One of the most fateful events in Hindu history was the battle of Talikota that occurred during the time of Ramaraya who was the de facto ruler of Vijayanagar. Several attempts have been made by secularist writers to paint Ramaraya as a villain and downplay his eventful reign. He did commit miscalculations in different directions: 1) He killed many of Hindu Nayakas and replaced them by his own clansmen resulting in considerable discontent amongst the Hindu elite. He seized power through intrigue from the clan of Krishnadeva Raya and made himself the principal ruler of the Vijayaganagar Empire, displeasing many of the chiefs. 2) In a manner similar to the modern Indian state, he went against the age-old policy of the Vijayanagara state in recruiting Moslem soldiers indiscriminately in his army. 3) He destroyed the traditional Hindu civil service officials to place his own favorites and henchmen in their place. But he was by no means a slouch when it came to defending the Hindu Dharma at a very critical junction.

The chaos following Krishnadeva’s death resulted in the Hindus coming under assault from many directions. The local chiefs of the Tamil country were in an intercine revolt, while Francis Xavier, the Portuguese Christian terrorist, was wreaking havoc on the Gulf of Mannar and reaping large numbers of converts. The Jesuit and Franciscan friars were planning a plundering raid on the rich temples of Kanchipuram. The Portuguese also captured the port of Nagore and were plundering the temple of Ranganatha there. This was when the Hindus appealed to Rama Raya to save from the Christian terror. Rama Raya dispatched his cousin, Chinna Tirumala (Timma) to deal with this task. Chinna Timma first conquered the Chandragiri fort and squashed the southern rebellion. Another traitorous Hindu chief of the fort of Bhuvanagiri was trying to make common cause with the Portuguese but the fort was stormed by Chinna Timma. From there he marched along the coast and crossed the Kaveri and attacked the Portuguese army in Nagore. The invading Christian army was butchered and the wealth stolen by the Christians from the Ranganatha temple was recovered and restored. From there Chinna Timma and his brother Vitthala defeated rebellious chiefs in Madurai, Puddukotai, Tanjavur, Tuthukudi and the Keralan chief of Travancore was also brought in line. Then Chinna and Vitthala set up a tower of victory in Kanya Kumari after massacring and driving out the Christian garrison stationed there. The temple at Tiruvanantapuram was also repaired.

The Christian brigand Martin Desouza of Goa damaged and plundered the Bhatkal port and the Catholic priests were spreading a reign of terror in the Konkans. Ramaraya repulsed him and cleansed the place of the violent Christian evangelists. He was replaced by Joao Decastro, who negotiated a peace treaty with the Hindus and established a horse trade market. However, five years later the Christian missionaries were fanning out into the Konkan and robbed the Tirupati temple in an undercover raid and tortured Hindus along the coast. Ramaraya launched a retaliatory strike on the Christian garrison of San Thome. A large Portuguese army set out to help the San Thome garrison from Goa. But Ramaraya’s cousin Vitthalaraya launched a preemptive attack on the Goa army along with another Vijayanagaran division under Sankanna Nayaka of Ikkeri. The Christians faced a major set back and were repulsed. Ramaraya killed all the major Jesuit friars who were spreading terror in the country and captured 5 other senior bishops whom he ransomed for 100,000 pagodas.

However, before Vijayanagar could effectively liberate Goa itself, the Moslem rulers, Adil Shah and Nizam Shah made a common cause to wage Jihad on the Hindus. Adil Shah invaded Vijayanagar, but Ramaraya who was dealing with the Christians dispatched his general Sadashiva Nayaka to deal with the Moslems. The Moslem army was routed and retreated in disarray. Rama Raya then started playing the 5 Moslem Sultans against each. He induced Nizam Shah to attack Barid Shah and kept them engaged with each other. Then he engineered a treaty where by the Moslems would collectively be under the eye of Vijayanagara. Ramaraya then invaded Bidar itself and defeated Barid Shah and brought him under his control. Thereafter, Ramaraya’s brother Venkatadri defeated the army of Qutb Shah and seized the southern districts of the Golconda kingdom. As result of Qutb Shah and his ally Nizam Shah’s retreat the Kalyani fort was taken by Vijayanagar. Then Ramaraya decided to deal with Nizam Shah while Adil Shah was fighting Qutb Shah. The Vijayanagaran army entered Maharashtra and besieged Ahmednagar. However, at the decisive moment the Hindus were robbed of their ultimate conquest by the flooding of the Sina river that washed away their baggage train forcing them to fall back. Not deterred by the retreat, the Vijayanagaran army turned to attack Golconda and pin down Qutb Shah who had just been defeated by Adil Shah. He tried to counter-attack by assaulting the Hindu fortress of Kondavidu. But the Hindu army repulsed his attack and inflicted heavy losses on the Moslem army. Ramaraya devastated the Qutb Shahi kingdom and captured its mainline of defensive forts of Kovilkonda, Ganpura and Pangal. Ramaraya also demolished the Mazaars and Masjids that had been built on Hindu structures. During his invasion of Ahmednagar he took the opportunity even while retreating due the weather to demolish a large Masjid that had earlier been erected on a Hindu shrine. All these sent a clear message to the Moslem rulers.

At this point the Moslems realized that they were puppets at the hands of the Hindu ruler decided to make a common cause for a concerted Jihad to end the Hindu kingdom. The first sealed their friendship through a series of dynastic marriages and then had a combined meeting to sign a pact for Jihad. They gathered together their armies on the plains of Bijapur at the end of 1564 and built up an enormous Islamic horde of around 700,000 troops. This vast army started marching southwards with considerable speed. Ramaraya faced the situation calmly and on Vijayadashmi day 15th September 1564 asked his generals to prepare for an all out war with the Moslems. By December the Moslems reached Talikota, a fortified town near the Krishna river and declared holy war on the infidels. Ramaraya took all the right steps. He sent his brother Tirumala with a large force to prevent the Moslems from crossing the Krishna. He sent his other brother Venkatadri to defend the south bank of the Krishna and he himself came in next with the rest of the army to form the rear. The total Hindu armies appear to have been between 500,000 core troops, plus the mercenaries. The main chinks in the Hindu armies were the two divisions of a total of about 140,000 troops which belonged to Moslem commanders who had been hired foolishly by Ramaraya after their eviction from Bijapur by the Sultan. These divisions were along with Ramaraya’s main divisions.

By December 29th 1564 the first battles broke out. Qutb Shah and Nizam Shah, who were great friends, decided to go on their own first and led their divisions to clash with Tirumala’s division. The Hindu army inflicted a huge defeat on the Moslems and the Sultans fled in disarray losing thousands of men in the encounter. The Sultans were shaken by this encounter and asked Adil Shah to forget previous arguments and stand by them for the intended Hindu counter-attack. The Sultans met secretly and decided that the only way to succeed was to resort to stratagem. Nizam Shah and Qutb Shah decided to parley with the mighty Raya who was now planning a massive counter-thrust into the Moslem flanks. At the same time Adil Shah sent a false message to the Hindu commander that he wished to remain neutral. While this was going on messengers from the Sultans went to the Moslem commanders in the Vijayanagaran army and appealed to their religious duty of Jihad and secured their alliance to launch a subversive attack. As a result of these parleys Ramaraya delayed his counter-thrust giving a small but critical time window for the Moslems to regroup. Sultan Imad Shah of Berar made the first thrust by attacking Tirumala’s division guarding the Krishna ford. Tirumala fell upon him with his full force and in short but intense encounter destroyed the Sultan’s army and sent him flying for life. However, the euphoria of this victory proved short-lived as the sultans Nizam Shah, Qutb Shah, Barid Shah on one side and Adil Shah on the other used this distraction to cross the Krishna and attack the main Hindu divisions.

Ramaraya, though thoroughly surprised, rapidly responded. Despite his advanced age (in the 70s) he decided to personally lead the Hindu armies and took to the field in the center. He was faced by Nizam Shah’s division. Ramaraya’s first brother Tirumala hurriedly returned to form the left wing of the Hindu army that was countered by Adil Shah and traitorous Hindus under the Maharatta chief Raja Ghorpade. His second brother Venkatadri formed the Hindu right wing that was opposed by Qutb Shah and Barid Shah, strengthened by Nizam Shah’s auxiliaries as the battle progressed. On 23rd Jan 1565 the enormous armies clashed on the plains near the villages of Rakshasi and Tangadi. Several reports claimed that over a million men were involved in this historic clash. Venkatadri struck early and within the first two hours the Hindu right wing’s heavy guns fired constantly on the ranks of Barid Shah. As the ranks were softened the Hindu infantry under Venkatadri plowed through the divisions of Barid Shah annihilating them. The assault was so vigorous that it looked like a Hindu victory was imminent. Qutb Shah too was in retreat, when Nizam Shah sent his forces to shore up the ranks of the Sultans. Nizam Shah himself was then pressed hard by the heavy cannonade from Ramaraya’s division and was facing a Hindu infantry thrust with Ramaraya at the helm. At this point the Sultans signaled to the Moslem officers in the Vijayanagaran army to launch a subversive attack. Suddenly Ramaraya found his rear surprised by the two Moslem divisions in his ranks turning against him. About 140,000 Moslem troops had opened a vigorous rear attack on the Hindus and captured several artillery positions. Several cannon shells landed near Ramaraya’s elephant and he fell from it as his mount was struck by a cannon shard. Ramaraya tried to recover but Nizam Shah made a dash to seize him.

He was dragged to the Moslem camp and the Sultan asked him to acknowledge Allah as the only god. Ramaraya instead cried “Narayana Krishna Bhagavanta”, and Nizam Shah slit the Hindu king's throat and declared himself a Ghazi in Jihad. Ramaraya's severed head was then fixed to a pole and waved before the Hindu troops. The Hindus panicked at the death of their commander and chaos broke out in their midst. Venkatadri was also killed as the Qutb, Nizam and Barid put all their forces together and launched a concerted punch. Tirumala tried to stiffen the center but at that point the whole division of Adil Shah that was waiting all the while made the final assault on the rear of Tirumala’s division. The Vijayanagar artillery had by then been exhausted and was blasted by the Adil Shah’s artillery and the Hindus faced a rout. Several 100,000s of troops were slain.

Tirumala seeing the total rout fled to Vijayanagara and taking up the treasury on 1500 elephants fled south towards Penukonda. Those who could flee the city survived, the rest became victims of the Islamic Jihad. The Moslems swooped down upon the city and beheaded several tens of thousands of the male inhabitants as they could find (“every one became a ghazi by killing a Kaffr”). The young women were captured for the harems and the rest were herded into groups and burnt alive. Miscellaneous dacoits, Maharatta Hindu brigands under Raja Ghorpade Bahadur, and the Maharashtrian Brahmin thief, Murari Rao, who got wind of the news also arrived with their henchmen and looted the grand city. The looting is supposed to have gone on for six months, after which the sultans fired the city. The heat from the burning of the city is supposed to have been so intense that it left cracks in the granite hills on its periphery. Ramaraya's skull was taken by Nizam Shah to Ahmednagar and was fitted to the spout of a drain that opened out of the fort. This grotesque gargoyle bearing the fallen Hindu king's skull was seen for several years after the event. Thus the first great Hindu counter-offensive against the ravages of Islam and Christianity in the South ended. However, it did not mean the end of the Hindu resistance. We shall in the subsequent part how the complete Islamization of south India was prevented by the successors of Ramaraya in a prolonged struggle over the next 100 years, when the baton of the Hindu revival was taken over by the Maharattas under Shivaji.

<b> Sources and bibliography:</b>
A history of South India (4th edition) KAN Sastri.
Firishta (Translated by J. Briggs in "History of the rise of the rise of Mohammedan power in India, Vol II)
The early Muslim expansion in South India. Venkataraman Ayya
Further sources of Vijayanagar History. KAN Sastri and Venkataraman Ayya
A forgotten empire. R. Sewell
Achyuta Raya Abhyudaya. Rajanatha Dindima.
Collected papers on Vijayanagara.
The character and significance of the Empire of Vijayanagara in Indian history. Krishnaswami Aiyangar.
The battle of Talikota--before and after K.K. Basu

Krishnaswami Aiyangar's monumental critical edition/translation notes of native sources (in collected sources volume; 81-7305-257-3)
Ramarajiyamu of Venkayya
Krishna Raya Vijayam by Kumara Dhurjati
Ahobilam inscription of Sriranga-I (After the restoration)

<b>SECULARISM, COLONIALISM AND THE INDIAN INTELLECTUALS</b>


Jakob De Roover

Research Assistant, Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders
Research Centre <i>VERGELIJKENDE CULTUURWETENSCHAP</i>
Ghent University, Belgium.

In the last few decades, “secularism” has become the subject of caustic debate in the Indian media. The dispute about the value of this idea to contemporary India is no longer confined to the academic circles. Politicians, journalists and others have strong views on the topic. Secularism regularly surfaces in newspaper articles, speeches and public meetings. The critics of the idea, however, are not often taken seriously at the theoretical level. The proponents of secularism dismiss all objections against their pet idea as misguided. Critics are either considered to be naive obscurantists, who dream of a return to a romantic image of Indian traditional society; or they are condemned as Hindu fundamentalists, who resist modern secular values and strive for a Hindu religious state.

Though the secularists are genuinely concerned about the tensions currently disrupting Indian society, their fight for secularism has not been very effective when it comes to putting an end to “the Hindu-Muslim strife.” In fact, the Nehruvian secularism of the first few decades of the independent Indian state appears to have had as its long-term result an upsurge – rather than a decline – of intercommunity confliict. The problem I will address is to account for the stubborn adherence to the value of secularism among the Indian intellectuals, in spite of this spectacular failure. This adherence seems based in dogmatism, rather than in rational, critical or scientific argument. To account for this state of affairs, I will first turn to the history of the idea of secularism and show the deep roots it has in the religious doctrine of the Christian West. Next, I will analyse the role it has played in the colonial domination over the subcontinent and its intellectuals. The idea of secularism has been one of the backbones of the colonial educational project, which approached India as a backward society in need of conversion to modern western values.

These two steps bring me to the conclusion that the Indian secularists are today sustaining the colonial stance towards their own culture and society. They <i>presuppose</i> that the modern value of secularism or toleration is the superior way of organising a plural society. Given this assumption, they easily come to the conclusion that India should adopt this value like all other modern nation-states. This is not an exhibition of human scientific rationality, but rather an instance of the fallacy of <i>petitio principii</i>. That is, the secularists take as a presupposition what they actually have to prove: the superiority of the modern value of secularism. The consequences are dramatic. Alternatives to secularism – <i>e.g.</i>, the “traditional” ways of living together as they have developed on the subcontinent – are not even taken seriously as solutions to the predicament of pluralism in twenty-first-century India. Any one who dares challenge this supreme value is classified as a naive conservative, a Hindu communalist, or worse. Thus, secularism limits the options of the Indian intellectuals to two equally flawed positions: either one continues the colonialism of the last three centuries through a dogmatic adherence to “modern secular values;” or one fights this stance on its own terms by becoming an “anti-modern”, “anti-western” or even “anti-scientific” fanatic.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this dilemma. It is to be found in the old human pursuit of knowledge. At a time when societies all around the world are becoming more diverse, we have to be ready to re-examine our long-standing ideas about pluralism and tolerance. More than ever, the search for scientific solutions to the problems of humankind should direct itself at the knowledge developed in the non-western world. The ways of living together of several Asian cultures have proven successful at creating a relative stability and harmony in extremely plural societies. Therefore, I argue, we should set up a massive enterprise to examine the nature and the success of these alternative ways of living together.

1. A Modern Christian Value?

A recent exchange in the Indian weekly <i>Outlook</i> revealed some of the damage done by colonialism to the Indian intellectuals and their understanding of secularism. It started with an opinion piece by Kuldip Nayar, who criticised Ashis Nandy’s views on secularism (<i>Outlook</i>, May 31, 2004). Nandy’s reply, “a Billion Gandhis” (June 21, 2004), restated his critique of secularism as “a dry import” from the West unable to find roots in the Indian soil. This in its turn lead to a vitriolic reaction by the historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam (July 5, 2004). The latter accused Nandy of being ignorant of European history. The word “secularism,” Subrahmanyam suggested, has never been all that important in western politics. It has acquired “a deep meaning and significance” in India, which it never had in Europe. Therefore, it is ridiculous to call secularism an imported idea. Nandy, he concluded, keeps on repeating his views only because he is “profoundly ill informed” about the history of concepts. Neither the derogatory language used by Subrahmanyam nor his impressive career in the European academia should blind us to his own lack of understanding of the western history of ideas. Unlike what he thinks, the main problem in the Indian secularism debate does not lie in the fact that a thinker like Nandy has not studied European history. Rather, it is rooted in the way Indian scholars have blindly adopted the <i>self image of the Europeans</i>.

To deny that secularism is an export from the West to India, one cannot simply repeat the old story about the British thinkers who coined the term in the nineteenth century, and the way its meaning changed in India. Secularism is not just a word; it is <i>an idea</i>. As an idea it has a long history going back to medieval times, but it is as alive as ever in the nation-states of the contemporary West. European intellectuals and politicians may prefer to use terms such as “toleration,” “state neutrality”, <i>“laïcité”</i>, <i>“de lekenstaat”</i>, or <i>“Toleranz.”</i> However, like “secularism,” these terms refer to a number of norms and values regarding the way a plural society and its state should be organised. The basic idea is that the state and its laws ought not to mingle with the realm of religion. The state should be secular, that is, its laws cannot be based in one or another religion. Today, this idea is presented as the one rational and democratic ideal for all human societies. Like liberal democracy, the secular humanists believe, this political salvation for the humankind should be exported to India and other plural countries.

Fortunately, we have independent thinkers like Ashis Nandy, who challenge the universal value of this idea. He suggests we would better look into the traditional ways of living together on the subcontinent, before we impose the barren idea of secularism on the cities and villages of India. And a barren idea it is. How and why it is so will not become clear by studying European history through the standard framework developed by the western intellectuals. This might make for Indian academics who share the assumptions, the vocabulary, and the pretences of their colleagues at Oxford or Harvard. But it does not produce significant insights into the encounter between India and the West.

The idea of secularism or toleration has become as barren as it is today, because it has been detached from the religious background that made it significant and fruitful. In order to get a grasp on its history, we first have to understand the Christian theological framework from which it emerged. Early in the history of Christianity, the belief became dominant that the human world is split into two different realms. On the one hand, there is the spiritual realm. Each human individual has a soul, Christian doctrine claimed, and this soul should become as spiritual as possible. That is, it should turn away from “the carnal world” in which we live and towards “the spiritual world” of God. In this eternal spiritual realm, the Holy Spirit operated and it regenerated the human soul so as to convert it to Christ. This realm was opposed to the temporal carnal realm. Each individual also consisted of a body – “the sinful flesh,” as Christian thinkers liked to call it. This sinful body lives here on earth in the temporal carnal realm, which is ruled by Satan – “the lord of this world.” From Augustine to Aquinas, all of the dominant political thought in Christian Europe took this two-fold division of human society as its starting-point.

Then happened the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century – a cultural revolution that shaped the modern western culture. Its reform was also based in the opposition between the spiritual (or religious) world and the temporal (or secular) world. But it changed the relationship between the two worlds dramatically. Whereas the spiritual and the temporal had been equated with the clergy and the laity in the medieval Church, the Protestants claimed there was no such hierarchical division of humanity. There could not be a spiritual estate of priests as opposed to a temporal estate of laymen. All human beings lived in these two worlds at the same time. And all human souls should be left free to be regenerated by the Spirit of God. This gave rise to the entrenched normative belief that <i>the state and its laws ought not to intrude upon religion.</i> The Protestant thinkers asserted that one human being could not compel others as to what to believe and how to worship God, since “God alone was the Lord of our souls.” In theological terms, they said the following: (a) all human beings live in two spheres, the spiritual (or religious) and the temporal (or secular); (b) in the religious sphere, they strive for the salvation of their souls, and this is a purely individual affair over which God alone has authority; ( c) in the secular sphere, they are bodies who pursue the preservation of their earthly interests, and here they should always obey the laws of the secular authorities. This was the Protestant theological framework within which thinkers like John Locke and Pierre Bayle elaborated their theories of toleration and liberty of conscience. The same religious motivation brought Thomas Jefferson to the famous claim that there should be “a wall of separation” between church and state. As he wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, dated January 1, 1802:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This Protestant doctrine remains the implicit background of the contemporary political theories of liberal toleration in the West. The idea of secularism or toleration is dependent on a number of deep-seated Christian assumptions concerning the nature and the aim of the human life. It takes the conceptual schemes of Christian theology – more specifically, its division of the world into a spiritual religious sphere and a temporal political sphere – as though these correspond to the universal structure of human societies. Moreover, secularism suggests that plural societies will fall apart, if they fail to adopt the Protestant norm of separation of the religious and the political.

Naturally, this does not fit in with the story mainstream scholars like to tell about European history. This is the case, because they have accepted the West’s self-understanding – in which it is supposed to have released itself from Christian religious dogma at the time of the Enlightenment. This story is part of the mythology built by the western culture to claim for itself a grandiose place in human history. Earlier, it was the religion of Christianity that was to grant spiritual salvation to all peoples crowding the earth. Nowadays, it is the “secular” modernity of the West, which should bring political salvation to all cultures and societies. In between, the main change has been the shift from an explicitly religious language to a new “secular” vocabulary, which also claims to be “universal” and “rational” (this point is argued extensively by S.N. Balagangadhara in his <i>“The Heathen in His Blindness …”: Asia, the West, and the Dynamic of Religion</i> (E.J. Brill, 1994); a new edition by Manohar Publishers will be available later this year).

2. Secularism and the Colonial Project

If the history of ideas proves that secularism is a Christian idea, why then have so many Indian intellectuals appropriated it as the norm to be attained by the Indian state and its citizens? This question becomes all the more pertinent once we are aware of the many theoretical shortcomings of the concept of secularism. For instance, as I have argued elsewhere, we do not possess a scientific framework today that allows us to distinguish the religious from the secular or the political. We do not even have a clue as to what makes the Hindu traditions into religion. All we have is vague and useless definitions of the word “religion,” which do not offer us any understanding of the phenomenon of religion. Still, we keep on saying that “the religious” should be separated from “the political” or that the state ought to be “secular” and not “religious” as though it were eminently clear what distinguished these spheres. Without providing any convincing argument, the secularists never cease to preach that “secularism should be revived in India” (see my “The Vacuity of Secularism,” in the Economic and Political Weekly, September 28, 2002, pp. 4047-4053).

The danger is that this critique of secularism is mistaken for a justification of “the Hindu religious state” in India. But this is not at all implied by my argument. Rather, the suggestion is that the conceptual distinction between “the religious” and “the secular” does not help us to understand Indian society and that the norm of secularism does not help us to alleviate the inter-community tensions of this society. Still, a bizarre but often-heard reply suggests that this is equivalent to rooting for a Hindu state. In other words, the secularists assume that any deviation from – or opposition to – secularism amounts to “religious fundamentalism.” To understand where this comes from, we have to reveal the role played by the idea of secularism in the colonial educational project.

During its “golden age” in the nineteenth century, western colonialism presented itself as an educational project, which claimed to bring native societies to the developmental stage of the modern West and its “scientific values.” Colonial education intended to reveal to the colonised how backward they actually were. It either assumed implicitly or claimed explicitly that the practices, stories and traditions of the indigenous cultures had to be replaced by the law and order of western civilization. As S.N. Balagangadhara shows in a forthcoming article (“Colonialism, Colonial Consciousness, and Political Theory”), this stance makes colonialism into an immoral phenomenon. This is the case because of the following reasons: (a) Like all educational projects, colonialism tries to transform the experience of the colonised. It does so by replacing the cultural experience of the colonised with western colonial descriptions of his or her own culture and of the West. (b) But, the latter accounts have never been proven to be cognitively superior to the indigenous accounts. Instead, the colonial descriptions presuppose the superiority of the western culture and from this they conclude that the colonised culture must be inferior to that of the West. ( c) The consequence is that fallacious colonial accounts, which beg the question as to the superiority of the West, are imposed on the colonised. As these accounts are not cognitively superior to those of the colonised, the use of violence becomes inevitable in this process of indoctrination. The coloniser does not have cogent arguments, so he is forced to take recourse to other means. Therefore, colonialism <i>cannot be</i> an educational project, though it claims to be that. In reality, it consists of a vicious circle that takes the “modern western values” as the beginning and end of human civilization.

Balagangadhara’s account of the immorality of colonialism is well illustrated by the imposition of secularism on the Indian people. When the British missionaries, travellers and colonial administrators described Indian society, it was self-evident to them that this society was suffused by religion, albeit a false one. The “Hindoo religion” and, to a lesser extent, its “Mahometan” rival were said to determine every sphere of life and action. In India, no distinction was made between the political and the religious, so the colonials asserted: in fact, religion was consistently abused for political ends and the state took the form of a pernicious theocracy. Naturally, this description was implicitly opposed to the modern West. In the European self-image, the Reformation and the Enlightenment had demonstrated that toleration and the separation of church and state were the necessary conditions of civilized coexistence among religious groups. This self-image also shaped the image of India: if the political was not separated from the religious here, destructive conflict would inevitably erupt between the Hindus and the Muslims. Obviously, the Europeans thought, the Indians could not attain this insight by themselves. Colonial schooling had to educate them in the virtues of modern secularism. The Indian elite – created by this educational system – adopted the view of India as a caste-ridden society living under the tyranny of religion. It embraced the colonial description, which was founded on the presupposition of the superiority of the western civilization. The results were a Raja Rammohan Roy in the nineteenth century and a Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in the twentieth.

A few steps can be discerned in the process of intellectual colonisation that shaped these “makers of modern India.” Firstly, the Indian elite accepted the terms of description of the western colonials as though these were scientific. This could happen because the colonial educational system put these fallacious descriptions of caste and religion in India at par with the accounts of Newtonian physics and other scientific theories. Thus, the elite began to conceptualise Indian society in terms of the division between “the religious” and “the secular” (or “the political”), even though this conceptual distinction was rooted in Christian dogma. Secondly, the conception of the subcontinent as an inferior civilization brought about the conviction that India should become like Europe. In the present case, this meant that the state ought to steer clear from “the Hindu religion,” just as church and state had been separated in Europe. Politics ought to be based in “modern secular values,” that is, in the norms of nineteenth- and twentieth-century western Christendom. The third step made this normative order into the one viable alternative to inter-community conflict. Without these values, the story went, India would eventually be reduced to chaos and violence. The language of secularism became the only vocabulary in which a stable and harmonious plural society could be imagined. In other words, peace and order in society were conflated with a particular normative description of the way in which “India ought to be secular.” The final step caused a similar change in the identification of the problems and tensions of Indian society. The colonial descriptions of the inferiority of India became the standard textbook stories on this “backward, caste-ridden and fossilised civilization, permeated by irrational religion and blind ritual.” Again, this specific description was equated with the very structure of Indian society and its problems.

The outcome of this process is the dead end we have reached today. The current tensions in the fabric of Indian society can be conceptualised in one way alone, it seems: these are “the predicaments of caste, communalism, and religious conflict.” Thus, a particular description of certain phenomena continues to be conflated with these phenomena themselves (<i>viz</i>., the tensions among different communities in India). The distinction is ignored between a description and the phenomena it describes. When such constraints are put on the identification of a problem, these will also operate on the solutions that are developed. As a consequence, according to this view, the one supreme virtue India needs today is secularism. As Salman Rushdie once put it: “Secularism, for India, is not simply a point of view, it is a question of survival.” This value is seen as the safeguard of peace, order and sanity in society. In the absence of secularism, India is bound to fall apart, so our colonial intuition tells us. Therefore, this point of view transforms any critic of the idea of secularism into a proponent of communalism, fundamentalism, theocracy, caste, inequality, and other evils.

3. Ways of Living Together

The time has come to move beyond the constraints of this colonial stance. India does not need secularism for its survival. Hindus, Muslims, Christians and several other groups were quite successful at living together in relative peace for a long period of time in India. This plural society did not fall apart. Yet, it had never even heard of “secularism” or “toleration.” Therefore, the task ahead is to examine the ways of living together as they have emerged in various regions of India. In what remains, I will briefly consider two strategies that have been dominant in the search for alternatives to the modern western value of secularism. These strategies, I think, have had a harmful impact on this quest.

The first is the anti-modern and anti-scientific stance we find among some Gandhians, including Nandy. Considering what has happened to the world after the rise of industrialism, capitalism and modern technology in the West, this negative attitude towards science and technology is understandable. The problem, however, is that it takes a particular conception of science, its role in society and its value to humanity as though this is the only way to think about science. It confuses science with the western story on “modern scientific values.” However, one does not have to accept the latter story in order to appreciate and adopt the cognitive criteria developed by the natural sciences in the last few centuries. Science has given us the heuristics to attain reliable theoretical knowledge about the world. These heuristics and criteria of scientific knowledge cannot be thrown overboard in the search for alternatives to secularism. Rather, our hypotheses and theories on the traditional ways of living together in Indian society will be most fruitful when they share the characteristic features of any scientific hypothesis: refutable, refinable, coherent, and internally consistent. In the same way as the richest natural-scientific theories we possess today, they should have empirical consequences, strive for clarity of terms and identify the structures and mechanisms behind the phenomena. In this manner, our alternative theories of pluralism and co-existence among various religious and cultural groups will be able to outshine the normative dogmas of secularism.

The second strategy takes recourse to the widespread belief that the Indian traditions have their own doctrine of “Hindu secularism” or “Hindu tolerance,” which surpasses that of western secularism. Both the proponents of <i>Hindutva</i> and many Gandhians claim that the innate belief in the <i>equality of all religions</i> has allowed all kinds of religious traditions to co-exist peacefully in the past, and that it will continue to do so in the future. This claim is easily refuted. The belief that all religions are equal <i>cannot possibly</i> be accepted by Muslim and Christian believers. The very foundation of Islam and Christianity suggests that these religions are the unique revelation of God – the Creator and Sovereign of the universe. Therefore, they have to distinguish between themselves as the true religion and all others as false religions. All religions cannot be equal, according to the religions of Muslims and Christians. Nevertheless, in past centuries, various communities of these two religions were part of the relatively peaceful and harmonious co-existence of Indian society. They lived side by side with Vaishnava, Jaina, Virashaiva, Buddhist and other groups, while they ceased to take part in systematic persecution, religious violence and aggressive proselytisation. This cannot be explained in terms of a shared belief in the equality of all religions. Therefore, this story on the doctrine of “Hindu tolerance” does not help us to understand the Indian mode of pluralism.

How, then, could we go about examining the ways of living together of the Indian culture? Let us have a closer look at these phenomenona. On the one hand, we have the “internal” pluralism of the Hindu traditions. Although there were clashes among these traditions, these never developed into the systematic persecution of some particular tradition or the other. Alongside these clashes, there was a tendency in each of these traditions to absorb or adopt elements from the other traditions. On the other hand, we have the interaction among these Hindu traditions and the religions of Islam and Christianity, which reveals the same kind of pattern. Again there were violent clashes, but Muslims and Christians were not assaulted or persecuted because of their religious beliefs or their worship of Allah/God. On the contrary, the Hindu traditions had no qualms about the adoption of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, or the prophet Mohammed as avatars. They would even include these new characters in their puja’s. Hindus joined Muslims in showing reverence at the <i>dargahs</i> of the Sufi <i>pirs</i>, or in the celebration of <i>Muharram</i>. Moreover, the initial intolerance of the Muslim invaders and Christian converts towards the “idolatry” of the Hindus soon disappeared from local Islamic and Christian traditions. Indian Muslims and Christians participated in Hindu festivals and revered some of the Hindu gods. They made contributions to traditions of Hindu literature, music, and painting – often adding Islamic or Christian elements. Importantly, the proselytising drive of both Islam and Christianity was tempered to a large extent in their local manifestations on the Indian subcontinent.

The current explanations of these phenomena share a basic assumption: there must be a common framework – a shared set of values – which allowed these diverse groups to live together. To grant plausibility to this background assumption, one would have to identify this constitutive set of values shared by the different communities. The single candidate today is the account of Hindu tolerance, which says that these communities were able to live together because they all accepted the equality of religions. We have already confronted one flaw in this account. Another flaw concerns the Hindu traditions themselves: it is often pointed out that one cannot identify any one belief, doctrine, or principle on which they all agree. Still, if one explains the fact that these traditions did not persecute each other or Islam and Christianity in terms of a common principle of Hindu tolerance, one will have to show that they all shared this principle. But there is no proof for the claim that all of these traditions endorsed some orthodox Hindu belief that “all religions are equal” or that “the truth is one but can have plural manifestations,” besides the fact that they did not engage in systematic persecution. It seems that this explanation presupposes that there must be a common principle of tolerance, which has enabled the different traditions to live together. Consequently, one looks for such a principle in the “sacred texts of Hinduism,” and one finds it in the Sanskrit aphorism <i>“Ekam Satya, Viprah Bahudah Vadanti”</i> from the <i>Rig-Veda</i>, which is presented as the basic doctrine of Hindu tolerance.

Could there have been another framework of values that was shared by the various communities – which we are yet to discover? This is unlikely. It would have to be an extremely complex system of values not only to allow co-existence, but also to cause the different communities to absorb elements and attitudes from each other’s traditions, and to participate in each other’s practices. The question then is what has enabled the various Hindu traditions to co-exist with each other, and with others? What explains the peculiar interplay of vigorous clashes and mutual exchanges among these traditions? How come the local Islamic and Christian traditions interacted with the Hindu traditions in a similar way? At the Research Centre <i>Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap</i> at Ghent University, we are currently examining an alternate route to answer these fascinating questions. The route suggests that different communities were able to build a reasonably stable and harmonious society, not because they agreed on a common framework, but because they developed a specific way of going about with each other. This plural Indian society did and does not revolve around a shared belief in some set of values or in the norm of secularism – rather it hinges on a set of practices and attitudes that has allowed the various communities to live together. Our future work will analyse the mechanisms of these ways of going about.

Let me end by paying tribute to the main partisan of anti-secularism in India, Ashis Nandy. As he once pointed out in a pithy metaphor, secularism limits the options of humankind dramatically: it is either Coca-Cola or Ayathollah Khomeini. Though this may be a hyperbole, the image illustrates the constraints the story of “modern secularism” has imposed on our thinking about the problems of pluralism in India. Either secularism or violence. We should heed the insight of Nandy’s anti-secularist manifestos: chaos and violence will not erupt when we leave behind the barren idea of secularism. It is a pity this proposition can still lead to bitter retorts like that of Subrahmanyam. Naturally, as the historian points out, one should practice what one preaches in this matter and truly examine the nature and the history of Indian pluralism. To do so, however, a climate needs to be created that stimulates and sustains such research projects. Rather than singing the mantras of secularism, the academic world should provide a fertile soil for innovative research into the co-existence of communities in India. In more general terms, we are confronting a fundamental question: What direction should the Indian social sciences take today? Should they continue to gather empirical details that merely serve to sustain the intellectual colonialism of the West? Or should they move into exciting new fields where our current understanding of human beings and societies may be turned upside down?

This is a recent book sold in Amazon, showing the latest DNA research
Some clear points in this book
So such thing as Aryan Invasion of India
Next ALL non-African humans resided in India from 85k to 60k years ago
The root DNA for all non-africans is in India

The Real Eve : Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa (Paperback)
by Stephen Oppenheimer
<img src='http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0786713348.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

India has a rich literary bhakti and devotional heritage. In this thread I would like to collect all Bhakti and devotional songs/poems/stories/etc that are devotional in nature. In particular it would be cool if we can have various regional language things (along with english translations) posted on this thread. I will post a few bhakti songs from Narasinh Mehta, a gujju bhakti icon over the next few days. His krishna bhakti songs are just awesome.

I may have posted this before. I am looking for feedback on these principles. we are looking for overarching principles and not those which lack generality in their scope. This can be merged with the history thread after a couple of weeks

<b>What should be the principles on which a History of India be based</b>?



There is no single answer to this question. But some ideas for such a historiography suggest themselves.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Primary among such considerations is the notion that the Indic civilization not unlike other civilizations characterized by longevity, was a substantial net exporter of ideas and values in addition to being a recipient of ideas originating elsewhere. Cultural influences should be regarded as the result of a complex interplay of ideas, languages and religions. For example, instead of concentrating on migrations to India, one can ask how the Indo-European languages spread over such a vast area of Europe and Asia with a common substratum of words. Could it have been the result of significant commerce and/or academic exchanges, such as occurs today?</span> It is important to remind oneself that unlike the India of the 19th century, the Ancients of the Indian subcontinent were in the top rungs of the Maslow hierarchy of needs, and had the time and inclination to pursue what they believed to be essential ontological issues in relation to the human species. It is conceivable therefore that such academic exchange was more than likely over vast regions even considering the more primitive modes of travel prevalent during that period. It can therefore be postulated with a fair degree of credibility, that Indian academics of antiquity played the same role that the Anglo Saxon academics play in the world today. After all, Adi Sankara was able to traverse the entire subcontinent more than once on foot without much difficulty or absence of safety to his person.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Another principle in developing a historical narrative for India that suggests itself is the notion that Indian History should not be subject to reductionist arguments and be boxed in or essentialized into a watertight compartment such as South or South East Asia. India has much in common with various disparate cultures and is in fact the quintessential melting pot of cultures, and the Indic civilization is one with a Universal Weltanschauung. </span>The reason that Indic philosophies have appeal is because of the Universalist principles on which they are based and the resort to ontological arguments. It is in this context that Indians find exhortations to secularism to be particularly incongruous. The secularist imperative of Indian society is merely a subset of ontological principles celebrating the universality of the human spirit. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The Indic civilization has always welcomed a catholicity of views and ideologies as alternate paths suitable for human beings at different stages of their development. Reminding the Indian to be secular is as redundant as reminding the Chinese to revere their ancestors.</span>
Grammar School education in India in general and the teaching of History in particular must be undertaken with a great degree of deliberation and seriousness, comparable to that which is done in most European countries. A history of an entire nation should never be relegated for the most part to the subjects of another power or nation, much less a colonial power. In developing a curriculum for History education in India, we must be far more accepting of our oral tradition of transmitting knowledge which predates the development of scripts by several millennia

Last but not least the Indian must once again be encouraged to have pride in his/her historical tradition, regardless of religious affiliation. The current practice where all activities remotely considered nationalistic are immediately ridiculed, as jingoism is a practice that appears peculiarly Indian. Under no circumstances should the modern Indian let the History of India be driven and directed by a small group of people alien to the traditions of the subcontinent and who are accountable to no one in the subcontinent.

<span style='color:red'>Again the point here is not to concoct a history that speaks only in glowing terms of the past accomplishments of India while ignoring the inevitable blemishes which certainly India was not immune to. The purpose is to avoid broad generalizations and to accept as fact, events in history without any evidence whatsoever that they occurred and merely because it was asserted by a European.</span>










I would like us to identify the core values of the Indian people that distinguish them for the other people in this globalized new age. In other words what constitutes Indian identity?

Once the core values are identified which of them should be preserved and which can be altered. This set can form the basis for defining the national interests.
Please no polemics.

<b>Calling Hindu Leaders & Followers</b>
<i>Veera Vaishnva
Veera_Vishnu@rediffmail.com</i>

<i>Leadership is not magnetic personality—that can just as well be a glib tongue. It is not "making friends and influencing people"—that is flattery. Leadership is lifting a person's vision to higher sights, the raising of a person's performance to a higher standard, the building of a personality beyond its normal limitations.</i> - Peter F. Drucker

<b>Introduction</b>

Hindu organizations all over the globe are suffering leadership crisis. Since the purported goal of all these activists is the reform and betterment of Hindu society, it is safe to assume and aver that Hindu society suffers from leadership crisis. With the crisis either acknowledged or not, by astute observers and established leaders, the question becomes for us, how do we curb the current crisis of leadership? Perhaps the answer is found in returning to the basics of leadership. The current crisis stems from faulty leadership discovery and complete absence of leadership development. There is also another underlying reason for the current crisis of leadership: selfish leadership and exploitation of their followers‘ sentiments. In this article, a gentle hindu reader is given tips on how to avoid a leader or even become a better leader, and exhorted to increase emotional intelligence to wise up to emotional exploiters‘ words/promises.

<b>Leaders (Political & Spiritual)</b>

Among the Hindus, who are not ashamed to call themselves hindus do acknowledge the need for a change or reform in the society, organizations and leaders - the results of which would - at least the hope - be better security and freedom for Hindus all over the globe. Hindu organizations have been oscillating between two extremes - Strategic planning initiates and “call to arms” (literal or figurative) approach. There are two common observations to both that sticks out like a sore thumb

• Commitment to an idea is far different from knowing how and when to take an action to transform a thought into action and set a path for it.
  
• Ad-hocism and Selfish leadership

• Absence of humility: Displays Arrogance by becoming puffed up with their own importance, exaggerating their worth to the organization.
• Lack of concern for greater good: Promotes self-interest by exploiting the organization for own purpose and focusing on "What's in it for me?" when considering actions.
• Practices deception by making untrue statements, taking credit for the work of others, and using misleading facts to defend positions.
• Breaches Agreements by delivering promises late, or failing to follow an agreed upon actions.
• Deals Unfairly by making judgments without researching facts, discriminating in promotion of own ideas and of a favored few.
• Shifts Blame by declining to acknowledge personal responsibility, falsely accusing others, and denigrating the reputation of colleagues.
• Diminishes dignity by withholding recognition, declining to invite or accept input, exhibiting discourteous and impolite behavior.
• Leaving followers worse off than they found them.
• Consciously feeding the followers illusions that solidifies the leader’s power and impair the followers’ capacity to act independently
• Playing to the base fears of and needs of the followers.
• Retains envy by begrudging others success, and Competing at every opportunity.
• Neglects followers’ development. Failure to nurture other leaders and clinging on to power and position.
• Avoids Risks by refusing to confront unjust actions, or declining to stand up for principle.
• Holds Grudges by failing to let go of hard feelings, and finding ways to get even.
• Declines to Extend Self by withholding help and assistance in times that matter, and being ungenerous in rewards.

• For Security and Certainty impelling followers to surrender freedom
• To feel chosen or special

• Don’t grudgingly, mindlessly follow and obey a manipulative, scheming survivor who abandoned all the values and promises of hindu betterment, passing off as a leader
• Don’t hesitate to put the leaders feet to the fire and constantly encourage others with character among you who has the leadership potential
• Take responsibility. It is not just the leader who fails you, you are failing yourself.
• Set concrete goals - if the leader is incapable of or dilly dallies - for hindu betterment and make sure the leader acts on them.
• Challenge your leader (including Swamis) with specifics and threaten with non-compliance after verifying the accuracy of all the claims the leaders make. Make your leaders accountable.
• Hindus’ downfall is because of the erosion of martial spirit, thanks to Buddhism
• Treacherous fellow hindus within, including Marxists (who pass off as hindus when convenient).
• Indifference to sufferings of fellow hindus - remember our history is replete with such incidents.
• Let go of blind faith and develop critical thinking skills. Remember Somnath temple destruction and hindus waiting for Sun god (??) to come protect them? [???]
• You get the drift…… <b>And</b>
• Finally, avoid watching Bollywood’s nonsensical maudlin tripe which turns ones brain into a Jell-O and kills any emotional intelligence development, objectivity, rational thinking.

For me in fact it is clear that Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in stopping the migration of Indians to Surinam en Guyana. This happened between the year 1930 en 1940.

Many HIndus in Surinam and Guyana celebrate the death of Ghandi and they think that he was a great leader, but they do not realize that Ghandi destroyed their future and ended the colonisation of these fresh breeding grounds for strong Hindus.

Nowaday HIndus are a suppressed minority in these countries and must bow everyday for the blacks, who have the political and military power.

I beg all one billion Indians to help us with all these problems. I will publish some articles about the HIndus in the Netherlands also, very soon.

this is my first posting on the india forum.
I find this forum one of the best on the whole billion pages web. We HIndus know what quality means. I will ask my dutch friends to translate some articles to dutch, especially those about the muslim whomp bomb.

Dewanand
Hindu writer of the Netherlands
waldo@wanadoo.nl

<b><span style='color:red'>The Societal Stockholm syndrome and Terrorism in the Indian context</b></span>

<i>" It is this gradual and participatory restoration of faith in the institutions of governance that is the most important task in the reconstruction of a society ravaged by terror."</i>
- KPS Gill in "Freedom from Fear"

<i>"India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all." </i>
- Will Durant

<b>by Kaushal Vepa PhD</b>

<i><b>Introduction</b></i>

In the last few decades we have become accustomed to seeing certain peculiar modes of behavior in India, unique only to the subcontinent. For example there is a tendency to be too quick to rationalize the behavior of terrorists and find all manner of excuses to justify their behavior. Furthermore there is great reluctance to call a terrorist a terrorist. In fact the word is almost taboo in the English language press in India, which prefers to use the more innocuous term 'militant' to describe the behavior of these demented individuals who rarely balk at committing heinous acts such as the killing of women and children.



Such behavior extends to remarks about India's main adversary in the world, namely Pakistan. The refrain is always that India should make concessions to Pakistan and not vice versa. There are all kinds of analysis done to explain away the behavior of terrorists. This behavior extends to incidents such as Godhara, where a Muslim mob of several hundred men set fire to several bogies of an Indian train and burnt alive at least 50 people most of whom were women and children. The aftermath of this was there were riots in major towns in Gujarat resulting in the death of about 1000 people (including over 150 policemen. It is commonly acknowledged that 20% of those killed in the aftermath of Godhara were Hindus, unlike Godhara itself where not a single Muslim was killed and the perpetrators of the crime were almost exclusively Muslim. The point is that none of these facts are ever brought out. In fact more than likely there is usually little or no mention of Godhara as the triggering incident and the resulting aftermath is usually always referred to as a Pogrom. This revisionist story is peddled mostly by the dominant English language press which rarely has a harsh word to say against any terrorist, particularly if the victims are Hindu. Any statements made in support of the then prevailing governing dispensation are dismissed as examples of jingoism, a word that has ubiquitous usage in India.



I have termed these behaviors, manifestations of a common malady called the Societal Stockholm Syndrome. I cannot claim originality in coining this phrase which is an extension of a much more commonly used term , namely the Stockholm syndrome and has been used to designate maladies exhibited by some individuals on a more global scale than the behavior exhibited by individuals in certain common place situations. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. What is this Stockholm syndrome and more to the point what is the variant we are terming the Societal Stockholm Syndrome and why should we as Indians care about this Stockholm syndrome.



<i><b>The Stockholm Syndrome</b></i>


The Stockholm syndrome is a term used to denote the behavior a small group of 3 women and one man who were kidnapped in a bank in Stockholm, Sweden on August 23, 1973 and held hostage by 2 kidnappers who happened to be ex-convicts<span style='color:blue'>[1]</span>. There was an explicit threat that the hostages would be put to death instantly should there be no payment of ransom. There was also kindness shown by the captors towards their prisoners. The astonishing behavior of the hostages started almost immediately after the kidnapping. For starters, the hostages were none too keen to be rescued from their hostages after an initial period of 2 or 3 days. Even after their release, the hostages strongly resisted attempts by the government to prosecute the kidnappers. Several months after their release the hostage continued to harbor warm feelings towards their kidnappers who had quite unambiguously threatened to take their lives<span style='color:blue'>[2]</span>.



After the initial reaction to such behavior, journalists and social scientists started questioning whether this behavior was far more universal than was suspected. The question was whether the emotional bonding between the captors and the captives was a freak incident or was it a manifestation of a much broader phenomenon that occurred in oppressive situations. Lo and behold, they discovered that the phenomenon occurred in disparate situations whose main common denominator was that there be an oppressive element inherent in the situation. The term Stockholm syndrome was used to describe this family of situations. It was realized that the situation occurred in a variety of circumstances such as concentration camp prisoners, cult members, civilians in Communist Chinese prisons, pimp procured prostitutes, incest victims, physically and or emotionally abused children, battered women prisoners, victims of hijacking, and of course hostages<span style='color:blue'>[3]</span>.



What then are the conditions that are conducive to the development of the Stockholm syndrome? These are listed below

• Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on that threat
• The captive's perception of small kindnesses within the overall context of terror
• Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor
• Perceived inability to escape

• 1. http://www.agr-s.com/html_reports/fieldreport0015a.htm
• 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrmalmstorg_robbery
  ” The most widely publicized myth about the robbery, or rather about the Stockholm syndrome, was that one or both robbers became engaged to their captives. This is simply not true, and may stem from the language barrier: the phrase "engagera sig i någon" in Swedish, does not mean "to become engaged to someone", but rather "to care deeply about someone" (this sort of resemblance between two words in different languages that are not synonyms is known as a false friend).
  
  As stated above, Kristin Ehnemark and Clark Olofsson became friends, and Jan Olsson married one of his female admirers, but there were no engagements between anyone present during the events.
• 3. http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/ar...k/20062000.html
• 4. http://www.hermenaut.com/a175.shtml
  ” Shortly after we announced what the theme of this issue would be, the New York Times reported that the hijacker of an Indian Airlines jet "had his hostages joining in for singing games and joke-athons. The grown-ups listened to him recite Urdu poetry. The children called him uncle. And a newlywed wife who had a birthday in captivity was grateful when he bought a shawl from a Nepali hostage who dealt in them and presented it to her."
• 5. http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html
• 6. http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/stockholm.html - The Stockholm syndrome in the Israeli context
• 7. http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/te...c01Pio.htm
• 8. http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Islamic...on-of-India.htm - The Islamic Invasion of India
• 9. http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/article....asp?cid=305792
• 10. http://sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=271421
  On Colonial Experience and the Indian Renaissance: A Prolegomenon to a Project by S. N. Balagangadhara
  Published on Sunday, December 1, 2002
• 11. http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/colum...cid=305924
  Washington Post and Hinduphobia by Rajiv Malhotra
  Published on Tuesday, April 20, 2004
• 12. http://www.psychnet-uk.com/social_psycholo..._psychology.htm
  - some links to resources in the area of Social Psychology

<b>Is capital punishment class-specific?</b>

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...812750.cms

NEW DELHI: Is the controversy over death sentence linked to class bias? Many might think so after going through the background of those who were ordered to be hanged by different courts.

The case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, a former security guard of a Kolkata apartment complex, the latest to be on the death row, has a lot in common with others sentenced to death for committing the "rarest of rare crimes".

Om Prakash, who killed all four members of his employer Brigadier S Khanna's family, was ordered to be hanged. "He who meticulously planned the murder is liable to death sentence," said the court while ordering the extreme penalty for Om Prakash.

<!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo--> One Kheraj Ram also met with the same fate for killing his wife, his son and brother-in-law in a Rajasthan village.

<!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> The apex court also upheld the extreme penalty given to one Prakash Dhawal who had killed his mother, brother and his wife and three children in a Maharashtra village.

<!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> But in 1995, the apex court saved a death convict, who had raped and murdered a two-year-old girl, from the gallows by commuting the capital punishment to a life term sentence. <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->

"Humanist approach should be taken," said the court while giving reprieve to accused Mohammad Chaman.

Though the gravity of offence and the diabolic manner in which it was executed could be crucial factors to determine the quantum of sentence, former Supreme Court Chief Justice P N Bhagwati had declared the extreme penalty as unconstitutional for it was arbitrary and had a "class bias".

Though four other judges - the then Chief Justice Y V Chandrachud, Justices N L Unthawalia, R S Sarkaria and A C Gupta (all retired) - unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the death sentence, Justice Bhagwati dissented from them.

"There is also one other characteristic of death penalty that is revealed by a study of the decided cases and it is that death sentence has a certain class complexion or class bias inasmuch as it is largely the poor and the down-trodden who are victims of this extreme penalty," Justice Bhagwati said in his verdict on August 16, 1982.

He elaborated to substantiate his charge. "We would hardly find a rich or affluent person going to the gallows."

Capital punishment, as pointed out by Warden Duffy is 'a privilege of the poor', he said.