I am not an authority on Goa's (or any other) history. Neither am I an authority on medical history. Yet as a history buff, I welcome a cross-comparison of events across other disciplines. And we should be open in evaluating how other scientific fields look at the past and remember those achievements along with the shortcomings. At the end of the day, our understanding today is built on the shoulders of those who preceded us along with their achievements and limitations.
It is difficult and unfair to judge the practices of the 16th - 19th century with the way things are done now. I would like to compare the practices in medicine - a field I am familiar, with the way things were done THEN and NOW. Till the 19th century, the most common treatment for many illnesses was to bleed the patient. Often this directly led to or contributed to the patient's death. A great example is the death of George Washington in 1799, two years after completing his terms as the first President and the Father of the USA. Were physicians of that period heinous? Yet, one does not have to go that far back. In the field of cancer, fifty years ago, breast cancer was treated by removing the breast, all the muscles of the chestwall and in some cases, the ribs. Quite a few of the patients were left with a swollen non-functioning arm. Considering that now we treat breast cancer without even removing the breast, were those physicians (some famous) wicked? That would call for the re-classification of many surgeons from Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay, and other cancer hospitals across the world, who have been described as "outstanding". Often cancer treatments even as little as two decades ago (and sometimes today) are described as "the effects of the treatment is worse that the disease." Some of these approaches had a success rate of only 15% - 25% with an operative mortality rate of 30-50%. (tumors of the brain, pancreas etc etc.) Yet these practices were undertaken, because not doing so was having an even worse outcome. Others in academic medicine may even justify the side-effects and mortality of treatment is as "the unintended consequences" of medical therapy. Few others may allude that these individual patient's death contributed to scientific data (a "sacrifice at the alter of medical science"). In the field of radiology, many physicians died (from radiation burns and radiation induced leukemia) exposing their patients and themselves to excessive and un-needed radiation. So how does one differentiate 'wrong-doings' from "sincere attempts" to improve an individual situation and / or provide a service to society? I guess the answer lies in MOTIVATION of the INDIVIDUAL (person) undertaking the practice in question. The other side of the same coin is the presence or absence of available ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS. This may apply to medicine, religion, practitioners of law-and-order, those in the military, and leaders of civil society. Even these end-points may be tricky. In medicine, one can accuse cancer surgeons of doing big operations for monetary gain. Yet many of them who developed these procedures were considered "Fathers" or "leaders" of the field and did not have extra monetary gains from their work, other than building a reputation. Others who undertook these procedures, and were monetarily compensated for the specific practice, were practicing "The Standard of Care" of the time (aka "scientific thinking of the period" or the "practice of the era"). Should we condemn them as "atrocious" for practicing the craft of their period (which has changed now)? Using similar standards, it is likely we ourselves will be judged in about two decades from now, by the attitudes, writings and philosophy that may be different from today. As we judge the period of the Inquisition (and the decades leading to its introduction), one needs to evaluate the societal situation and the political climate of the time, and what was the Inquisition hoping to accomplish. Was the social situation WORSE WITH the Inquisition? Or was the social situation bad IN SPITE OF the Inquisition? A glimpse of the life of this period can be gleamed from documents and biographies of some of their societal leaders. Very little happens in vacuum and hence it is important to inquire - what, why, when, how of the victims and the perpetrators. If the reader is seeking to read about the turmoil in Europe in the period, one can, as an example, read about the life of 'Girolamo Savanarola', a monk who was burned at the stake in 1498. These are some classical views that describe the turmoil that impacted society and the leaders of the society of that time. Today, science has a new explanation as to what triggered these massive societal changes including famine, disease and epidemics across Europe and elsewhere. I think the explanation of "Threat of Protestantism" is much passe, though that is the official reason for the unrest of the time and the response of the Inquisition leaders! There is significant data on the environmental changes from the 16th to mid-19th century and is called the period of the Little Ice Age (LIA).. These changes impacted agriculture, health, and caused famine, diseases, declining moral behavior, social unrest, including massive population shifts across the Northern hemisphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age I am again not defending the Inquisition. I am merely leading readers to the description of the forest as we analyze the specific trees (which is important) in different parts of the world and across different time periods. Even with the calmness of hindsight analysis (retro-spectroscope), we may have a difficult time to tease out the individual factors at work. Rather we take the easy way, by at times, seeking to lump all together in broad generalized statements; or even worse sensationalizing by fiction the history of the period. The former is termed 'Guilt by Association' and the latter can only be called despicable. As we analyze the workings of others in the 16th to the 19th century and even a few decades ago, we also will be judged on our work and our own self-righteousness and attitudes towards other different perspectives. Regards, GL
