Talk:Portuguese India/Archive 1

Independence movements
How prominent are Goan independence advocates? This article strikes me as being deeply POV. john k 06:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Portugal was under the dictatorial Salazar regime, which didn't let any of its colonies go, at the time, so I'm a bit dubious about independence being around the corner. At any rate, I don't think we should talk about independence movements without some sense of how large they are - how well do they do in Indian elections, for instance? john k 15:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be useful to add to this article a little more description of what Portuguese India was legally, if not a colony. Most authorities seem to consider it so, and it seems not to have been on the same basis as for instance the French overseas departments of today, which use French stamps instead of their own, Euros for money, and have seats in the Assembly like any other department. Stan 23:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * A couple of points:


 * 1) people in Goa presumably vote for some party. If not for separatist parties, for autonomist parties.  I mean, I imagine the PKK in Turkey, or the ETA, don't participate in elections, either, but people in the Kurdish regions of Turkey, or in the Basque Country, vote for other Kurdish or Basque parties.  Similarly, one would imagine that if sentiment were really so strongly in favor of independence, that people in Goa would vote for some sort of party that emphasized "Goanness", or some such.  One might also note that independence movements in many countries do participate quite happily in elections - the Quebecois separatists in Canada, Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, and so on and so forth.  What evidence is there that Goan nationalists enjoy widespread support?  #I agree with Stan that I'd like to know what the exact status of Portuguese India.  According to rulers.org, it was a Portuguese colony from 1510 to 1946, and then a Portuguese overseas province.
 * I really dont believe in English content information about Portugal they are normally highly inacurrate(sometimes completly false), that's why I'm here in wikipedia. Some things are terrible. I think it was a vice-kingdom at first. -Pedro 02:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd also like to know with greater accuracy what Portugal today recognizes as Goa's status. I have seen in various places that Portugal recognized the Indian annexation in 1974.
 * 2) My point about the Salazar regime was not that they wanted Goa to become part of India. It was that I am dubious about your claim that Goa was on the way to independence under Salazar.  Making it an "overseas province" hardly suggests preparing the way for independence.  And the regime of Salazar and his successors was notorious for not giving any of its colonies independence.  I see no reason to think that Goa was anywhere near being given independence in 1961.  If not for the Indian invasion, one would imagine that Portugal would have held onto it until 1974, like they did with all their other colonies. john k 01:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.supergoa.com/pt/read/news_noticia.asp?c_news=461 (portuguese plans to give to India, Goa) About the recognition I'm not sure, i'll try to investigate, but I know that the wright for East Timor's independence was also given in 1974. But Portugal only recognized East Timor Independence in 2002. I'm not into Goan matters, but I think that the local government is autonomist. The fact is, unlike Indonesia, Portugal has normal relations with India. investigate your self, the article has links to independentist movements and they are in english. Abou the comparison with Spain, the basque autonomy was forbbiden to do a referendum in there, it would be about larger autonomy (or independence), If they would do it, they would go to Jail! And that was in early 2004! They can have an independentist party in government but it cant be really independentist. Spain is not what seems to you. Plenty of desinformation. Even the Portuguese Tv was advized not to show a documentary about the Basque guerilla, what the company accepted because it had insterrests in Spain. And the last drop you all know March 11th, that happens allways in that country!  -Pedro 02:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

With respect to votes, I was just interested to know the extent to which Goans actually vote for nationalist/independentist parties. According to the Indian election results website, in the National parliament, the two Goan seats in the Lok Sabha were won by the BJP and the INC, respectively. In the 1999 state elections, the INC won 21 seats (of 40) and 38.6% of the vote; the BJP got 10 seats and 26.1 %. Parties with "Goa" or "Goan" in their name only got 4 seats and 12.7% of the vote, while another 8.5% when to "independents and others", who elected one person. The remaining four seats and 14% of the vote went to the "Maharashtrawadi Gomantak", which seems to be a regionalist party based on a Marathi identity. The current Chief Minister (since 2000) is BJP. He was preceded by someone from the "Goa People's Congress Party", who was in turn preceded by some ordinary Congress people. Before 1979, the aforementioned Maharashtrawi Gomantak party seems to have been in chargeAt any rate, the strength of the BJP and the INC suggests fairly strongly that the independence movement is not very strong. As to Spain, I have no idea. I was just pointing out that the presence of the nationalist movement is pretty clearly evident in the election results - Basques vote for Basque parties. This clearly isn't the case in Goa. john k 03:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I dont know. I've eard it was autonomist. But not related to Portuguese Indian, specifically. But I know that Goa has large immigration from the rest of India - what the independentists complain. But, possibly, some are to get Portuguese citizenship. That's why the Indian inmigrant community in Portugal is getting big. The Portuguese government found that these inmigrants where not Portuguese Indians, and it has adviced India, to do a better control of whom was born in the territory before the annexation. That "Provincias Ultramarinas" where not colonies, where Part of Portugal, they had Portuguese citizenship, where "provincias" like those in Portugal. That's why we got large numbers of inmigrants from the former colonies, but Portugal is trying to control it.
 * For the record, and again with a Spanish example. I believe that many Galicians are very autonomists, but they have as president a spanish nationalist. Not voting in independentist parties doesnt mean that they are not independentists and MAYBE many are not Goans. As for the recognition of Annexation I'll try to search. I've never eard of that recognition. The only country that was recognized in 1974, was Guinea-Bissau, that had really fight for their independence. The rest was later, because Mario Soares is/was an Europeist and international pressures to do independence and not a federation, What was the idea before 1974 by Caetano. Nice to talk to you and thx for the info about Goan votes. And in Damão do you know something, the population still feels great connection towards Portugal, they can vote for independentist parties? They are not an Indian state... -Pedro 09:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm environmentalist but i've never voted in that kind of Parties! -Pedro 09:57, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. As I've said, I'm not really sure - I'm certainly not an expert on Goa. Certainly the fact that Goa was ruled by a Marathi nationalist party for the first twenty years after it became part of India does not speak well for the strength of the independence movement. At any rate, there does seem to be a lot of Goan regionalist sentiment, based around the Konkani language. But there's a lot of that kind of thing all over India. I'd like to see some evidence that the independence movements have any real strength. I mean, in our Texas article we might have a lengthy discussion of Texan independentists, who believe that the US annexation in 1845 was illegal, and I would imagine that there are a few such people, and further that the US annexation in 1845 was quite possibly illegal (or unconstitutional). But that doesn't mean these people are significant enough to be discussed in an article on either Texas or the Republic of Texas. So I'd like to see some evidence that sentiment for Goan independence is more than a fringe movement. Obviously, the election results do not show that. As you point out, that doesn't disprove anything, but I'd like to see some positive evidence showing that this is a major force. john k 16:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * At first (1960s), I believe it was quit strong, but because many Goans left to other countries or to here -- I see many people that have an Indian look but somewhat Portuguese, because they speak portuguese and have portuguese lifestyle we normally dont treat them as different, I saw goans saying that in Portugal they dont form a community but rather mix with the population. Some independentists could be here. About that news above I learned that a famous politician was Goan, I never tought, but he has a slightly darker skin. But reading that websites, I see that they are everyhere, especially UK, and they dont seem so few, they have Portuguese names, are mixed and are christians, that makes a difference in their heads. In Senegal there is an Independentist guerilla, and they are descendent from Portuguese with Africans, and have Portuguese names and Portuguese lifestyle, they want their land independent, that's Casamance. About the konkani, its like Tetum (East Timor again), I believe, although an independent language it has many Portuguese lexicon words. But I still think the info shoulb be here, but with less importance. --Pedro 17:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some info about these movements should be in both this article and the article on Goa. But it needs to be put into context - if not in context, it's essentially POV - we're giving these movements a legitimacy they don't really have. I'd like to have comment from somebody who knows more about it than I. (BTW ,the Goan government for decades after it became part of India was run by a Marathi regionalist party, which suggests that Goan regionalist sentiment was in disarray, at least, for quite a while after the Indian annexation. john k 18:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Portugal did really recognized. I saw today info about that in the website of foreigner matters. -Pedro 00:33, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The article needs to maintain NPOV. The external links were definitely NOT NPOV, and may provide the reader with a distorted version of reality. evolve 01:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires that our text be neutral, but there can't be such a requirement on external links. After all, we have lots of articles on political parties, and routinely link to each of their homepages, which are by definition not neutral. Now if you want to argue that one or more of the extlinks are useless or uninformative, that's a different issue, but in the meantime I put back the links. Stan 04:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the NPOV for the content of the external links cannot be maintained by Wikipedia; however, the Wikipedia section on external links is definitely a part of the article, and what gets linked out to should be within the purview of the POV of the article, as this is an integral part of it. A reader of the article may consider the external links to be equivalent to a citing, or a cross-reference on the article. While a valid citing for a fact or an organization is fine, a citing which carries content of dubious or non-neutral POV may not be. At the very least, the external links need to be annotated as such, if necessary. I have not reverted the changes, as this needs to be discussed further. See the Wikipedia external link talk page which contains some discussion on this, along with a justification for the annotation. evolve 05:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the meta page does not necessarily reflect current policy, and some of it is pretty old. The rules for external links are pretty loose; mainly that they carry relevant information not in WP (no link spamming). Links to partisan political sites are often useful, because they give insight into debates that we on the other side of the world didn't even know were going on. Annotations are OK, although tricky to phrase neutrally; better would be additional content in the article framing the issue, so that the reader can understand whether the partisan websites represent the views of 1, 100, or 10,000 people. Stan 13:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Pedro has spent any time in Goa. But let me enlighten him. I've spent most of my life in Goa. Talk of a separate GOa may be good pastime for a few of the old Christian elite, but the bulk fo GOans (Christian and Hindu) are perfectly happy being a part of India. Goans ethnically are Konkanis and speak a language descended from Sanskrit. THere may be a few Portuguese words in the dialect spoken by Christians, but the language spoken by the Hindu majority has no Portuguese influence at all. THe language has many similarities iwth Marathi, the language of neighbouring Maharashtra

Of the 11 talukas (divisions) in Goa, only 4, Bardez, Salcette, Mormugao and Tiswadi (Panjim island) have been with the Portuguese for 450 years. The rest were annexed only in the 18th century. SO Portuguese influence is relatively strong only in these 4 areas.

Please note that all the dynasties that ruled Goa before the Protuguese were actually based in other parts of the county and GOa was not really a separate entity. The dynasties which ruked Goa were Kadambas & Chalukyas (Kannada), Rashtrakutas (Maharashtra), Vijayanagara(Telugu & Kannada)and the Adilshah of Bijapur (Karnataka). THese dynasties have ruled Goa for about 1500 years before the Portuguese.

Merges into this page
The following have been surggested to be merged into the Portuguese India Page.
 * Merge dropped
 * Portuguese Indian rúpia
 * Portuguese Indian escudo
 * Postage stamps and postal history of Portuguese India --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not aware of the WikiProject Philately where we are trying to make a decent article for each stamp issuing authority. Postage stamps and postal history of Portuguese India is part of that project which covers a much broader category then just Portuguese India; Category:Postage stamps by country and Category:Postal history by country. You can of course have a short section about the stamps and postal history on this page with a section hatnote to the main article, as has been done elsewhere and I would encourage that, but the article should be retained in its own right. However I agree that the article could do with some expansion. I have not strong views on the other two noms, but don't really see much possible expansion with either of those while Postage stamps and postal history of Portuguese India can definitely be expanded and there is little pont in merging now, only to demerge later on. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok postage removed, but the scope for the money pages should be brought into the Portuguese India page--Rockybiggs (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for this merger. We have an article for all other currencies. Why should Portuguese India be the sole exception? The hint is take regarding expansion Dove1950 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As originally this was a stub and would have been a good idea of a merge, however now this has been expanded obviously this is of merit with its own page.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

First contact
Before the arrival of the fleet Portugal had sent a scout by land who compilled both the indian situation and the way. The fleet had that information before it left portugal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pero_da_Covilh%C3%A3

Anyone cares to correct the main page?

87.196.8.103 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) MB

Madras/San Thome
Portuguese history in India wouldn't be complete without some mention of San Thome. Their colony/city in Madras. Is it possible to add that to this as well? I don't want to edit the main page without some support from you folks. --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My friend, go ahead and be bold! The Ogre (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the book Myth of Saint Thomas of Mylapore available at Hamsa.org...

Also, this article has no mention of the Goa Inquisition. The level of deception in this article is alarming to say the least —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.249.249 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to World Court
I have removed the reference to World Court arbitration. There was never any World Court judgment regarding the sovereignity of Portugal over Portuguese India. The actual case: Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case (Portugal vs. India), was regarding transit rights between Dadra and Nagar Haveli through Indian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled that transit rights existed for civilians, officials and goods, there were no transit rights in respect of armed forces, police and arms and ammunition and that India had not violated any such rights. --Manojb 10:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not the whole story. Transit rights would only be an issue of international law if sovereignty violations were involved.  And the ICJ was asked and did pronounce on the sovereignty status of Dadra & Nagar-Haveli and thus, by implication, the rest of Portuguese India (had to - otherwise it would have thrown the case out as not coming under its purview, which is the case the Republic of India argued at the Hague).  So legally, the ICJ's decision was an explicit recognition of Portugal's sovereignty over Portuguese India.  What the ICJ reserved for India was the right to take measures to curtail disorder within Portuguese sovereign territory from spilling over into Indian sovereign territory, i.e. the right to restrict the movement of foreign armed forces (and armed forces only).  So the ICJ decision was a legal victory for Portugal, but a practical victory for India.  Although I would agree that it is a rather irrelevant for this article.Walrasiad (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ceylon
Needs more detail. The Danish settled Dansborg instead of claiming a place on the island because the Portuguese had boxed out the other Euros; later, the English obviously took over. When and why did each happen? — LlywelynII  02:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything needs more detail. There is practically nothing on the 17th C. Anglo-Dutch intrusion into the Portuguese "space" not only in Ceylon, but also the Malabar coast and Coromandel/Bengal.  Everything between the early 16th C. and mid-19th seems to be reduced to two sentences. Walrasiad (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose to add "Role in the slave trade in India
Before I add the section, I'd like to garner people's opinions (based on what they've read from historians) on the direction this section should go. Thanks. Svabhiman (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If youve got a good amount of sources and information to create that section, go right ahead. Ive never really heard of India being quite important when it comes to the Portuguese and the slave trade, but if you've got info on it with good sources, I think it'd be a wonderful addition. Happy editing, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Christiano, I appreciate your input. Svabhiman (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Economic data?
Does anyone have data on the economy of the Portuguese India and how much did it's GDP/GDP per capita decrease or stagnate during Portuguese rule in comparison to Indian rule? Filpro (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Portuguese India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214125132/http://www.goacom.com/culture/history/history4.html to http://www.goacom.com/culture/history/history4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060706083838/http://indiannavy.nic.in/bptobw.pdf to http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/bptobw.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214125132/http://www.goacom.com/culture/history/history4.html to http://www.goacom.com/culture/history/history4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928203647/http://gpp.nic.in/Liberation.html to http://gpp.nic.in/Liberation.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828110301/http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1960s/Goa.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1960s/Goa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107025811/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1960s/Goa01.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1960s/Goa01.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131122170529/http://rotarytangasseri.org/history.html to http://rotarytangasseri.org/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gujarat Sultanate Flag.gif

"Portugese india" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portugese india. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to move to "Portuguese State of India"
@ has twice tried to move this page from "Portuguese India" to "Portuguese State of India". This has been disputed. I am opening up the discussion here, so he can make out his case more fully, and provide evidence as needed. Walrasiad (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @ has twice reverted this page back to its incorrect name without providing a single reason why the old name should be kept. He "disputes" the change, but doesn't state why he disputes it. As I have explained twice, "Portuguese State of India" is what this page is about, which anyone could tell by so much as reading the header; "Portuguese India" was just one part of it, alongside Portuguese Ceylon, Portuguese Mozambique (till the 18th century) Portuguese Oman, Portuguese Malacca, etc etc. This isn't, or at least has no rights to being made into such a complex issue. Regardless, I will continue to actually contribute to the page wherever possible. Wareno (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In favor of the move. Wareno (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)