Hi Ankur:
That was an excellent essay. You did a terrific job, even though the arguments might have been a tad bit too complicated for the non-professional ( I mean those of us who are not into philosophical discourses). T But I understand why you did it the way you did. One thing I must thank you specifically for is the answer to the question of WHO is a Hindu? I asked this question time and again, of any number of people, but never got an answer. At long last I have an inkling of the defining characteristic/s of a classical Hindu, and that it is not as simple as " whoever wishes to be a Hindu is one". Unfortunately, most of those who I know to be ready to mouth off fealty to Hindu-ness seem to be quite oblivious of the three very important, defining, charateristics of a classical Hindu. Another beautiful statement was that of Samkara apologizing for visiting a temple, because it might imply that God does not live elsewhere. We need to publicize this bit of Hindu wisdom amongst the people of Assam, so that the relentless uglification of the Assamese landscape by the spate of temple building could be checked if not altogether stopped :-). Hope things are going well for you. cm At 11:08 AM -0600 3/28/04, Barua25 wrote: > ARTICLE FROM ANKUR ----- Original Message ----- From: ankur barua >To: deva da brat ; hemav mahanta ; payal jain ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; monosvita ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; P >Nair ; nileen puts ; Shomikho Raha ; rahul mahanta ; rajen barua ; >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; meghavarn sandilya Sent: >Sunday, March 28, 2004 10:56 AM > > > > > > >Hindutva and Its Discontents > > > > > > > >I have always felt that I do not really know which is the more dangerous >of the two : a �mere sentiment� that is not backed up by some argument(s) >that can be made available for discussion �across the board� or a �mere >argument� which is not fired inwardly by a passionate conviction. Of the >latter, of course, there is no need to give examples : we often indulge >ourselves in playing around with words which have no real >�purchase-value�. Regarding the former, however, I used to marvel at how >the RSS-BJP combine has reached its present heights on arguments that are >nothing but shaky : but only until last year. That was when I realised >that the RSS is resorting to intellectual guerrilla-warfare by converting >its weakness into its strengths : because it (perhaps) knows that it does >in fact have no serious argument to offer to its detractors it has >launched a smear-campaign of branding all �intellectuals-and-communists� >as enemies of the �Mother�-land. > > > > > > > >As I see it there are no logically compelling reasons to accept the RSS�s >claims. I say �logically compelling� advisedly. There may be >socio-economic reasons, for example. Here is one such reason which might >entice a potential �convert� to the RSS : s/he is presented with a wildly >exaggerated picture of his/her present degenerate state, an equally >hallucinatory re-creation of the past, a vision of the coming future of >the rising sun and the sign-posts that must be followed to reach this >goal. In other words, what s/he is given is nothing short of a complete >world-view which gives him/her a perspective onto the world : the >compass-points, as it were, in a rapidly changing world where �all >coherence has been lost�. Unable to face plurality as a basic reality of >human existence the RSS member not only lashes back with the neurotic >response of withdrawing into him/herself but also tries to enforce this >response as the normative one on everyone. > > > > > > > >In other words, I do not deny that there may be >psychological-emotional-economic reasons which might lead a person to join >the RSS. My aim in this essay is, however, a limited one : it is to show >that there are no logically compelling reasons why any Hindu (and indeed >anyone at all) should join the RSS. To this end, I offer six types of >critiques which might be called �The Critique of Pure Antiquity�, �The >Critique of Pure Pride�, �The Critique of Pure Patriotism�, �The Critique >of Pure Politics�, �The Critique of Pure Innocence� and �The Critique of >Pure Martyrdom�. > > > > > > > >The Critique of Pure Antiquity : > > > > > > > >To begin with the first, that is, the �internal� critique, one must begin >as a Hindu by empathetically trying to enter, as far as this is possible >for the non-Hindu, into the world-view of a (classical) Hindu. Now a >formidable question comes up at once : �Who is a Hindu?� For a complete >answer to this question, I shall have to write, if I could, (at least) >one book : for the present purpose, however, I simply submit that there >are (at least) three distinctive elements in the world-view of a Hindu. I >emphasise that what follows below is a descriptive and not a normative >account of �Hinduism� : that is, I do not claim that every Hindu must >subscribe to the three propositions mentioned below before s/he calls >him/herself a �Hindu�, only that it is highly probable that someone who >describes him/herself as such will accept them. (Moreover, people with >impeccable Hindu �credentials� such as Gandhi, Vivekanda, Ramakrishna, S. >Radhakrishnan and so on have accepted them in some form or the other). > > > > > > > >Before we come to these three propositions which are drawn from classical >Hinduism, we must pause to ask why we need to go back into classical >times. The main reason for this �history-digging� is that the RSS itself >indulges itself in such excavations (not only intellectual, physical as >well) as (one of) its favourite past-times, and we must therefore try to >show that it is possible to dig into the subterranean layers of the past >in more than one way. Besides, as I see it, the RSS has only two options >when it comes to the question of its �antiquity�. It can deny that it has >any traditional roots in Hinduism and claim that it is a �modern� Hindu >movement. The problems associated with this move I shall deal with in the >subsequent sections. Let us therefore allow our opponent to take the >second move : suppose the RSS member does say that its movement is rooted >in classical Hinduism. > > > > > > > >This immediately raises the further question : which roots exactly are >these? Indeed, as I see it the RSS violates three of the most hallowed >propositions of classical Hinduism. > > > > > > > >Proposition 1 : The present spatio-temporal empirical world with its >distinctions of �I� and �you�, �we� and �them� is a radically defective >one inhabited by human beings who are in the sway of Ignorance (avidya). > > > > > > > >I have presented this Proposition in a somewhat abstract form : let me >unpack its meaning. According to one prominent school of Vedanta, the >very notion of the �I� is an illusion : in the ultimate sense, there is >only one universal Self called Brahman and these �egoistic� distinctions >of �this is mine� and �that is yours� are all superimpositions created by >human beings who are in the grip of ignorance. Another important school >will somewhat modify this claim : the notion of the �I� is not itself an >illusion, but it needs to be purified so that we can see the other �I�-s >around us as different ways of qualifying the same ultimate reality. > > > > > > > >Now it is not important for my purpose which �interpretation� is accepted >because irrespective of whichever one of these two wins the day both of >them are potentially embarrassing for the RSS member who wants to claim >that his/her movement is rooted in classical Hinduism. One can indeed >imagine that the eight-century Samkara who asked to be forgiven for >having visited a temple (since this implies that God does not exist >elsewhere) would be disturbed by the fact that the RSS with its >hullabaloo over the empirical stone-walls of a temple calls itself >�Hindu� : Samkara would probably simply say that the RSS is just the new >species of Ignorance (avidya). > > > > > > > >Proposition 2 : This actually follows >from Proposition 1 as a corollary >and states that the empirical distinctions such as �male�, �female�, >�RSS�, �non-RSS�, �Mughal�, �Turk�, �Marxist� and so on do not touch the >�essential self� : they affect only the outward bodily shape and generic >characteristics of human beings. > > > > > > > >In other words, I am a male in this life but this is simply an accident >determined by my past karma : in truth, I really am a self-conscious >being which has no empirical characteristics such as �male� and �female�. >Such distinctions are simply slapped on to this true reality �inside� me >by ignorant human beings. This being so, the RSS�s case is almost as good >as over if it wants to maintain that it has its roots in classical >Hinduism. I do not see how anyone who accepts Proposition 2 can claim >that the empirical distinctions that exist(ed) between a �Hindu� and >�Mughal� are �essential� distinctions : the classical Hindu might well >add that the fact that the RSS inveterately goes on harping on this >distinction simply shows how deeply mired in Ignorance (avidya) s/he is. > > > > > > > >Proposition 3 : The law of Karma is individual-istic and pertains only to >individuals, not in a �whole-sale� manner to societies. To claim that the >�sins of the fathers� are visited upon �their children� is a complete >violation of the law in its classical form. > > > > > > > >Once more, let me explain. My post-mortem existence is dependent on my >own meritorious or non-meritorious actions performed in my life. I cannot >therefore brand my �enemies� such as the Mughals as �they� or as �the >others� since if I accept the law of Karma it is possible I myself was a >Mughal in one of my previous existences! Indeed, I do not see how any RSS >member who accepts the law of Karma can categorically deny the >possibility that s/he had been a Mughal in an earlier life. In classical >Hinduism, it is not so much death as the law of Karma that is the great >leveller : depending on the fruition of his/her moral actions, the RSS >member could well be born in his/her next life as a communist! > > > > > > > >Now to all of this the RSS might simply say : �No, we are not Hindu in >the classical sense. We do not accept any of that Vedantic non-sense, nor >do we accept the Vedas or the Upanisads on which your Vedanta is based. >We do not even accept the law of Karma which is ultimately derived from >the Upanisads�. > > > > > > > > To which the question might be raised : in what precise sense do you >then call yourself a Hindu? All the Hindu greats that you are fond of >appealing to such as Vivekananda accepted Propositions 1, 2 and 3 : by >rejecting these propositions, have you not then turned back on the Master >himself? > > > > > > > >In short, I am not aware of any argument that is rooted in classical >Hinduism and that the RSS can offer in its favour to persuade its >detractor to join its ranks. (It is important to note that I say �I am >not aware� and not that �It is impossible for the RSS to come up with such >an argument�. The latter might well be possible but unfortunately the RSS >member will probably, in fact, not try to come up with such an argument >because it would put him/her at once in the group of the much-despised >�intellectuals�.) > > > > > > > >So far we have been trying to play with the RSS member on his/her >home-ground, that is, �Hinduism�; let us now play the same game on a >different pitch and move on to some �external� critiques. > > > > > > > >The Critique of Pure Pride: > > > > > > > >So far we have charitable enough (a charity that the RSS member usually >does not display to the �intellectuals-and-communists�) to meet the RSS >on its own home-ground, but we must now push on further and this for the >reason that the resourceful RSS member could simply reply : �All that you >say is true for classical Hinduism, but we are not Hindus in that sense. >We are �modern� Hindus.� > > > > > > > >In the above section, we left the RSS member hard-pressed to come up with >any logically compelling reason why a Hindu who is rooted in classical >Hinduism should accept its �gospel�. In this section, we shall try to >show, in addition, that the RSS has no such argument to offer also to >someone who does not refer to him/herself as a Hindu (for example, >someone who calls him/herself a Hindu but does not accept all or any of >the above Propositions and more directly, of course, someone who is a >Muslim/Christian). > > > > > > > >Let us start off with this argument which is usually heard in the RSS-BJP >circles : �So long we have been enfeebled by our past masters, first the >Mughals and then the British. Let us now strike back with something that >is distinctively �Indian�. We shall accept nothing that is >�extra-Indian�. It is only then that we shall realise our true �Indian� >destiny by exterminating those influences which have come from �the >Others�.� > > > > > > > >As is usual with the RSS there is more of �mere sentiment� in this than >any carefully worked-out argument. We may start with the question : �How >do we define that elusive notion called �Indian-ness��? The usual >response might be dubbed the �appeal to the past�. That is, if we go back >into the past we shall find out who the original inhabitants of �India� >were, and the ones who came in later must therefore be thrown out. � >�India� is the land of �her� true-blooded inhabitants and the late-comers >have simply messed up the �gene pool� of the former. We must therefore >recover the true (genetic) strain and keep it from becoming impure any >further. This applies not only to the Mughals-Turks of course but also >more generally to the �West�. We must reject �modernity� with its claim >that European civilisation is superior to the �Indian� and we must be >proud to affirm our �Indian-ness� �. > > > > > > > > An argument sadly riddled with internal contradictions. First of all, >has the RSS really rejected �modernity�? True, it indeed has to the >extent that one plank of �modernity� was the claim that European >civilisation is superior to all other civilisations : in its wish to >affirm the distinctiveness of �Indian� civilisation I cannot but applaud >(for once, after all) the RSS. But whether it knows this to be the case >or not, the RSS itself is suffering from the ailments of the �modernity� >that it claims to have rejected so firmly. One of the strongest bases of >�modernist� modes of discourse was the repetition ad nauseam of a >bi-polar distinction between �us� and �they� : We, the noble indigenous >race of the earth, and They, the alien vengeful invaders. This >distinction was transplanted by the British onto the Indian subcontinent >: We, the true masculine race, and They, the passive feminine servants. >The RSS has simply taken over this �modernist� bi-polar mode of cutting >up the world into two neat halves and created one of its own : We, the >true-blooded inhabitants, and they, the ghostly seductive foreigners. > > > > > > > >In other words, the RSS is radically infected with the same �modernity� >it so vehemently claims to have rejected. The distinction between one >whole section of human beings and another one on the reductionist lines >of a single principle (whatever that may be, �blood�, �land�, �language�, >�nationality� and so on) was taught to the RSS members not by the >Upanisads but (unknowingly) by their much-hated masters, the British. > > > > > > > >The Critique of Pure Patriotism : > > > > > > > >The discussion is not over yet : our opponent replies with what is >perhaps his/her choicest jab. The discussion now shifts to the slander of >�intellectualism�. The following allegation is made : �You intellectuals >have always been the bane of this country. While the �Mother�-land is >burning away in flames, you sit down in your ivory towers spinning out >your fancy theories. In the meantime, the �Mother�-land is in distress >and she calls out to her �sons� to face the threat levelled against her. >Give up all your �intellectual� doubts and join us in the struggle.� > > > > > > > >This is doubly ironical because on the other hand this language is highly >reminiscent of Marxist anti-intellectualist themes and yet the RSS >perceives the Marxists to be their enemies! (Hitler once said that it was >very easy for a follower of Stalin to become a Nazi : what he meant was >that the Nazi and the Stalinist had the same inner fire-power, they >�merely� differed in their world-views.) Be that as it may, let us try to >respond to this charge (surely amounting to high treason) of �neglecting >to help the Mother-land� in her distress head-on with a medical analogy. >(The very terminology of the �Mother-land in distress� sounds highly >patriarchal to me, and this is not surprising since right-wing thought >and patriarchy often go hand in hand. This, however, is matter for >another debate, not this one.) It is indeed the case that if a patient is >suffering from a life-threatening disease the first task for the doctor >is to operate on the patient. Nonetheless, there is (at least) one >question that must be asked before the operation : is the patient truly >suffering from such a disease? To claim that the faintest suspicion that >one is suffering from a disease is sufficient grounds for an operation is >surely the opinion only of someone who thinks s/he is living in a >hypochondriac�s (if not a fool�s) paradise. > > > > > > > >Let us specifically take up the question of the �threat to the >�Mother�-land from the �Islamic world�. Why is it the case that whereas >the RSS member perceives this threat I can see no such threat (at least, >not one of any cosmic proportions)? > > > > > > > >The RSS will simply respond with tiresome anti-intellectualist >allegations of indolence. The truth of the matter may, however, be deeper >than that. It is possible that different human beings have different >�grids� through which they �see� the world, and are consequently >responsive to different kinds of �wavelengths� along the same spectrum of >possible world-views. Here is one example : for one human being the music >of Mozart is as good as a car-horn blaring away, for another it is the >most sublime human creation. One way of explaining this difference of >appraisal could be to say that the second person is more responsive to >Mozart-wavelengths than to car-horn-wavelengths. A similar case could >obtain here. The RSS member looks at the world through a bi-polar grid : >s/he looks out through this grid and sees (bi-)polarities everywhere, >�we� and �they�, �us� and �them� and so on. This being his/her >distinctive mode of viewing the world it is no wonder that the �Other� >looms large over him/her forever threatening to engulf him/her at every >street-corner. (I repeat that this bi-polar distinction between �us� and >�them� is one that was preached not by the Upanisads, which the RSS >member would do well to go home and (re-)read, but by the �invader�, the >British.) > > > > > > > >However, this need not be the only perspectival �grid� for someone could >have a multi-polar grid for viewing the world. For such a person, the >plurality that faces us in our daily lives is an undeniable reality that >is somewhat disturbing, sometimes troublesome and yet something that must >be affirmed as adding a richer dimension to human existence. For him/her >the impassioned cry that the �Mother�-land is split down the middle as >the forces of Hindutva and Islam steadily rally themselves for an >apocalyptic show-down is a grossly reductionist distortion of the >multi-faceted reality of socio-empirical reality and simply the >projection of a psychopathic nightmare onto �external reality�. > > > > > > > >The Critique of Pure Politics : > > > > > > > >Let us recap. We have seen that on three grounds the RSS has no effective >argument to offer to someone not (already) in its folds. Firstly, the RSS >does not even get off the platform if it wants to claim that it is rooted >in Hinduism since we have seen that it directly violates (even >contradicts) three of the most central and hallowed propositions of >classical Hinduism which have been accepted by every well-known �Hindu� >starting >from Samkara to Vivekananda. Secondly, it cannot claim to be an >authentic �Hindu� voice as long as it goes on rejecting the Upanisads and >insisting on a bi-polar way of looking at the world which was propagated >on the sub-continent by the �foreign invaders� called the British. If the >RSS members really wish to get rid of the �foreign invaders� they should >first start by cleaning their own back-yards and getting rid of the >�foreign modes of thought� that have become ingrained in them. Thirdly, >the fervent invocations made to the �sons� of the �Mother�-land to rise >up against the �Other� ultimately flow >from a �foreign-imported� way of >looking at the world : anyone who refuses to view the world (merely) in >terms of �us� and �them� has enough reason for seeing nothing more in >these hysterical invocations than the mere hallucinatory sentiments of >oncoming neurosis. > > > > > > > >To all of this the RSS member might now well say : �By �Hinduism� I mean >something that is �purely political� and that has nothing �religious� >about it. By Hindutva I mean a concept that has no religious connotations >to it, only connotations that are �purely political�. Therefore everyone >irrespective of whether s/he is a Muslim/Christian can accept Hindutva.� > > > > > > > >Once again we have a valiant RSS attempt to shirk the hard task of >thinking-through what is being argued for. First of all, there has never >been any classical form of Hinduism that was �purely political�. Gandhi >himself once said that those who separate �religion� and �politics� have >understood neither of the two, and here he was standing on solid classical >ground. In other words, the debate is centred over the question of whether >or not Hindutva is a �religious� notion. I do not see how Hindutva can be >a �non-religious� notion when the acceptance of this notion is >conditional on accepting at least three propositions with religious >connotations : (1) The nation�s resources must be directed towards the >establishment of the �kingdom of Rama� (Rama-rajya) in India. (2) There >was a historical figure called Rama in the past. (3) This figure is the >supreme Lord over all. > > > > > > > >Not only Muslims and Christians, it would not be difficult to find Hindus >themselves who would have serious problems with accepting these three >propositions in an unqualified form. (Not to mention the �feminist� Hindu >woman who rejects the Ramayana whole-sale on the grounds that it is >nothing more than the glorification of outdated patriarchal Hindu male >notions.) Moreover, we may consider one counter-example. How would the RSS >member respond to the following claim made by a Christian : �We shall >establish the �Kingdom of Christ� in India. I assure you though that this >is a �purely political� notion, there is nothing religious about the >Kingdom I am talking about�? > > > > > > > >In other words, the claim that Hindutva is a �purely political� notion >can be made only by someone who has �understood neither Hindutva nor >politics�. > > > > > > > >Nevertheless, suppose that someone who calls him/herself a Hindu does >refuse to accept some or all of the above propositions : how would a RSS >member respond to him/her? The usual reply, I assume, will be : �You are >not being a �true Hindu��. In other words, there is implicit in all of >the RSS claims the assumption that there is such a thing as �essential >Hindu-ness�. To examine this assumption let us turn to the next section. > > > > > > > >The Critique of Pure Innocence : > > > > > > > >Perhaps no proverb applies more clearly to the RSS as this one, �People >who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others.� Much of what >the RSS teaches operates with this facile assumption : �We were a happy >nation before the foreigners started knocking at our doors. That was a >land of pure innocence where there was no bloodshed, no hatred and no >in-fighting. It is to that land of tranquillity that we now seek to take >you by throwing out the incomers.� > > > > > > > >I must now somewhat modify the Propositions 1 and 2 that I mentioned >above. There I said that in classical Hinduism distinctions such as >�male� and �female�, �indweller� and �foreigner� do not touch the true >self. Nonetheless, classical Hinduism, somewhat paradoxically, devised, >through its caste system, a pernicious form of distinguishing human >beings (not in �essential� but) in sociological terms. Much of RSS >literature seems to be blissfully unaware that there is a dark �underside� >to the �history� that it teaches : the unspoken and un-narrated tales of >those who have been marginalised by the caste system, and also seems to >assume that the plague set in only after the Mughals and the British came >in. > > > > > > > >Here, for example, is one �subversive� reading of the Ramayana. Rama >stands for the North Indian hero who is out to conquer the whole world >and trample the demons, that is, �the Others�, under his feet. The >Others, of course, are the dark threatening forces which inhabit the >Southern part of the continent. In other words, according to this >�reading� the notion that the Ramayana is the story of a cosmic battle >between �good� and �evil� is simply North Indian hogwash : what the >Ramayana really recounts is a very mundane sub-continental war in which >the �good� North Indians vanquished the �evil� South Indians. > > > > > > > >Now of course I do not imply that this is the only possible way of >reading the Ramayana (you can be a non-RSS Hindu and yet, for whatever >reasons, reject it); I simply wish to show through this example that >there is no good reason to believe that classical Hindus lived in �peace� >and �tolerance� before the �merciless foreign invaders� or before the >forces of �ruthless modernity� were unleashed upon them. > > > > > > > >In other words, there is no justification for making the claim that there >exists such a �thing� as �the essence of Hinduism� (not to mention the >claim that this essence has indeed been isolated and is, in fact, >Hindutva). > > > > > > > >The Critique of Pure Martyrdom : > > > > > > > >This is a well-known stance adopted by people who can claim to have been >persecuted in some way or the other in the past. The argument in our case >goes as follows, �In the past the Mughals persecuted our fore-fathers. >Today therefore we must get back at the (Muslim) descendants of the >Mughals.� > > > > > > > >First of all, is this a Hindu argument? As we have shown earlier, anyone >who accepts the law of Karma does not have any justification for making >such a claim. (If I follow the law of Karma I cannot categorically deny >the possibility that I had been a Muslim or a Christian in my previous >life.) Let us, however, widen the discussion to include non-Hindus. The >argument implicitly accepts another statement : �It is possible to hold >the members of the present generation (morally) responsible for the >crimes of their ancestors�. > > > > > > > >Take the case of present day non-Jewish Germans. Should Jews who are >living in Germany today expel (or, even more drastically, exterminate) the >non-Jews on the grounds that their ancestors had (probably) been Nazis? Or >take the case of the Blacks in (say) the USA. Should they claim that all >Whites should now be made slaves on the grounds that their ancestors had >once enslaved them? > > > > > > > >By giving these two examples I do not in any way wish to make light of >the suffering (to the point of death) that German Jews and Afro-American >slaves once underwent; I do wish, however, to raise the subsequent >question of whether anything like �guilt� can be attached to the children >of the perpetrator of such crimes. > > > > > > > >If we reply to this question in the affirmative, this would amount to >making a mockery of all the legal-moral systems ever devised on this >planet. In other words, whether or not one accepts the law of Karma >(although I have repeatedly insisted that any RSS member who claims that >his/her movement is rooted in classical Hinduism must accept it), the >approval of the notion of �collective guilt� is tantamount to giving up >the judicial machinery and all the norms of morality that we are familiar >with. > > > > > > > >In other words, if it is a fact that a certain number of Hindus were >persecuted and killed by the Mughal emperors the appropriate reply to the >RSS member in this context would be : �Yes, that was one of the tragic >events of history. Such events happen everywhere and I do not see why you >should indulge yourself in your fanciful calculus of comparative >martyrdom. But before you start pointing fingers, you must remember that >you yourself do not have a very impressive track-record with your >untouchables. More importantly in the present context, however, all of >this has absolutely no bearing on your attitude to the present day Indian >Muslims. You might sooner declare that present day Indian Brahmins should >be made Sudras as a compensation to the latter for their centuries-old >suffering!� > > > > > > > >At this stage I must confess that I have myself run out of breath. I have >tried to present without (I hope) distorting the case put forward by the >RSS for its �gospel� of Hindutva, and have tried to show that whether or >not the RSS declares itself to be Hindu in the classical sense it does >not have any non-self-contradictory argument(s) on display for its >detractors. It repeatedly appeals to the �emotions� by downplaying the >need for the hard and patient thinking-through of the problems that are >associated with the experience of living in the multi-polar dimensions of >social reality. In the end, the member of the RSS could well be dubbed as >�a Romantic in search of an argument� : like some (though not all) of the >historical Romantics of eighteenth-century Europe who (at times) seemed >to be claiming that �feeling is everything�, the RSS member, in the >ultimate analysis, hedges all his/her bets on being able win over his/her >�converts� through the Appeal to Pure Emotion. > > > > > > > >Ankur > > > >28 March 2004 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How much mail storage do you get for free? Yahoo! Mail gives you 6MB! >Get Yahoo! Mail_______________________________________________ >Assam mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam > >Mailing list FAQ: >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html >To unsubscribe or change options: >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
