. so the argument isn't within the terms. Nor is the argument whether the "military operation" was an "invasion" or not. The argument is simply this: What is the most common name for the event? The answer is already given by google Scholar and Google book counts. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what's ironic? I bet when the Indian Army gathered to decide what to do about Goa they said: "Let's invade that". --Bluedenim ^(talk) 20:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No dear, that's not ironic, its comic: The Indian army is a disciplined force that strictly takes orders from the civilian government and doesn't decide to "invade" or not.Do you do anything constructive at all or do you just pass flimsy comments. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, i don't have much more to say. I'll now only talk about what i know. At least in Portugal it's obviously called "Invasion of Goa". Even today. By the same government that later recognized the independence of all overseas colonies (the former regime was this). All the African wars (Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau) are called independence wars, not liberation wars. India must be special... But i don't want to create animosity. India is even one of the few countries in the world i would like to visit (not just Goa). I'm run out of arguments. --Bluedenim ^(talk) 22:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats right, the most common name in Portuguese is "Invasion of Goa"; I dont even need to do a google count to verify that. And the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia is based on the most common name in the Portugese language and nobody contests that. Why should a different standard be applied for the same article in English Wikipedia? Or should I argue for silliness sake that sources from Portugal should be ignored while deciding the name on Pt Wikipedia becasue they are likely to be biased? which is what is being demanded here! Just like the English and spanish names for Mexican American war can be different in English and Spanish, so why not here. I dont think "Liberation war" and "Indepndence war" are different. And again I will emphasise this: the names probably have been decided based on the most common names in English.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The most common name in the entire world outside of India is Invasion of Goa.XavierGreen (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While having a Wikipedia policy that even Osama must not feel bad, the appropriate nuetrual word can be India-Portuguese war of 1961 with sub titles of Liberation of Goa and Invasion of Goa added in the article. Also the Liberation of Goa and Invasion of Goa can be redirected to this page of India-Portuguese war of 1961.Bcs09 (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen, you have aready said that a dozen times but have not shown which rules substantiate such exclusion. Please stop taking this discussion in a loop. And your sweeping statement that no one uses the term outside India is definitely not true. -Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no one outside of india that does not have an indian pov uses Liberation of Goa. The sources outside of india you have provided are clearly in the indian point of view and are not neutral in any sense.XavierGreen (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"no one outside of india that does not have an indian pov uses Liberation of Goa". Prove that with credible citations please. And also the relvant rules, or else stop. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You have already proved it for me, the sources you provided stating that Liberation of Goa is used in africa clearly take an anti colonialist point of view, and are largely propaganda written by various anti colonialist and communist groups.XavierGreen (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so similarly but what you provide will be a pro-colonialist view and propaganda written by colonialist and capitalist groups. For your kind information, anything anti-colonial is not communist. You try to justify colonialism and try to equate it with liberation from colonialism. It's like comparing Murder and Ahimsa. A person committing murder is not equivalent to a Ahimsavadi. The correct term, if pragmatism and righteousness is taken into consideration, it's going to be Liberation. But if you keep on harping about Wikipedia NPOV, to the maximum one can stick with India-Portuguese war. Nothing beyond. That will break the NPOV point and will be anti-Indian, which is unacceptable.Bcs09 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice, but you must have failed to actually read the sources he posted that i was refering to since several of them were actually written by african communist parties such as this one, [[30]].

XavierGreen (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this one a communist too? Maybe you would like to go and correct that on his bio. And the Conference of Nationalist Organizations of the Portuguese Colonies too? And this Dutch University is communist too? The South African Historical Journal too? And also the Arab Observer? Can you prove it? Can you show that all of them had political motivations. You challenged me to show African sources. I picked up the first 10 neutral onse I found in Google book search. There were probably more but I didnt want to go on and on. Of course as UI had guessed you fould find some convinient fault. But havent proved it. Can you prove that all of them were sympathetic to India. Not more than a couple of them were Communist. You have painted all of them with the same brush. Just call anyone who disagrees with you a communist! What is this: Mc Carthyism v2.0? Your insistence that anyone who uses the term Liberation of Goa is POVed isnt just unsubstantiated, it is downright crazy. The hidden argument that all colonised peoples were POVed and your not so subtle inistence that only American , British and Australian sources are neutral; IMHO shows a very racist tinge.--Deepak D'Souza (talk)

Arbitrary break

It seems that the discussion above is going in circles, with no clear consensus. Perhaps it's time to open an RFC or do other kind of dispute resolution? --Ragib (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC seems like a fine idea to me.XavierGreen (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Xavier, your double standards amuses me. On one hand, you accuse the English African sources as pro-Indian POV pushers and on the other you don't accept that the sources from NATO countries, of which Portugal is a member and which unabashedly were pro-Portuguese during the action, as POV. You can't have the cake and eat it too! Shovon (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, nato did absolutely nothing to prevent the invasion of goa. I do not see sources from Australia, the UK, and the US as biased towards either side. For example this source uses invasion of Goa and has no bias at all in it. [[31]]. Sources from both Portugal and India will generally be biased towards their own side. Its best to use reliable sources from an outside perspective to get a clearer picture of what actually happened during any event.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I was initially sympathetic toward the 'invasion of goa' title assuming that the article referred to the military action alone, but all the arguments I've seen so far for the title have been centered around 'annexation' is an Indian POV. I would much prefer to see a constructive argument and I haven't seen one. Failing that, annexation seems to describe the totality of what happened to Goa and does appear suitable and is not necessarily an Indian POV term (I assume 'liberation of Goa' would be the Indian POV term). The harsh reality is that the majority of sources on the action in Goa are likely to be Indian in the first place (and a quick search on JSTOR shows that that is indeed the case) because I can't imagine this being of much interest beyond India and Portugal. Beyond the presumed predominant Indian sources, one could probably find examples of either invasion or annexation used in the less numerous non-Indian sources. For example, this article in the British Medical Journal uses 'annexation of Goa' rather than invasion. One can even find 'liberation of goa' in 'western' sources (c.f., this book published by Duke University Press) so it is not clear that 'invasion of goa' is a settled issue in non-Indian sources. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Three statements catch my attention:

The most common name in the entire world outside of India is Invasion of Goa.XavierGreen (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside of India, Africa, Indonesia, Brazil and some other places. So in your considered opinion, outside of the white world is not relevant. My take? If something is not a common name throughout the world (and esp in the parts of the world where the incident occured), then its not NPOV.

The sources outside of india you have provided are clearly in the indian point of view and are not neutral in any sense.XavierGreen (talk)

And the sources given from the west are clearly the western point of view and are not neutral either.

While having a Wikipedia policy that even Osama must not feel bad, the appropriate nuetrual word can be India-Portuguese war of 1961 .Bcs09 (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

uh... nope. Neither side declared war on each other.

But I'll stick to my stand: A name common only in the west is not NPOV.... it has to be common throughout the world. I firmly think that Invasion of Portuguese India stays as the only viable title for the article.Tigerassault (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Annexation vs Invasion

As I described earlier, the word 'annexation' refers to the military, political, social and cultural incorporation of a territory into a nation. In this case, the annexation of Goa involved more than just a military operation. It involved complex political and cultural alterations which are not the centrepiece of this article. For instance, there was the task of replacing portuguese with english as the language of education and governance. Then there was the task of replacing and modifying the entire colonial administration system with one that plugged well into India's system of governance. Of course, one cannot understate the gigantic task of introducing an entire population to the intricacies of free democracy. *None* of all this, is dealt with in the article except in brief at the end. most of the article deals with the actual invasion, describing in deep detail every aspect of the military action from both sides.

This article is clearly about the invasion, not about the annexation.Tigerassault (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The article deals with not just the military operation but also the events prior to that and after that. It is just that the military operation (the "invasion") takes up a major chunk of the detail. That does not make it the name of the event. The freedom movement and the Indian diplomatic efforts are also covered. Also, the annexation wasnt a one step process. It was a two-step process. The first being the Liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli which wasn't done by the Indian army but by the natives. That was a part of the "Liberation of Goa" but not a part of the "invasion of Goa".I am not opposed to any name that can be demonstrated to be suitably popular. It should not be based on such ridiculous arguments that because it is popular in country X and it is not used in an uninvolved country Z; it is a POV. Definetely not until such a rule is established in Wikipedia. All I can see is an editor creating non-existent rules to suit his own POV. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dadra and Nagar Haveli are covered by an entirely seperate article in detail, and are not related to the invasion of portuguese india, which this article is about.XavierGreen (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why, weren't Dadra and Nagar Haveli a part of Portuguese India?. Many articles have sub pages for different sub-events. All war articles have sub articles for every battle and even for causes or results. This one does too. Or do you expect that all the information for every war to be compressed in a single page.

Exactly, that's why they are completely different Deepak!Goali (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Fall of Portuguese India? Tigerassault (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Goa is such a small part of India that this option is totally misleading. I note that annexation is used in both Indian as well as western sources and that the Indian POV term would be 'liberation of goa' not 'annexation of goa'. The title seems fine to me. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No the term Annexation of Goa is used in western sources to describe the political process of annexation, not the military conflict that this article is about.XavierGreen (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese India or Etadio da India Portugueza was the official name for Portugal's colonies in South Asia. They probably didn';t call it Portuguese Goa because their holdings also included Daman, Diu and Anjidiv which were quite far from Goa. Tigerassault (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Fall of Portuguese India would be NPOV, it is much more acceptable to me than the current title.XavierGreen (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure if anyone read my bit earlier on but is there anyone willing to actually argue that the title of the article Invasion of Normandy is the result of a pro-Axis bias?--Lairor (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I did read it, and i agree with you. The majority of the people who wish to retain the current title seem to base their opinions more on indian nationalist ideas rather than historical viewpoints or facts of military science. The same problem exists at the War in South Ossetia (2008) page, where the title used in the article is not the most common used in scholarly publication simply because there are enough russian nationalists commenting on the page to resist the change.XavierGreen (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lairor and other opinions in favor of 'Invasion'. Annexation is a political-judicial concept, the incorporation of the territory within a legal jurisidiction of another, which in fact is not even discussed in the article! There is no reference at all to their organization as Union territories or the relevant Indian laws passed (e.g. the 12th Ammendment Act of March 1962, the Goa, Damman and Diu Act of 1962, etc.) asserting a change of legal jurisdiction, the transition from occupied to annexed territories! In fact, there probably should be a detailed article on the Indian annexation of Goa (the 1962 acts and associated legal matters down to the Plebiscite of 1967 and the 1974 Treaty) separately from an article on the 1961 Indian invasion of Goa. -- Walrasiad (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It was an invasion no doubt, where India used military means instead of democratic or legal measures! (Were Goans ever consulted regarding their plans or future for Goa?)Goali (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. At least there was no referendum or consultation about independence or annexation, much less about remaining Portuguese. They were administered for the first few years as territories by a Delhi-appointed territory administrator, assisted (from 1964) by an elected Goa legislative council. The only significant popular consultation was the plebiscite of 16 January, 1967, when the people were asked whether they favored a government proposal to merge the territories under neighboring states (Goa into Maharashtra, Daman and Diu into Gujarat). The government proposal was rejected.Walrasiad (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, Goans were never consulted, yet India's policy regarding these territories has been more or less that of an imposing power - first the invasion later and progressively a controlled autonomy - as compared to Portugal's colonial power from 1499 until 1961 (concerned with settlement at first, later that of maintaning power in face of Britain's imperial policy first, and in the last two decades India's nationalist pretensions).

Goa's airport is paradigmatic: Built by Portugal as a civilian facility, it was converted to an Indian airbase by the invadors, currently it is a shared infrastructure, with civilian use dictated by the central authorities and the Indian military (with limited operating hours).

Daman's and Diu's Portuguese built airstrips were also only used as civilian facilities under colonial rule, but after India's invasion these were transformed into full military facilities and missile bases by India, losing all civilian traffic.Goali (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But none of that is really relevant for the article title, IMO. The point is the dictionary definition of the act. Invasion is a military act, annexation a political-judicial act. Annexation may or may not involve consultation. Since the article is almost exclusively about the military act and dedicates no discussion to the political-judicial act, it should be renamed. P.S. - if I write an article on the Indian annexation of Goa - that is is the political-judicial process, the parliamentary acts, laws, administration, plebiscites and treaties (it was a rather involved matter) - what should I title it? The Indian what of Goa? Walrasiad (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming this article "The Indian Invasion of Goa" would be more precise for sure, as for an article on the Indian annexation of Goa, possibly "The Indian Usurpation of Goa" would best describe the process...Goali (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Goali, why don't you say whats on your mind and get it over with?

Meanwhile I suggest one of the following: 1) Invasion of Portuguese India or 2)Fall of Portuguese India as the most viable titles. Tigerassault (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiger it can be otherwise as well. Kicking out the Portuguese pigs from Goa.

Arbitrary break 2

I have move protected the article for 1 more month, since there is no consensus about the page move, and editors have been move-warring on the title today. Please try to reach a consensus on the name. If needed, please go for RFC or arbitration. --Ragib (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing dumb, what is RFC/arbitration and how does it work? Walrasiad (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)