1961 Indo-Portuguese War

[INDIAN007]

ViKrant Looks Great

 

[Novice09]

ViKrant Looks Great

off topic... IAC would be more sexy and lethal

 

[GodlessBastard]

off topic... IAC would be more sexy and lethal

Which jets are those on the carrier?

They look like Sea Fulcrums but I'm not sure

 

[Novice09]

Which jets are those on the carrier?

They look like Sea Fulcrums but I'm not sure

Even I'm not sure MiG-29K or MiG-29KUB
because both these aircraft and Tajas are planned to operate from IAC...


Now back to topic...

Some quotes from wiki stating reaction of countries on independence of Goa.

Soviet Union

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

China

In an official statement, released long after the action in Goa, Peking stressed the support of the Chinese government for the struggle of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America against "imperialist colonialism". China neither condemned nor applauded the invasion, despite Portuguese rule of Macau, as at the time, it was enjoying cordial relations with India, although the Sino-Indian War would begin only months later.

Pakistan

In a letter to the US President on 2 January 1962, the Pakistani President General Ayub Khan stated: “My Dear President, The forcible taking of Goa by India has demonstrated what we in Pakistan have never had any illusions about--that India would not hesitate to attack if it were in her interest to do so and if she felt that the other side was too weak to resist.”

Africa

Before the invasion the press speculated about international reaction to military action and recalled the recent charge by African nations that India was "too soft" on Portugal and was thus "dampening the enthusiasm of freedom fighters in other countries".[66] Many African nations - themselves former European colonies - reacted with delight to the capture of Goa by the Indians. Radio Ghana termed it as the “Liberation of Goa” and went on to state that the people of Ghana would “long for the day when our downtrodden brethren in Angola and other Portuguese territories in Africa are liberated. ” Adelino Gwambe, the leader of the Mozambique National Democratic Union stated: “We fully support the use of force against Portuguese butchers.”

 

[r3alist]

Do some research about the Indian-Roman spice trade and the later Indian-European trade before opening your uneducated mouth.

India as a whole made up one-fourth to one-third of global GDP up till 1800 C.E. Along with China, the global economy was Asia-centric, with traders from all over the world trying to trade gold and silver in exchange for Chinese silk and Indian spices.

But then again, they probably don't teach you about that stuff in madrassas.



Thank you for confirming your stupidity, not that it was ever up for debate in the first place.

yes because in your mind trade is the same thing as having a GLOBAL EMPIRE right?

the sub continent of asia is home to many many rich natural resources - so its hardly shocking that india had a large chunk of global GDP before the world became industrialised

and whilst the world was getting industralised what was happening to the rich global super power india?


yea mate, carry on believing what you want, it clearly makes you feel good?

 

[Water Car Engineer]

yes because in your mind trade is the same thing as having a GLOBAL EMPIRE right?

the sub continent of asia is home to many many rich natural resources - so its hardly shocking that india had a large chunk of global GDP before the world became industrialised

and whilst the world was getting industralised what was happening to the rich global super power india?


yea mate, carry on believing what you want, it clearly makes you feel good?

Not really the world, but European nations and Americas.

Asia in general was in a complete decline.

 

[Vajra_Yuddh]

You can't blame the Portuguese for wishing to stay in Goa with the same food cuisine, buildings, language, cultural ties to portugal. I guess they stayed out in the sun too long and thought they can still remain imperial power even in 1960's but then had to wake up from the dream.

Goa's culture is often over-hyped as synonymous to Portuguese culture but in reality it is very different. My brother has been there and it isn't exactly what is estimated. Except for a few hospitality locations for impressing tourists, almost entire Goa a Konkan culture one like how Marathis are in Maharashtra.

There are a few pockets of Portuguese wannabe people here and there, but that's about it.

This war marks the kicking out of Europe out of Asia as one continent.

 

[Vajra_Yuddh]

Which jets are those on the carrier?

They look like Sea Fulcrums but I'm not sure

Looks more like F-15s. Observe the jet taking off; it has its engine inlets on its sides like F-15s. MiG-29s have it all under them. 3D artists need to be more practical when rendering something so critical.

 

[GodlessBastard]

Looks more like F-15s. Observe the jet taking off; it has its engine inlets on its sides like F-15s. MiG-29s have it all under them. 3D artists need to be more practical when rendering something so critical.

That's what I was thinking, but there is no navalized version of F-15 (as far as I know)

 

[GodlessBastard]

yes because in your mind trade is the same thing as having a GLOBAL EMPIRE right?

The closest thing to being a "global power" back then was attracting immigrants and traders from all over the world, which India did better than any other civilization in antiquity.

The technology of the time didn't allow countries to become global powers in the military sense, only in the economic sense.

the sub continent of asia is home to many many rich natural resources - so its hardly shocking that india had a large chunk of global GDP before the world became industrialised

It wasn't just natural resources, it was because of a strong, stable system of sociopolitical organization that the ancient Indian economy was so robust.

Just as an example, Africa has far more resources than India, but the ancient African economy never matched the ancient Indian economy because of a lack of sociopolitical organization.

and whilst the world was getting industralised what was happening to the rich global super power india?

It was being systematically raped by European powers.
Do you feel happy about that? You probably do, even though your ancestors suffered at the hands of the Europeans as much as any anyone else in the subcontinent.

yea mate, carry on believing what you want, it clearly makes you feel good?

All my beliefs are based on facts; I acknowledge all of the facts of Indian history, both positive and negative. It's not about feeling "good" or "bad" but being an intelligent, informed individual.

btw it was you who brought up this topic. And as I suspected, in your desire to troll you forgot that you know almost nothing about what you are trolling about

 

[r3alist]

The closest thing to being a "global power" back then was attracting immigrants and traders from all over the world, which India did better than any other civilization in antiquity.

godless and stupid, ever heard of the roman empire? the islamic empire? the british empire - now thats what you call an EMPIRE - yet for you passing trade is an empire, LOL

The technology of the time didn't allow countries to become global powers in the military sense, only in the economic sense.

again, i refer you to the roman empire? or the greek empire? or the persian empire?

in fact any empire other than the imaginary indian one in your head which is based on trade!

It wasn't just natural resources, it was because of a strong, stable system of sociopolitical organization that the ancient Indian economy was so robust.

this does not even exist now so how did it exist back then? the only time it existed in any organized form was once the british left.

india has been a mish mash of disparate castes, groups, tribes and peoples.

and back to the point i was not referring to india's gas reserves but india's fertile land which would have made it rich back then, i credited you with enough intelligence to understand that

It was being systematically raped by European powers.

not so powerful then?

Do you feel happy about that

not really, i hold no malicious feelings to any people and i dont mean to hurt or harm people, but you have no reason to start writing your own fiction novel do you?

All my beliefs are based on facts

we have just that dispelled that

 

[GodlessBastard]

godless and stupid, ever heard of the roman empire? the islamic empire? the british empire - now thats what you call an EMPIRE - yet for you passing trade is an empire, LOL

again, i refer you to the roman empire? or the greek empire? or the persian empire?

In terms of military strength, population, area, and wealth, there were many Indian empires that matched the Greeks, Persians, Romans, and Arabs.

But none of those empires were "global" in the modern sense because the technology of the time didn't allow them to exert power on a global scale. They were "global" only in terms of trade and cultural influence.

The Romans were not militarily global, nor were the Greeks or Persians or Arabs.

this does not even exist now so how did it exist back then? the only time it existed in any organized form was once the british left.

india has been a mish mash of disparate castes, groups, tribes and peoples.

India was only a global power in the times when a political system (ex. Maurya dynasty, Gupta dynasty etc.) united the subcontinent. The social element was the common civilisation that all the different groups shared.

If Africa had ever been united politically like India had been, and if Africa had ever adopted a pan-continental social system that maintained stability (like India's caste system), it could have also been a global power. But since it didn't it remained a collection of different nations.

and back to the point i was not referring to india's gas reserves but india's fertile land which would have made it rich back then, i credited you with enough intelligence to understand that

India isn't the only place in the world with fertile land.
The American Midwest is arguably more productive than India's plains. How come the Native American tribes living there never became a powerful nation? It was because they lacked a form of sociopolitical organization to effectively divide and carry out tasks on a nation-wide scale; in other words, they weren't unified.

But yes, India's agricultural capacity was a big part of its status as a global power.

not so powerful then?

When the Europeans arrived in India, there was no central political authority. The Mughals were dying away and the Marathas were busy fighting other Indian and Afghan kingdoms. The only reason why the Europeans made any headway into India is by cleverly exploiting India's lack of unity.

not really, i hold no malicious feelings to any people and i dont mean to hurt or harm people, but you have no reason to start writing your own fiction novel do you?

LOL. Then why did you come troll my thread with your idiotic nonsense? This thread was having a perfectly sane and civil discussion before you showed up.

 

[r3alist]

In terms of military strength, population, area, and wealth, there were many Indian empires that matched the Greeks, Persians, Romans, and Arabs.

But none of those empires were "global" in the modern sense because the technology of the time didn't allow them to exert power on a global scale. They were "global" only in terms of trade and cultural influence.

The Romans were not militarily global, nor were the Greeks or Persians or Arabs.

you must be smoking some good stuff - how on earth was the roman empire not global - but the indian empire was.
so the indian empire was greater than the roman empire - and the roman empire had no military strength?

India was only a global power in the times when a political system (ex. Maurya dynasty, Gupta dynasty etc.) united the subcontinent. The social element was the common civilisation that all the different groups shared.

If Africa had ever been united politically like India had been, and if Africa had ever adopted a pan-continental social system that maintained stability (like India's caste system), it could have also been a global power. But since it didn't it remained a collection of different nations.

pleae stop calling india a global power, i mean dude seriously.....

india has been a parking spot for multiple civilisations, you have no basis.

When the Europeans arrived in India, there was no central political authority. The Mughals were dying away and the Marathas were busy fighting other Indian and Afghan kingdoms. The only reason why the Europeans made any headway into India is by cleverly exploiting India's lack of unity.

but india did not exist back then - what you fail to see is that snapshot of india you described has been true for the region since time immemorial - your notion of a unified indian entity comparable to the romans is fantasy - it was only organized during and after the british and has always been invaded by other people.

 

[Jagganaut]

you must be smoking some good stuff - how on earth was the roman empire not global - but the indian empire was.
so the indian empire was greater than the roman empire - and the roman empire had no military strength?




pleae stop calling india a global power, i mean dude seriously.....

india has been a parking spot for multiple civilisations, you have no basis.





but india did not exist back then - what you fail to see is that snapshot of india you described has been true for the region since time immemorial - your notion of a unified indian entity comparable to the romans is fantasy - it was only organized during and after the british and has always been invaded by other people.

He was referring to the Mauryan Empire, before islamic turks, afghans, arabs and persians ever stepped foot.

Why was Christopher Colombus looking for India? ​

 

[GodlessBastard]

you must be smoking some good stuff - how on earth was the roman empire not global - but the indian empire was.
so the indian empire was greater than the roman empire - and the roman empire had no military strength?

Now you are revealing even more of your stupidity

Let me put this as clearly as possible for you tiny brain to comprehend: Neither Ancient India nor Ancient Rome were global powers in the MODERN sense, because there were no aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, nukes, etc. in 200 B.C. that allowed India, Rome, or anyone else to deploy military strength on a global scale.

However, both India and Rome were global powers in terms of their share of global GDP, global trade, global population, etc.

The Romans definitely had military power. And so did the ancient Indians. The Mauryan Empire under Ashoka, for example, was as large as the Roman Empire in terms of area, but had a greater population.

pleae stop calling india a global power, i mean dude seriously.....

india has been a parking spot for multiple civilisations, you have no basis.

When you have no intelligent things to say, just troll more

but india did not exist back then - what you fail to see is that snapshot of india you described has been true for the region since time immemorial - your notion of a unified indian entity comparable to the romans is fantasy - it was only organized during and after the british and has always been invaded by other people.

Hey joker, look at the list of empires on Post #19. Each of those unified a great deal of the Indian subcontinent. It is only a fantasy to people like you who can't accept the reality


Now stop derailing my thread. You've already wasted enough of my time.