Click to launch book reader: here

Chicago, Illinois
October 25, 1962

The Editor
“Voice of the People”
Chicago Tribune
Chicago, Ill.

Dear Sir:

Since India’s rightful liquidation of the remnant of European Colonialism from its precious land—the Portugese enclave, or “territory enclosed within the territory of another”, of Goa--you have written several editorials condemning Prime Minister Nehru’s belated action to free the Goanese subjects from Protugese comination. But you have not given a single convincing reason as to why the Portugese colonials should have been allowed to maintain their foot-hold in the territory historically, geographically, and ethnologically belonging to democratic India.

Strangely enough, the Chicago Tribune—“World’s Greatest Newspaper”-- which under the brilliant, open-minded, forthright, and progressive leadership of the late Col. McCormick so strongly advocated the speedy end of the British, French, and Dutch colonialism in Asia, in the late 30’s and the 40’s, particularly during the critical period of the 2nd world war, does not seem to realize that India was indisputably justified in bringing about the end of the Portugese “raj” in Goa. In my opinion, Prime Minister Nehru was too slow and patient in clearing out the Protugese from Goa; he should have accomplished this objective right after the French relinquished their enclave in India voluntarily and with dignity.

Commenting on the resolute stand made by “neutral” Nehru in defense of India’s territory along the Himalayan frontier and its hard-won freedom against the onslaught of the powerful Communist Chinese forces, In your recent editorial “Let’s Sit This Out”, you have again pointlessly referred to the Goa incident-- a fait accompli—as an “unprovoked attack on the Portugese enclave of Goa” by India and in view of Nehru’s purchase of some worthless military supplies from Russia at “bargain rates”, U.S. should say “no” to his request for American arms.

Unquestionably “neutral” Nehru has demonstrated to the free world, as evidenced by his relentless > against the expansionist ambition of Communist China and by his firm determination as expressed in his recent speech, that he will “carry on the struggle for the defense and preservation of India’s freedom because India cannot submit to the aggression or domination of a powerful and unscrupulous foe.” But, perhaps it could’nt make any difference to the Tribune if Mao Tse-tung & Co. took over New Delhi. And, perchance, if this does take place, it will be good-bye Lahore, Hawalpindi, Kabul, and Tehran as well as Thailand, Burma, and Ceylon.

On the other hand, with all the high-sounding oratory of the U.S. political pundits for the preservation of democracy in the western hemisphere, what did the Kennedy administration do to help the handful of courageous Cuban refugees who had the guts to launch that fruitless invasion with great expectations against the communist bandito old Doc Castro? Now I am inclined to believe that it was Nehru’s bold and praiseworthy stand against Communist China which suddenly aroused and prompted President Kennedy to declare blockade of Cuba.

As to voluble, vitriolic, and pugnacious Krishna Mennon, I believe he will best serve India by retreating to his slippery soap box in London’s Hyde Park where he could hear himself talk to his heart’s content. A competent defense minister with a bit of foresight would have made proper and effective defensive preparations along India’s Northeast frontier.

Respectfully yours

M.I. Mumtaz Kitchlev
40 East Oak Street
MIMK:M