Talk:Annexation of Goa

Rename Article to 'Liberation of Goa'

The current title can be found nowhere on search engines, and is not in-line with other wikipedia articles on decolonization.

The lead-up to the liberation movement is titled as such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_liberation_movement

The start of Portuguese colonialism was given by an article titled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Goa

It was a 'liberation movement' not a 'annexation movement', and the opposite of conquest is liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialWikiJustice (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better, to see the move requests or talks about the title first

• May 2008
• July 2008
• April 2010
• June 2010
• September 2010
• October 2010
• December 2010
• February 2011
• March 2012
• June 2016
• November 2016

2804:14C:55:87C7:716C:30CB:2C38:5D71 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The indians conquered Goa from Portugal by force. It was an invasion unlike the peaceful annexation of Goa by the portuguese in the middle ages. 148.69.61.56 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if the indians knew english they would know that "liberated" points to the independence and autodetermination of a region, and as Goa is still part of India it wasn't liberated. 148.69.61.56 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

portuguese invasion and genocide for Indian Hindus in Goa was by no means peaceful. Don't know about english of Indians but you certainly need to read a book or two. It was liberation of Goa and the title should be named as such. Wikipedia seems to be quite a biased and eurocentric white centric website. Even the legal section of the article completely skips legal arguments presented by India. Seems like the whole thing has been edited by some portuguese neo nazi joker. 63.143.118.146 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually the Portuguese annexation of Goa was accompanied by a genocide of the Adil Shah's Muslim soldiers and Officials (after which the victorious Portuguese soldiers 'married' their widows). There was a particularly brutal forced conversion campaign and a draconian inquisition that targeted converts and condemned quite a few of its victims to death - But I'm not sure about anything that qualified as a genocide, unless you're listening to typical Indian right wing propaganda and rewritten history.

As far as the Indian legal argument goes, I think there are enough statements by Nehru and Menon on this in the article. Also, the 'Support' section in the International Reactions section lists quite a lot of this.

But even though Liberation is widely used in India to describe the event, is not the correct term since that would only apply to a place that became self governing. Goa was a Portuguese province and then became an Indian Union Territory which means that it was annexed by India. I don't see why you would see a negative connotation in the word annexation. If you want it that way, you may have to accept that Goa could not have been 'liberated' without being 'invaded' and 'annexed' first. Tigerassault (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a more neutral title than "Liberation" or "Annexation" would make more sense, something akin to "Integration of Goa into India"? Probably a clunky title, but I'm sure a better one could be made that need not intrinsically reflect any one viewpoint :) TheSaturnLover (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This page must be renamed to "Liberation of Goa" CJV 487 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The only articles on liberation I could find on Wikipedia involve a territory that became fully self-governing and independent shortly afterwards (i.e. Belgium after WWII). In this case, the result of the Indian "intervention" was the annexation of those territories, which has more neutral connotations and can be interpreted as good or bad whereas liberation ascribes moral status that violates Wikipedia's norms for neutral POV. There was no peaceful dialogue. There were no referendums. Annexation does not assign blame and readers may interpret the facts of the article. I think the term "annexation" is clear, concise, neutral, and exact for historical purposes as the result of India's intervention in these territories. 70.22.139.70 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

not freedom fighters

" The major part of the freedom fighters of Azad Gomantak Dal were not Goans." In the same sentence, it describes the combatants as not even being from Goa, so they were not freedom fighters. 80.195.3.151 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The statement you refer to was made by Captain Carlos Azaredo in his interview to the Expresso. Why he called them Freedom Fighters if they were not from Goa is something you should take up with him - if he is still alive. Tigerassault (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Page rename to "Invasion of Goa"

The invasion was not according to international laws and Goa should still be portuguese. 2001:818:E924:D000:48C3:4C03:BDE9:47D6 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also annexation of Goa can also point to the portuguese annexation of Goa 148.69.61.56 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

To be specific, Portugal recognized Goa as part of India after 1974. Hence the title 'Annexation of Goa' is probably correct since even Portugal accepts that Goa was annexed by India. If you like, you could rename it to 1961 Annexation of Goa to differentiate it from the 1510 annexation. Tigerassault (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Or, we can simply rename it to "Operation Vijay"? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No, as that is the actual invasion, not the following annexation. The Banner talk 01:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity - was the invasion of Goa and subsequent genocide of the natives according to international law? Melkor was right (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of a genocide? The Banner talk 01:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't throw around the word 'genocide' cheaply, and certainly not without evidence. 2A0A:EF40:425:D901:B31B:5034:54A:3AEE (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 1 December 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

The United States' official reaction to the annexation of Goa was delivered by [[Adlai Stevenson II|Adlai Stevenson]] in the [[United Nations Security Council]], where he condemned the armed action of the [[Indian government]] and demanded that all Indian forces be unconditionally withdrawn from Goan soil.<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (December 2023)">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>

+

The United States' official reaction to the annexation of Goa was delivered by [[Adlai Stevenson II|Adlai Stevenson]] in the [[United Nations Security Council]], where he condemned the armed action of the [[Indian government]] and demanded that all Indian forces be unconditionally withdrawn from Goan soil.

TheSaturnLover (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. I mean, it says "citation needed" for a reason. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 03:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2025

Please change "citation needed" under Condemnation, United States to this reference: It speaks of Adlai's ceasefire and withdrawal statements, which can supplement the claim that he demanded these things (albeit "demand" may be extreme given the historical outcome, consider changing "demand" to "request".) TheSaturnLover (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)