GOETHALS NEWS

 

The Goethals Indian Library and Research Society

 

Vol. X       No. 1                                         Bulletin                               January – March  2007

 

 

LIFE IS A GIFT

 

Can we teach that killing is wrong by killing? Should we kill to show that we are against killing? Can we defend life by taking life?

 

God created human person in His own image (Gen. 1:27). Human person is manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of His glory. Human life is the greatest gift from Him. It is the basis of all goodness and grace, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society. We regard life as sacred and hold that no one may dispose of it at will. We see in life something greater, namely a gift of love, which we are called upon to preserve and make fruitful.

 

This is what St. Irenaeus of Lyons wanted to emphasize in his celebrated definition: “ Man, living man, is the glory of God. He has been given a sublime dignity, based on the intimate bond, which unites him to his creator. In man there shines forth a reflection of God himself…The life which God offers to man is a gift by which God shares something of himself with his creature”.

 

The essence and depth of life are best understood the more one sees the three words, “God”, “Love” and “Life” as synonyms. They are multi-faceted synonyms, and bear multi-faceted distinctions. But to find one’s way through the challenges of this brief earthly life, one must come to terms with the fact that to touch life is to touch God, and therefore the only way to touch human life is with love.

 

The death penalty used to be a universal practice. Most democracies in the world have abolished the capital punishment. As of December 2006, 86 countries no longer have the death penalty. This is an increase from 16 in 1977. Only three industrialized democracies still execute people: Japan, South Korea, and some states in the U.S.

 

In India, the death penalty is legal and hanging usually carries it out. Russia and many more countries retain capital punishment statutes on their books, but have not executed criminals in many years. Kenya, for example, executed its last prisoner on death row in 1984, Russia in 1996.

 

 

Capital punishment remains a controversial method of punishment. Debates over the merits of this method still go on. There are 7 main method of execution used worldwide: Hanging, Electric chair, Firing squad, Gas chamber, Lethal injection, Guillotine and Stoning.

 

Many rightly consider capital punishment as cruel, uncivil and inhuman. It is ridiculous to follow an old principle of “an eye for an eye”, “a tooth for a tooth”. I am reminded of what Gandhiji once said, “An eye for an eye can make all blind”. India should seriously consider abolishing capital punishment.

I want to join Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and say: “I’ve come to believe the death penalty hurts all of us, not just the one being executed. It diminishes and contradicts our respect for all human life and dignity. ...I hope I will see the day when the nation I love no longer relies on violence to confront violence. I pray I will see the day when we have given up the illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing people."

Father Felix Raj, SJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just as no criminal has the right to kill, similarly, no authority should have the right to kill. The argument in terms of morality and justice cannot be used in either case! Right to life is too fundamental to be violated by anyone. And the authority of state, in the name of custodian of individual interests and right, cannot destroy one life to protect another. There can be various forms of punishment for even the most heinous crime but not capital punishment. 

Sweta Ghosh

 

Punishment should be constructive in nature. Capital punishment creates fear factor among candidates but it doesn’t help to build the character. It does not change the attitude and thought process of that candidate. Exceptions happen but normally its not constructive.

Madhu Agarwal

 

People who commit offences should definitely be punished but one doesn’t really have the right to take away life. Everyone should be given a chance to rectify himself or herself, no matter whatever be the offence. If he or she does not change, the state definitely has a right to take the ultimate step.

Koyel Ganguly

 

The objective of punishment is to make a person realize his wrong-doing and then a sense of remorse and an yearning of atonement dawns on the person. The concept of capital punishment defeats the objective mentioned above to the core.

Saswati Chaudhuri

 

I oppose capital punishment since it is an exposition of brutality to combat crime. This approach would ignite the flame of desperate attitude in individuals & spur rivalry to the worst. If some one believes that crime does not pay, then the state itself should not violate it because otherwise, good sense and self respect will never be cultivated in beings – leading us to the pool of bad blood.

Anindya Dey

 

It is necessary because certain actions can only be balanced by capital punishment. This will not stop or abolish crime but help to deter it and restore faith in social and natural justice. However, capital punishment ought to be carried out in a civilized and sober manner so that it does not reduce the punishers to the same brutal level as the convict. Saddam Hussein deserved execution for his crimes but the actual execution ought to have been less wild and barbarous, which would have impressed the world.

K K Sengupta

 

Capital Punishment is unethical, the state can impose any other form of punishment. We are not in a world of slavery to support capital punishment.

Samrat Ray

 

A lesson: good must prevail over evil.  ‘Killers must be killed’.

Be good to whom, “the worth the penny is what penny does”.

‘Gita’ speaks that the evils must be perished

Society is a cluster; cluster gets good with weeds plucked.

Subir Srimani

 

Killing a person does not necessarily put an end to the evil / harm done by the person’s previous actions. Reformation is the correct way to solve the problem. A repentant person is enough to prevent recurrence of crime. Even if the person is not repentant, there are other forms of exemplary punishment that may be administered. “Killing” may vindicate the oppressed, but that is possible through life-term imprisonment as well.

Partha Pratim Ghosh

 

The state has the power to give capital punishment, but the grounds on which capital punishments are given often not justifiable enough. The case of Saddam Hussain was a typically biased and partial decision of capital punishment. If the state prevents one from suicide, how can the same state take away one’s life.

Supratim Mukherjee

 

I am against capital punishment as because no one has the right to take someone’s life. Who is the state to decide who is to live and who is to die? This does not mean I support crime committed by the criminals. But other alternatives such as life time imprisonment must be imposed.

Srijan Acharya

 

It is necessary to have capital punishment so that the public know that they cannot take the life of anther person without their life being at stake. At the same time this should seldom be used. Such as life imprisonment with intense labour, etc. All things considered the state should have the power to take the life of someone who have taken others lives.

Anuj Kichlu

 

I am against capital punishment as the life of a person depends upon the almighty God  and this right should not be given to the state. As per my opinion Saddam Hussein should get the punishment of life time imprisonment instead of capital punishment.

Ashish Saraf

 

Life is sacred and no one has the right to take it away. And furthermore, it would be a “State- institutionalized” barbery- a continuation of the Law of Jungle. If violence is to be effaced, it must be effaced from heart, not by barbarousess.

Abhishek Mukherjee

 

The GILRS is grateful to Prof. Amitabha Ray, Soumana Ghosh, Saswati Chowdhury and Cheryl Francis for their valuable assistance in the sample survey and tabulation of data.

 

 

 

 

Reasons For ü      Death penalty regulates brutal acts ü      Maintains discipline ü      To set example for other people ü      It is justified and fair ü      Just form of retribution ü      Comparatively merciful ü      A remedy for psychic relief to victim’s family ü      It is a deterrent ü      The state instills a sense of confidence among people ü      By the highest penalty, we affirm the value of life ü      Ensures public safety.

 

 

Reasons Against   ü      It is brutal, uncivil, unusual and unnatural ü      We have no right to destroy what we can’t restore ü      All killing is wrong ü      Everyone should be given a chance to correct himself or herself ü      Crime should be erased first, not criminals ü      It is against humanity ü      The family of the prisoner is also shattered and left miserable. ü      Causes mental anguish before executions ü      It is not a deterrent ü      Lowers the value of human life ü      The costs to the state will be more than the cost for life imprisonment ü      There is a chance of error. Criminals may be found innocent later ü      It achieves nothing but death of another person

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

 By Fr. L. Abello, SJ

a) Definition of Capital Punishment

     Besides abortion and euthanasia, another form of “legalized” killing of human beings is capital punishment.  It is defined as ‘the direct killing of someone who, virtually always, has been convicted of a crime by the state authority that orders the execution as per the provision of a law allowing capital punishment, and who is always under arrest when he is killed’. 

 

     Capital punishment is necessarily direct killing because it is always a means to an end, i.e., unlike indirect (collateral) killing that is not a means to an end.  

 

     The definition states that capital punishment is the direct killing ‘of someone who, virtually always, has been convicted of a crime by the state authority that orders the execution as per the provision of a law allowing capital punishment’.  This clause distinguishes the death penalty from non-defensive ‘extra judicial’ killings.  The words ‘virtually always’ make allowance for the extremely rare case, discussed below, when capital punishment is morally justified as defense. 

 

     Finally, the one who is executed ‘is always under arrest when he is killed’.  This clause distinguishes capital punishment from killing someone who is ‘at large’ and specifies the essential element — execution is always inflicted on someone under arrest.

 

b) In an Extremely Rare Case, Capital Punishment Justifiable as Defense

     Suppose that, during the Bosnian war, Muslims had arrested a group of Serb soldiers who had been practising “ethnic cleansing” (genocide).  Let us further suppose that these Muslim captors do not have enough time to wound their Serb prisoners sufficiently to prevent them from practising further “ethnic cleansing” but have only enough time to spray them with bullets, and then to retreat.  In this rarest case, the Muslims could execute their Serb captives as defense, that is, as the only way to prevent them from committing further acts of genocide, which are imminent if the Serb army rescues these prisoners.  Here, there is no possibility of conducting legal procedures before execution.  Hence, such exceptional cases do not justify “legalizing” capital punishment.

 

     Note that, since capital punishment can be morally justified as defense in such rare cases, it is not intrinsically evil as are acts of abortion, extramarital sex, and contraception (a self-manipulation that militates against conjugal love).  Intrinsically evil acts are those that, by their very nature, are always a violation of natural law (i.e., of the divine order) and inherently militate against love.

 

c) When not Defense, Capital Punishment not Morally Justified

     Many, who rightly reject cerebral mutilation of a prisoner as immoral, even though it could be one‑hundred‑percent effective in rendering a criminal totally harmless, inconsistently accept capital punishment as morally justified when it is not defense.  Yet, capital punishment, when it is not defense, is a far greater injustice than any mutilation could ever be.  Moreover, killing is a greater invasion of the person and more radically plays God with the victim’s eternal destiny than any mutilation.  That killing is more radical than mutilation is confirmed by the fact that killing is not justifiable as defense when it is possible to prevent the aggressor from committing a murder by wounding him.

 

     Moreover, unlike other punishments, capital punishment cannot be justified as a restoration of order when the moral law has been violated because it does not in the least redress the injustice perpetrated against the murdered victim or against anyone else.  For other crimes like tax evasion, fraud, etc., fines may be levied that go beyond the amount stolen because the criminal not only has to make restitution, but he must also pay for the cost society incurs in tracing down and reclaiming the amount he has stolen.  By helping to restore the order of justice, such a punishment promotes respect for honesty, possibly even in the criminal’s mind, whereas, capital punishment is entirely negative for anyone’s moral rehabilitation.

 

     Furthermore, capital punishment does not promote respect for the sacredness of human life but, on the contrary, promotes the very mentality of the murderer.  Like a murderer, the executioner is committing an act of violence to the extent of killing someone who, at the time of the execution, is a non‑belligerent rendered totally helpless.

 

     Like any moral issue, the morality of capital punishment must be determined by examining the act itself.  Hence, a goal or end, such as deterrence, does not affect the inherent moral nature of capital punishment.  Thus, whenever execution is morally unjustified, it may not be used as a means to any end, such as deterrence.  One may not commit an injustice against one person as a means to deter someone else.  Even a murderer may not be used as merely a means or chattel to deter others.  Those in favor of “legalized” capital punishment would do well to examine whether it is the desire for revenge that motivates their stand.

 

d) Further Considerations

     Bringing in external considerations to justify capital punishment, such as the socio‑economic problems of life imprisonment, would be to play right into the hand of abortionists and euthanasists who argue that their practices, also, are necessary to solve socio‑economic problems.  In short, the end never justifies the means.

 

     Furthermore, one cannot justify capital punishment by the fact that often sentences of “life” imprisonment either are not handed down or are not carried out by granting premature parole.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  The answer is to draft and/or enforce effective laws to ensure imprisonment for as long as the prisoner, if released, could pose a threat to society.  Moreover, this imprisonment must be under sufficiently tight security to reduce the probability of the prisoner escaping to an acceptably low level.

 

     However, it is unreasonable to demand one hundred percent certainty that a dangerous murderer does not escape from jail and commit murder again or that someone who committed murder does not repeat the crime after being released prematurely.  Nothing in the practical order of life is one hundred percent certain.  Which one of us can be one hundred percent certain of never committing murder!

 

     Capital punishment, in virtually all cases, is akin to executing war prisoners who have been engaging in an unjust war, but who can be prevented from returning to fight the unjust war by detention.  By fighting an unjust war, the soldiers have committed the same kind of (objective) injustice as the murderer and imponderable (subjective) differences, such as the greater likelihood that the soldiers were inculpably ignorant and/or under pressure, do not affect the accuracy of the parallel.  The reasons for executing war prisoners, who can be kept in detention, are similar to the reasons usually adduced to justify other cases of capital punishment.  These reasons are to ensure, with one‑hundred‑percent certainty, that the prisoners of war cannot escape back to the enemy’s ranks and/or to deter their compatriots still in the enemy’s ranks from continuing to fight the unjust war.

 

     Moreover, unlike most punishments, capital punishment leaves no possibility of restitution if unjustly applied.  This last consideration is not inherent to the morality or nature of capital punishment because it does not apply to all cases of it.  Yet it is a very serious counter indication to the “legalization” of capital punishment, a punishment that, moreover, is meted out much more readily on the marginalized than on tycoons.  The latter are usually well placed to conceal their involvement in a murder and, at times, even to have someone else falsely accused.

 

e) Catholic Teaching on Capital Punishment

     Note that, until recently, the Catholic Church had never officially taught anything as binding on the whole human race about capital punishment.  Papal or ecumenical council directives, not addressed as ‘binding on all’, never have the guarantee of inerrancy.

 

     In the encyclical, titled ‘The Gospel of Life’, No. 56, Pope John Paul II teaches that, “...the nature and extent of punishment must not go to the extreme of executing the offender except … when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.  Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non existent.”  The Pope’s statement can be illustrated by an example.  In a nomadic society execution may be the only way to prevent a murderer from repeating the crime because such a society has no provision for imprisonment.  Since the murderer is killed while under arrest, such killing is capital punishment but, in this case, it is morally justified because “it would not be possible otherwise to defend society”.  However, since nomadic societies have no jails, there is no question of legalizing the death penalty and, thereafter, executing prisoners who are on death row.

     In short, every society nowadays that is sufficiently established to “legalize” capital punishment is also sufficiently organized to set up a penal system that provides for adequate incarceration.  Therefore, “legalizing” capital punishment is never the only way to defend society and, accordingly, “legalizing” it is never morally justified.

 

 

SEMINAR ON BRAHMABANDHAB UPADHAY 

at Vidyajyoti College, Delhi

 

Joseph Kulandai

 

The Vidyajyoti College of Delhi organized a one–day seminar on January 22, 2007. The theme of the Seminar was “The Contribution of Brahmabandhab Upadhyay to the Freedom Movement and to Indian Theology”. Besides, the entire faculty of Vidyajyoti College, a number of professors from Indian universities, especially from Delhi (Delhi University, JNU & Jamia Millia Islamia) participated in the event.

The seminar began with a short and moving documentary film based on the life of Upadhay produced by Roy Sebastian and his team. The film powerfully portrayed the significant contributions and events that marked the life of the man. The seminar was officially inaugurated by a bhajan, ‘Vande Saccidanandam’ penned by Upadhay himself and sung by the VJ students. Then the principal of Vidyajyoti College, Fr. Leonard Fernando, SJ officially welcomed the participants and the Vice-Chancellor, Fr. Hector D’Souza spoke a few words on the occasion. This was followed by the inaugural address on ‘Brahmabandhab Upadhyay’s Significance for the 21^st century’. It was rendered by Professor Julius Lipner of the Cambridge University, U.K., a biographer of Upadhyay (OUP, 2004). Professor Lipner in his inaugural address pointed out the key issues that were controversial in the writings of Upadhyay. For Upadhyay, one cannot identify the relationship between religions in general and Christianity in particular on the one hand and Culture on the other.

The rest of the day saw five papers being presented by eminent scholars on different topics related to the life and thought of Upadhay. Professor Amiya P. Sen of Jamia Millia, Delhi effectively brought out the influence of contemporary Hindu-Bengali thought on Upadhay and his personal position among the same.

Dr Anand Amaladoss, SJ of Satya Nilayam, Chennai highlighted the challenges and limitations of Upadhyay’s mission in his paper. Upadhyay promoted Hindu Nationalism as counter-culture to British colonialism. Upadhyay earnestly desired to make the Christianity relevant to the people of India. He was a milestone in the journey of inculturation.

Dr Leonard Fernando, SJ’s paper traced the historical development of the relationship between the Catholic Church and Upadhay. This relationship faced its ups and downs during his lifetime and continues to remain a controversial issue even now, a hundred years later. In the context of the issue, Fr. Fernando made an interesting comparison between the life of Upadhay and that of Origen, one of the principal theologians of the Greek Church. Both these great men were meted out a similar treatment by the Church.

Dr Sebastian Vazhapilly, SJ of Gujarat Vidya Deep, Vadodara presented a paper on the implicit theology of religions and Proto-Inclusivism of Brahmabandhab Upadhay. He suggested that Upadhay could be the first Indian Catholic theologian to formulate the rudiments of a theology of religions and initiate proto-inclusivism, a middle ground between exclusivism and inclusivism.

The final paper of the seminar presented by Fr. George Gispert-Sauch, SJ threw light on the patriotism of Upadhay. After briefly explaining the virtue of patriotism according to Thomas Aquinas, Fr. George elaborated many aspects of Upadhay’s political life. Upadhay was passionate about Hindutva and his patriotism included elements of nationalism.

Finally Prof. Lipner did the honours of concluding the seminar with his insightful reflections. He remarked that one notices immense ambivalences and ambiguities in the life of Upadhay. Probably, those were deliberately intended by Upadhay.

 

 

 

FIGHT AGAINST ARSENICOSIS

 

 Fr. Xavier Savarimuthu

 

Water is the elixir of life, a symbol of vitality and one of the most fertile treasure houses for living organisms. But water is also contaminated in many ways so as to be unsuitable for drinking.  Arsenic is one of the water contaminants in the state of West Bengal, India. It kills thousands of people every year.

Arsenic, ‘the king of all poisons,’ when present in the water we drink, causes an incurable disease called ’arsenicosis’. Millions of people in countries like China, Taiwan, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Thailand, Bangladesh and India are victims of arsenicosis.

 

Fr. Xavier Savarimuthu’s research on arsenicosis in Kamdebkati and Ramnagar villages, known as the ‘arsenic villages’, about 30 kms from Calcutta have made them aware of the killer disease. A PowerPoint presentation for the first time ever on the causes and effects of arsenic poisoning proved to be an eye-opener for all. It helped the people to clear all the prevailing myths and misconceptions regarding arsenic poisoning and to become more compassionate and loving towards victims of arsenic poisoning.

 

For the people of Kamdebkati and Ramngar, it was a dream come true when the University of Berkeley’s Arsenic Project team led by Drs. Allan and Meera Smith, Dr. Timir Hore and Prof. P. Chakravarti, together with Xavier, visited them and dug 46 wells to free them from arsenic poisoning.

 

Xavier has successfully completed his study on the ‘Impact of Arsenic Poisoning’ and received his doctoral degree from Kalyani University in January 2006.

---------------------------------------

 

FR Saju George SJ

 

Fr Saju George SJ (CCU) submitted a PhD thesis titled “The Religio-Philosophical Foundations of Indian Classical Dance With Special Reference to The Saiva Tradition” to the University of Madras for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The content and a short summary of the thesis are given in the following paragraphs.

 

The thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 serves as the introduction. Chapter 2 is titled “Historical Perspectives on Dance and Religion.” Chapter 3 is titled “The Natyasastra and Some Basic Concepts in Dance.” Chapter 4 titled “The Saivite Religio-Philosophical Traditions and Dance” traces the historical development of the concept of Siva, and the iconographic and iconological descriptions of the ananda-tandava of Siva-Nataraja. Chapter 5 is entitled “The Tirumantiram of Saint Tirumular and the Philosophical Significance of the Cosmic Dance of Siva-Nataraja.” It makes a detailed study of the eighth section of the ninth chapter of Tirumantiram titled in Tamil “Tirukkuttu taricanam” or “The Vision of the Divine Dance or The Darsan of the Holy Dance.” Chapter 6 is the conclusion.

 

The most ancient and the foundational manual on Indian classical dance, the Natyasastra of Bharata Muni (2^nd century BC – 2^nd century AD), acknowledges in chapters I, IV and XXII the religio-philosophical underpinnings of Indian classical dance; and the Tirumantiram of Saint Tirumular (between 4^th and 6^th centuries AD), the Tamil Saiva Siddhanta treatise, quite unknown to many of us, is believed to be the first Indian religio-philosophical text to give a picturesque description of the Cosmic Dance of Siva-Nataraja in Tillai-Chidambaram in Tamilnadu. What makes Siva-Nataraja the unique Lord and King of dance and dancers is His Nataraja motif and the philosophy it reveals.

 

God is immanent in everything and yet transcends everything. His presence in the universe is an intimate presence. Lord Siva, the Supreme God of Saivism, abides in every creature in a subtle form and manifests Himself to the devotees in a personal way, as the Cosmic Dancer. His dance is the dance of the five-fold activities (panchakrityas) - Srishti (creation), Sthiti (preservation), Samhara (destruction), Tirodhana/Torobhava (concealment or veiling) and Anugraha (bestowal of grace), which is the totality of the cosmic process.

 

The accomplishment of all the five-fold functions is epitomized in the world famous icon of the Ananda-Tandava of Siva-Nataraja-Sada-Ananda-Nrittamurti, the dancing Siva of Tillai-Chidambaram. Ananda or supreme bliss is His ideal state of existence and dance is His most exuberant and most celebrated mode of action. Siva has bestowed on His creation the grace of having his quality of dance in them, too. So, it becomes natural for humans, too, to dance as a natural expression of human emotions and a definite way to His salvific “up lifted foot.” Moreover, Indian dance opens vistas for the celebration of all human emotions in a sublime way. The soul is happy to dance its way to God since its ultimate aim is to merge with Him and enjoy the ultimate state of ananda, which is the Lord’s supreme gift to humanity.

 

What is so significant in Tirumular’s writing on the mystic dance of Siva is that he weaves a unique pattern of relationship between the symbolic nature of the five-fold functions (panchakrityas) and the five-syllable (pancakshara) Saivite mahamantra- SI-VA-YA-NA-MA (which is the extension of the eternal word AUM or OM) with the Ananda-Tandava icon f Siva-Nataraja. Tirumular’s identification is the identification f the “Sacred-Body” (Ananda-Tandava form) with the “Sacred-Word” (SIVAYANAMA = OM). Thus the Ananda-Tandava icon of Siva-Nataraja embodies the panchakshara-panchakritya-mahamantra that contains the quintessence of the philosophy of Indian classical dance. It is amazing to see how Tirumular brings alive this particular aspect of Siva’s nature, that is, dance, with an incredible philosophical depth.

 

The practical value of the religious-philosophy of Indian classical dance surrounding Siva-Nataraja is reflected in the following five-fold levels. They touch every fiber of human existence. They make the art of dance a meaningful medium of human search for meaningful living. They include – The Religious Symbolism, The Philosophical Implication, The Aesthetic Significance, The Sociological Impact and The Liberative Effect.    

 

-----------------------------------------------------

News Update

The Calcutta Jesuit News Letter can be viewed every month on our web. Click on to: www.goethals.org

GILRS is organising a one-day National Seminar on "Brahmabhandav Upadhyay - His life and Contribution" on October 7, 2007. Those interested in presenting papers on any aspect of his life or work are welcome to sen abstracts to the Director, GILRS

Lectures

Fr. Felix Raj gave a lecture on “SEZ” (Special Economic Zone) at Bishop’s College, Kolkata on 1^st February, 2007.

 

New Arrivals:

• Beyond Hindutva, by S. L. Verma, New Delhi, 2007.

• Centenary Commemoration by M. J. Nolan, Bendigo, Australia, 2001.

• Human Dignity in Indian Secularism by John Romus Devasahayam, 2007.

• Religion in South Asia by Asghar Ali Engineer, Hope India, Delhi, 2005.

• Secularism, Communalism and Intellectuals by Zaheer Baber, 2006.

• The Folk- Literature of Bengal by Rai Saheb Dineshchandra Sen, Delhi, 2006.

• The Mission of West Bengal by H. Josson, S.J., Ranchi, 1993.

 

Researchers at the Goethals

Ø      Dr. Milton Spyrou, Egypt, on British India.

Ø      Fr. Kinley Tshering, S.J., Darjeeling, on Fr. Fallon, Fr. O’niell, Fr. Depelchin.

Ø      Joni Roshan Murmu, Kolkata, on Law and Human Rights.

Ø      Julius Lipner, on Brahmabandhab Upadhyay

Ø      Nandan Bhattacharya, Kolkata, on Mahatma Gandhi.

Ø      Neha Parasramka, Jadavpur University, on Travel Literature and Representation of India.

Ø      Reinhild Ingrid Das, DUISBURG, on Daniel’s paintings

Ø      Tim Konar, The University of SUSSEX, on Politics and International development studies.

Ø      Udayan Namboodiry, Delhi, on St. Xavier’s College History.

 

Mails & E-Mails

ü      You have a very nice collection, however suggestions for a Internet access. Tim Konar, The University of SUSSEX.

ü      Thank you very much for all the information you have sent me on Dr Backhaus. If there is anything else that you happen to find, I would be pleased to receive it. Mal Nolan, Australia.

ü      Thank you very much for sending me the Bombay Catholic Examiner periodicals- 1910 & 1922. Stephen Emse, USA

 

home