Dear Dr. Jose, If charges are framed in a Court of law and evidence is brought on record to support them, GENERALLY no leniency is possible. Fortunately, there have been exceptions. Inquisition cannot be defended. The use of Inquisition of 18th Century to do a "Shuddikaran" now is as reprehensible as the "purification" obtained by the Inquisition. In this I wholly agree with you. One can demonise the Inquisition and glorify the Kalinga war. Both had horrific consequences for the innocent. Shivaji's killing of Afzal Khan can be seen as bravery ..... or as treachery. It all depends on the perspective. 1857 was a 'Mutiny' to some, and a 'War of independence' to others ....but was a consequence of a RUMOUR. Has anyone proved or disproved the rumour?? In Goa, there are two opinions on WHO constitutes the MARTYRS of Cuncolim ...the Desais or the Jesuits. May be both were WRONG. One is also not quite sure if the Bhandaris, Gawdis, Kunbis, Velips and Dhangars can be, by any stretch of imagination be called as 'Hindus' in terms of their traditional worship. Is "Hinduism" an universal default option. Are the pygmies of Congo who did not convert to Christianity or Islam also Hindus?? Are Communists Hindus? Just saw a film titled " The Rabbit Fence" the other day. They actually had a "Protector of Aborogines" to terrorize the poor people Down Under in New Zealand till 1970!! Mog asundi. Miguel
--- On Mon, 21/7/08, J. Colaco < jc> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: J. Colaco < jc> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Evaluating the Past To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <[email protected]> Cc: "Gilbert Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "santosh helekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, 21 July, 2008, 2:34 AM [1] Gilbert: The robber is caught and confesses to the crime. His guilt is beyond doubt. [2] Miguel: If a 30 year male breaks into my home, assaults a member of my family and decamps with jewellery, then the correct English and legal word for it is ROBBERY, not STEALING. jc's response: Theft Act 1968 (as amended) This fictitious individual is IMHO guilty of the following crimes (involving two different statutes) 1.Burglarly 2. Theft 3. Battery Comment: Robbery - only if Theft occured post intimidation or a threat. No evidence that theft occured after assault Post-Script: NO justification for the following a: The unholy Inquisition b: The biased accounts of that unholy Inquisition. jc Get an email ID as [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Click here http://in.promos.yahoo.com/address
