Dear folks, Recently I came across some comments and opinion on the internet that implied the Chola atrocities were comparable to the atrocities committed by Muslim Invaders (and Mughal rulers ?).
It is my opinion that the Cholas were not that brutal. I read that based on Bijapur inscriptions of the Western Chalukyas, Chola soldiers raped women and looted villages.
But I would like to get the opinions of other members.
Was probably true.. wars were never clean.. there was always loot and rape and I don't see why the Chola soldiers would not have done the same. You can of course argue about the "levels of brutality" but that again would be very subjective.
Think about Kalki's description of Aditya Karikalan murdering Veerapandiyan and keeping his head for so many days on a pole? Granted war and enemity were common in those days but is that kind of gore really necessary? If he killed someone even as an enemy can't he give the honor awarded to Kings by giving him a decent funeral? Just an example to state. There is no fairness in love and war at any time in history. We can take comfort in comparative degrees perhaps but again as Arun said that is very subjective.
Hi malathi working on a project on 1857 delhi and would like to share these details with you khooni darwasa or gate of murders is very close to ferozshah kotla. it was originally kabuli gate. sher shah suri used this out post to display heads of dacoits. right from jehangirs times enemies in court werekilled and heads displayed on this gate. aurangazeb displayed the head of his brother dara shikoh here and finally when british captured bahadur sha his sons were killed in cold blood and heads displayed on this gate by the british. just to add some hear say trivia, the quartzite rock used in the construction of this gate has a ferrous strain running within. and when it rains a red liquid leaches from it and surounds the monument.
I did read John Keay's book and that was one reason for my question. It is fathomable that soldiers going on rampage indulging in looting, raping and destruction. But unlike the Islmaic invaders was there religious motivation? I have not read that it is the case.
So we have one Bijapur account of the Western Chalukyas. And it is possible that the soldiers were not at their best, in terms of behavior in Lanka.
Hi Venkat, I have heard of khooni darwaza. Somehow the appearance of blood reminded of part I of your KM which am reading now, the spirit of AK and exorcism ritual. London tower which had thousands of beheadings is believed to be haunted to this day. So are some civil war sites in USA and holocaust sites in Germany. Whether one believes in supernatural or not is a different story, am not a total believer myself but I do believe there are negative and positive energies that each place carries depending on what happened there and gory incidents do leave lot of negativity.
Also the comparison between Cholas and Islamic invaders is not that different from US Army atrocities in Iraq and Guatenemo bay, army people are known to loot, plunder, rape and torture other humans in any country, any situation.
> > RRC vows that he shall conquor Manyaketam at all costs ....(there > should have been some humiliation earlier)
Vj: Sir, sorry for asking again. Reference for above in verse?
> > Rajendra invades with 900000 warriors ... which is recorded as Brutal > invasion by the Cholas. > > In NO OTHER WAR OF THE CHOLAS we hear of such fury ... >
Vj: All of RJC campaigns have been clinical strikes more than campaigns. Unlike his father, he was not for expanding the land under his control. maybe he realised it was better to have the rulers paying tribute rather than subduing them and ruling himself ( would be too big ??)
> > Available dear Vijay. > > will check my collections ... and post. > > " Won't perform Jalakridai with my wives without conquoring > Manyakedam" is the TEXT re RRC ... ! > > sps >
"Jalakridai" with "wives"....wow cant wait to read
But these types of 'jalakreetai' were common for kings (atleast till Golkonda Sultan of 18th century)
..In Thiruvilaiyaadal cinema, Director APN created one scene for this type with a beautiful song (Podhikai malai uchiyile purappadum thendral), where the question of natural fragrence erupts
I have the book "A History of Vijayanagar: The never to be forgotten empire" by B.Suryanarain Row. Looking at these numbers the number 900000 seems to fit the pattern in those days - admitting some kind of exaggeration in reporting and observations. Since more than one person has reported such numbers, the probability of these numbers being near the actual value is high.
I paraphrase from the Introduction chapter: 1) Abdur Razzak visited Bijangar in 1443 AD. He claims to have seen 1000 elephants and 11,00,000 lakhs (eleven lakhs).
2) Nuniz a Portuguese traveler remarks that Krishna Deva Raya marched to the seige the battle of Raichur with 703,000 foot, 32,6000 horse and 551 elephants.
3) Paes another Portuguese traveler who was often present at K.D.Raya court observes that the King had continually a million fighting troops - which included 35,000 cavalry in armor. In one instance Raya dispatched 150,000 soldiers under 50 captains. Sometimes when he wants to show his strength he is known to put 2 million soldiers.
4) Castanheda who visited near the end of K.D.Raya's reign comments that King kept around 100,000 horses and 4,000 elephants.
5)The King's special bodyguard consisted of 6,000 well trained, well-mounted and richly-dressed horsemen.
6)The military population at the capital was 150,000 men.
7)The grand city is said to have had about 30,00,000 (thirty lakhs)
Agreed. War was never clean. The King had to safeguard his throne, and seek new vast lands. It entailed attacking and killing, and taking the war booty. The victors write the history. The narrators from the muslim victors seem to have documented devastation and killing in great numbers. The victors from the Chola side did not. It could point to the nature of these wars and the relish they took in such invasions. I hope there is more research in these areas.
Don't know about how war was documented but surely cholas took as much pride in their invasions as others did - their titles and extended invasions are enough evidence of that. A more contemporary argument might run like this - US army has its share of atrocities in Iraq. Surely they were not Saddam Hussien's troops who engaged in mass genocide. But do we have to condemn what they did? Absolutely we do.Let us admit one thing - our religious/cultural affinities will always get in the way of looking at this totally objectively. One has to be very dispassionate to get a really objective view of this and where human lives of concerned one life versus ten is not objectivity at all, it is only subjective comfort.
What is the problem? When one becomes a sanyasi, his wife (or wives) cease to be considered as wives. Most of the sanyasins of the vaishnavite order were grihastas, were married and had children. The family members even visit the sanyasi on special occassions. A renunciate may have living wives from the poorvasrama. Of course some become sanyasins in mind and spirit without renouncing family ties. Sampath
I dont' disagree at all. But is there any record that RRC's wives 'ceased to be wives'? To my mind he is more of a devoted grihastha 'adiyaar' than a sanyasin. Kings cannot be sanyasins very easily, it is not just the marital part, they have to be engaged in defence which invovles killing, managing money/treasury and lot of related stuff. It contradicts basic definitions of of sanyas.
As far as 'jala kreeda' what was shown in Tiruvilayadal was not Jala kreeda, it is queen's ceremonial bath. Jala kreeda is not appropriate to be shown in indian movies and perhaps never will. It is described in most puranas though.
I believe the chola soldiers subscribed to a moral code which prohibited killing of non-combatants - especially women, children and old people. Looting of enemy property and retaining a share of it was permitted (incentive!). I do not think killing of general population and raping of women was either encouraged or condoned by the rulers. Mass destruction of innocents was encouraged by the muslim invaders. We will be doing great injustice to the cholas if we compare them to the muslim warriors and rulers. Sampath
If one looks at the things dispassionately, then one would see more horrors perpetuated by the Islamic hordes than our Cholas. Our religious/cultural affinities can work both ways. One the way you suggest the other way is when we scrutinize ourselves too much and do not give ourselves the same leeway that we give to outsiders.
Killing is killing. The intention and ferocity matters.
Intention and ferocity are not things to be judged to rank which killing is better than another. Which was more 'ferocious', the holocaust or the bomb blasts in Mumbai or the US Solider in Guatenemo bay?
I think Venkat mentioned once that today's standards are arguablly higher than any other time in world history for treatment of humans. An irate Iraqi threw shoes at Bush because they lost so many loved ones during the US invasion into Iraq. In US we have people who worship the loved ones they lost as saviors. Which was more 'ferocious' and who is right or wrong here? Nobody. History is done regardless of who was more ferocious and who was not. It is time to regard things in a different perspective and acknowledge peace as all of our mutual need.
Also to clarify again - to say RRC was a great ruler who sponsored art and culture, maintained peace in his kingdom versus say Aurangzeb, makes sense. But to say a chola soldier who killed x people is better than a muslim soldier who killed y people does not add up to an argument. It is not which is better or worse, it is not an argument that is all. Killing does not have parameters attached to it to judge which style was better. To understand more let us put ourselves in shoes of the minority or whoever we think is the 'better killer' - perhaps one of our own kith and kin was killed by whom the world deems a 'better soldier ' because he had 'better values' would it really make a difference?
The act of killing is plain and simple - taking away a life. The act of killing someone to defend is more dharmic than the act of killing someone say based on lust, right?
Undoubtedly today's morals and values are a lot different than those practiced by our ancient pasts. The acts of Islamic Invaders and Chola Invaders can be compared as they are almost in the same century and time scale. I am not asking for comparison of what the Cholas or Islamic hordes did as per today's standards. I am asking for comparison between those two in their scale.
Killing has parameters, as I explained in the other reply. Say an army attacks a village with the intention to loot and say rape women and goes away. Say another army attacks a village with the intention to loot, rape women and eradicate the total population or culture. Definitely one can compare, right?
If one were to ask the women in both the hypothetical villages, definitely their trauma would be similar and there is no comparison. Their privacy was intruded and they were put under stress and trauma. If one were to ask the orphans in villages, definitely one orphan is in no better position than the other orphan. Wealth is a different matter, it can be gained.
But from a historical stand point there was one army that sought to destroy and subjugate an entire village, where as the other did not. Both the armies operated under the then standards - killing and raping. But there is a difference.
I believe the scale is morally wrong no matter what age we talk about that is all. That is actually sometimes the problem with a romantic notion of history such as what Kalki wrote as PS itself. It overshadows brutal truths of that time and makes it look like things were all rosy and greater than they really were.
RRC had better moral standards than his islamic couterparts maybe, granted, that too, he did not encourage killing and raping. But he did invade other territories and other kingdoms during which some degree of that should have happened especailly with armies of millions of men. I don't know about chola wars but pallava wars such as burning of Vatapi lots of general public suffered lots of damage.
We can glorify RRC and pallavas for their invaluable contril bution to culture,religion and tradition. But to glorify conquests and whatever is involved by way of war is just wrong no matter who did it.
First of all, I am not glorifying any brutalities of any of our Kings. Neither I am glorifying RRC or any King/Queen's conquests. It was a matter of necessity and practice in those times. The Islamic hordes seems to have perpetuated atrocities that are very glaring and stare out of the history pages akin to say some of the atrocities of Japanese soldiers in WWII.
Did the Cholas practice ethnic cleansing? I have not read any South Indian Kingdom systematically destroying other cultures. Right from the Islamic hordes to the Mughal Empire they have sought to belittle local traditions and culture.
Second, I am not looking it from the Kalki's stand point of view. I have not been fortunate to read his classics. Read couple of chapters of PS English translation. So I am not coming from the romantic side of literature/history.
The analysis aims to understand if it matters how many died. They conclude it matters, because it allows to measure the size of the tragedy and the response.
The size of the tragedy was considerable in the case of the Islamic atrocities. And we can still see the response. There exists a fundamental distrust between Hindus and Muslims. The society tends to remember the atrocities over generations. Over times people and the collective conscience tends to forget, but in the case of Islamic atrocities it still strikes a chord.
Hi, it would be nice to know a name for you, even a pen name :))
Anyways, I understand the need to know numbers, as you explain, with Sudan as example. There are many perspectives with which one can view war. Statistics is unfortunately one of them. The word 'genocide' was coined after the holocaust - to mean mass murder/ethnic cleansing, whatever you want to call it. Before that it was just war. And again war in self defense is perhaps justifiable. War with the intention of conquering another country - taking on a group of people (a pandya army say) with the view of killing them all including their ruler is genocide in itself. The muslims had genocides with higher degree of severity, ok granted. Cholas and other rules had lower.
Quite contrary to what you say - people do not forget easily. It would nice if they did. Lot of times people remember even falsities and untruths. How many people in the west still think of modern india as a land of snakes and elephants and child marriages and sati as thought of in British times. (just one example). The war we have going on with Islamic terrorism is lot more complex than historic memory - it has to do with lot of mistakes done during our freedom struggle by several people, and is accentuated even more by people thinking in simplistic ways or having linear memories of the past. What my ancestors did has little to do with me, why would it be any different for a young muslim? The more we remember and connect the more they are pushed to seek refuge in terrorism.
Appa amma vecha perae soorikkina it becomes GRS. So you can address me as GRS. A rose in any name is still a rose :-))))
No, I disagree that war on Cholas or Pandyas can not be termed as genocide. As you mention the term it self is quite recent (after WWII). It is deliberate act that seeks to eliminate a particular group of people. Did Pandayas ever commit such acts? Did Cholas, Cheras, Mauryas etc commit such acts? History does not seem to say that. Wars are not genocide.
I am not saying people will forget easily, I am saying over time people will forget. I do not imply it is easy :-) It just happens, time mellows the memory.
The other side of the coin is the more we remember the better prepared we can be. Remembering the past atrocities will not push anybody into terrorism. And what our ancestors did has a lot to do with us. If not for their actions, we would not be where we are - both for the good and the bad. At the moment, I do not want to discuss the contemporary problems with Islam. Maybe some other time :-)
My interest remains on the past (for the moment), I want to understand what happened and what people perceive about it.
Hi GRS, what I call genocide - at a very simple/basic level. An intention to kill a group of people. Again i said war in self defense is perhaps understandable. But not all wars are like that, definitely cholas and pandays and pallavas waged lot of battles to take over territories which killed large groups of people. You can argue that they did not kill civilians (perhaps) but if you read some history most conquests do have setting fire to villages and palaces that signified power. It is hard to believe no civilain casualties were involved.
I don't mean we have to forget historical lessons. I do believe we have to stop judging the present by the past and not allowing people to be any different than their ancestors. I have met lot of muslims, well intentional, liberal people, both in the west and india. The general negativity they have to face is huge, phenomenally huge - from the public, both conservatives and non muslims. How does it feel like to be judged based on what your ancestors did? You and me can talk chola and pandya pride in this forum. Many people think our ancestors were casteist bigots, who beleived in untouchability, sati, and host of other social evils. They dont' think we come from chola tradition and need respect :))
I'd like to be respected and understood for who I am as a person, I'd like to think of everyone else including fellow muslim like that, to the extent possible.The ordinary muslim guy on the street is not in any way linked to Bin Laden as much as the guy on tv is linked to RRC 1000 years ago!! But if you force the comparison you are not letting him be an ordinary guy, you are giving him that identity which people will take and use in negative ways. Looking at human beings for who they are is the only way to stem terrorism, not generalisations and linear comparisons to history.
It is deliberate act that seeks to eliminate a particular group > of people. Did Pandayas ever commit such acts? Did Cholas, Cheras, > Mauryas etc commit such acts? History does not seem to say that. Wars > are not genocide.
Hi GRS,
i am reposting this from an earlier thread
During nedumaran/mangaiyarkarasi persecution of jains in madurai, ( I hv the actual verse somewhere, will check n post) talks of jains being given a last choice ... Sport the shaivaite signs ( viboothi) n be spared. When the wholetown runs short of viboothi, they take cow products n smear upon themselves, when that too runs short, some even carry the calves of cows to escape. Lastly it makes fun of the people who couldn't find any of the above tryingto dash against the heads of people already sporting the signs. With due credits to the die hard jain followers, a considerable number voluntarily impales themselves on the stakes put up by the king ( so technically he didn't impale them). There are gruesome murals in the madurai temple showing jains being impaled and boiled in kettles ..... It goes on saying such rotting bodies were consumed byvultures, dogs n foxs.......
Samanatham is the place I have heard from many people as the place where 8000 jains were impaled. I visited the place. There is a temple in the name of Jana Sampandar who incited the king to kill so many jains for their faith.
It is painful to note that while the memory of the perpetrator of the attrocity is kept alive, the memory of the victims is burried under the earth as ashes and nothing is being done to preserve the memory of so many who have laid down their lives for their faith.
The local people are saying that the ashes of the impaled jains are spread in about 20 acres of land. The place is strewn with potsherds and everyyear one or two foreigners visit the place. >>>>>>>>>>>>
but the memory of theat bitter struggle between Jainism and Hinduism, characterised by bloody episodes in the South, is constantly kept alive in the series of frescoes on the wall of the Mantapam of the Golden Lily Tank of the famous Minakshi Temple of Madura. These paintings illustrate the persecution and impaling of the Jains at the instance of the arch-enemy of Jainism, Tirujnanasambandara. As though this was not sufficient to humiliate that unfortunate race , the whole tragedy is gone through at five of the twelve annual festivals at the Madura temple. It is indeed sad to reflect that, beyond the lingering legends in secluded spots and the way side statues of her saints and martyrs, Jainism in south has left little to testify to the high purposes, the comprehensive proselytizing zeal and the political influence which she inspired in her fiery votaries of old
Dear SPS, all wars are retaliation of one form or the other...are they not? Appar being a saint why was he witness to so many people being persecuted and why did he write about it? Any ideas?
I am not used to your format of replying, so pardon me if I miss something.
To rephrase the issue, it is not which killing is better; it is which kind of killing was more horrific in terms of scale and time. Killing has parameters attached to it like I have already posted in other posts. Otherwise the world would not be coining terms like War Crimes, Genocide etc. I already put myself in their shoes and said the women and orphans who suffered such calamity would have had stress and trauma (unimaginable in scale).
Chopping of nostrils or ears was part of the world then. It is not of out of blue that we read in Ramayanam Lakshmana doing those.
Regarding peace and minorities. I did not want to get into contemporary issues, but several members have responded. Peace is possible only when all desire it. If one Kingdom desired it, and the other did not, would there be peace no? And War is the greatest instrument to create peace and stability.
Dear SPS: I resonate with your comments - about retaliation. I for one accept that back in the old days - things were not all hunky dory and the groups went against each others throats. It is my opinion based on reading that the Islamic hordes perpetuated heinous crimes that far surpassed the Hindu or Jaina crimes in numbers, scale and intensity.
For folks who seek to relate the past to contemporary issues and want to learn from the history there is one. When any local culture and tradition is overtaken slowly - by both violent or non-violent means; IF the people REALIZE what is happening they will react. The majority's backlash is horrific in nature too. The only way majority will not react is if they realize the change is better than the old ways.
I did not want to get into Appar's episode though I read it somewhere, because the Jainas persecution is consistently brought to notice by several authors and articles. But not much is said about how the Saivites, Vaishanvites, Advaiths etc became Jainas in the first place. Hopefully more research is done in that sphere too.
Any format is ok for me. I think am not saying more after this, it has been said already. The world can coin any number of terms - terms are used for description, they are not justifications. I didn't mean wordy acknowledgement that women suffered trauma. If you were in a situation were a chola warrior (let us say) murdered a loved one would you be able to pursue this line of argument - that the murderer was less in cruelty than someone else you know and so that is ok? It is unkind, illogical argument to present to anyone.
Yes it is VERY possible to have peace with one party desiring it. Only difficult that is all. Mandela did it and so did Gandhi and now Dalai Lama. What made Ashoka stand out among all other emperors despite the fact that he too was a great conqueror and fought many battles - even if we argue that it was not possible in those times? We like to argue all these things with bravado, that war is necessary, killing is required etc. it only takes one person we know to die to really understand how painful this really is.
I don't mind any format too :-) I said I was just not used to it, and did not want to miss out the points. I did not speak ill of anything of the member or the content.
I don't see in any place that I have justified any crime of Cholas or other Indian Kings/Queens. So your accusation of it being unkind or illogical is way out of mark. In order for an argument to be valid all the premises need to be true, to arrive at the conclusion. Else it becomes an invalid argument. Unless if what I have stated anywhere is false, my arguments are valid. My premise is simple - The Islamic hordes atrocities had the following characteristics 1)Large in numbers (scale) 2)Very intense 3)Greater religious persecution 4)Vastly systematic spread across centuries 5)Even the Muslim rulers indulged in the atrocities. And my conclusion is hence the atrocities committed by Islamic hordes are more heinous than those perpetuated by the Indic Kings.
It is implicit that I acknowledge the horrors of the Indic Kings, right? So there is a case of no justification from my side. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I am condoning CHola's crimes.
Again I am not saying killing is painless and it is all rosy. Peace can not be garnered by just one side. Neither Mandela, Gandhi or Dalai Lama got what they needed. Yes they played a huge part. But it was a part. The British were bankrupt after the WWI and WWII, so they let go India - among other reasons. Tibetans are still routinely subjugated by the Chinese. Chinese Hans are being migrated to Tibet and resettled there, wiping out the local population. Mandela was in jail for 24 years, right? What happened to all the blacks during the time? It is not bravdo. Creating and maintaining a State requires a lot of efforts. Tiruvalluvar and Chankyan apart from Sun Zu have all written about them - geopolitics is not easy. What is dharmic for a self is not necessarily dharmic for a state.
War is an instrument of peace, that does not mean there are no other instruments of peace. Kuniya kuniya dhan kuttuvanga.
And, I thank you for your responses. I learned a lot. If my arguments sounded harsh I am sorry. I think the discussion is wrapping up towards a conclusion. The general sentiment seems to be different than that of mine. And I was here to elicit opinions.
You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else is.
I dont' deny the need for self defence and maintaining defence strategies. I just dont' believe any crime is one sided that is all, including war crimes. We cannot partially justify certain things, like a funny saying goes there is no such thing as a half pregnant woman either she is pregnant or not. Likewise either it is a crime or it is not. It is impossible to say Crime X is better or worse than Crime Y.
You may be correct in your theoritical deduction that Islamic wars had certain characteristiscs that Cholas and others did not adopt and that is to the cholas credit. But from a moral and emotional perspective that does not add up to anything that is all. Meaning a victim of a war crime suffers regardless of who the perpetrator is. So instead of arguing and analysing the perpetrators we focus on evils of war in itself perhaps we can get somewhere that is all.
Yes we all are entitled to our opinions. Again, you bring the topic of justification. Where did I ever justify the Indic crimes. Just because I am attempting to compare does not mean I condone one or justify it. Can you show any one post where I claimed that what Cholas committed was not a crime? I don't think you can because I have not claimed as such.
It might be delicate to claim one crime is better than the other, but it is not delicate to claim one is more heinous than the other. That does not mean the other crime is not a crime. I want you to see the distinction in my mind.
You claim that you don't believe crime is one-side at all. Let us look at it. What did the Malaysians or Indonesians do to invite the attack of Cholas? What did the Indic people do to invite the wrath of the Islamic invaders? What did Indians do to invite the Portuguese Inquisitions? There are crimes that can be instigated, and there are crimes that arise because of no instigation.
I have repeatedly said I understand the horrendous times they victims of crime would have undergone.
Without analyzing the perpetrators how are we going to understand why war is conducted? How do we know why some one will go to a war or not? If we don't understand them, how are we going to prevent a war?
Peace can not be arrived by saying we desire peace. We have to understand all the parties involved. Again we are sliding towards contemporary issues. We sit and enjoy the peace and proclaim peace and not war, because we have soldiers protecting our country and we have some kind of law & order mechanism.
ok, what is your name for a 'less heinous crime'? One crime is more heinous than the other is a very subjective statement. To my mind analyzing crime is impossible without considering the victim's point of view - if so it is an indifferent theoritical analysis. When you look at things from a victim's point of view there is no such thing as a more heinous and less heinous crime, there is only pain and suffering. I meant crime was not one sided not for how it started but for how it continues - in ohter words the eye for an eye for an eye strategy that goes on and on under various names and by people who refuse to forget or rethink history.
If you claim we need to understand origins of war for future benefit, why do you hesitate to look at what is happening from a contemporary viewpoint? What we are seeing contemporarily with more technology and more communication is two sides of the war issue, as in Iraq and a greater difficulty in saying who was right or wrong other than the act itself. We did n't have that transparency in olden times so each party had their justifications.
Sir, also want to say last thing - you are not in the wrong place, there are people here who think chola wars were in some way better than islamic wars and we have to be proud of the former. I just do not happen to think like that and picked up this debate/argument with you.
I am not accusing you of justifying chola crimes, but it is not easy to see why then would you want to go to great lengths to say chola wars are 'less heinous'. There are lot of things to take pride about from our culture, I would rather focus on those things that are positive rather than an extended debate on which war was more heinous than which with no contemporary understanding attached.
I have already explained everything i wanted to say. Thanks for listening thus far and debating with me.
No name it is just a crime. Subjective to a degree yes, but that is the very purpose of this thread. I wanted to see what members thought about this subject. If it was cut and dry, I would not have even posted this question, right? Did I ask if what the Chola Kings did was right or wrong, immoral or wrong? No I did not.
Looking from a victims' stand point is fine. I do not mind. But there are other angles too. For example if a killer threatened my family, and I had to kill him it is one thing. But it is another thing if I planned a cold-blooded murder to loot another person's family. In both cases I ended up killing somebody and their family are put under trauma. In one case killing was necessary for me, and killing was unnecessary.
I am giving this analogy to show another angel. It does not mean that I am saying that what Cholas did was necessary :-)