India that is Bharat
THE other day Satiricus read in the papers that British Prime Minister Cameron has called Britain a Christian nation. Well, now, Satiricus is a devout Indian secularist, and he is also a journalist, so on both counts he knows little about Christianity and less about British Christianity. Fortunately for him there are scholars of Christianity aplenty to educate him, including this lady who has written an article in defence of Cameron in a leading paper. The defence, as proclaimed in the heading of the piece, is that “history (is) on his side”.
Ah, history! Satiricus likes history, especially as against Itihasa. For history as written by historians and history-writers like the said lady is more often than not an interesting piece of imaginative fiction, not a boring account of factual events, as in Itihasa. But for stupidly straight-laced Satiricus the problem is that the imaginative ability of one historian may be different from the inventive aptitude of another historian. Take, for instance, this lady’s reference to Easter as a celebration of “the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. But if Satiricus’s moronic memory serves him right, wasn’t there a newspaper report a few short years ago saying some leaders of the Church of England publicly declared just the opposite—that they believed in Christ’s crucifixion but not in his resurrection? Oh, well, “doctors differ”, as they say, then why shouldn’t historians? Then again, this defender of the faith (of Cameron) against some prominent Englishmen who criticized him pointedly pointed out that the very names of these detractors are drawn from Christianity, as for example ‘Philip’, who “was very much one of the apostles of Jesus”. That, of course, settles the matter for simple Satiricus—but the curious cuss in him wonders….was he? Is that the truth about this Philip? Is that the gospel truth? Alas, there are pernicious pagans who dare to disagree. They say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to whom these four gospels’ authorship is attributed did not write them at all, that they were written by somebodies whose names are not known, and that these four, who lived nearly a hundred years after Jesus’s lifetime had not even seen him, let alone known him. Oh, my! Is that the truth about gospel truth? Is there not even “nominal” truth about Jesus’s disciples? Satiricus does not know, firstly because he is too much of a heathen Hindu to know, and secondly because he is just not interested in name-calling.
Talking about names, however, secular Satiricus knows a communal cuss who has actually prepared a regular glossary execrably exposing how a number of English /Christian names of people and places are borrowed or derived from Indian / Hindu names, covering almost the entire alphabetical range from Ambrosia (from amrit, nectar) and Angelica (from anjali, a hand-gesture of respect) to Shiela (from sheel, good character) and Tara (exactly the same for ‘star’). As if this is not ‘nominally’ nefarious enough, this lexicographical lout has descended to the dastardly depths of discovering that even place names all over England have prefixes-suffixes derived from Sanskrit. For instance, he crassly claims that the suffix ‘bury’ in Canterbury, Bloomsbury, Ainsbury and so on is from Sanskrit Puri, ‘town’, the suffix ‘ness’ in Caithness, Sheerness etc. means nose-like promontory and is derived from Sanskrit nasaā, nose, and the prefix ‘mer’ in Mersey, in which ‘mer’ is from ‘mere’, meaning wet, marshy land is from meer, Sanskrit for ‘a large body of water’. The worst part of this name-calling conspiracy is that even the dons of the dictionary have colluded with the horrid Hindus, for the river Amber in England got its name from Sanskrit ambhas, meaning ‘water’ says the Oxford Dictionary of Place Names and Proper Names.
Apart from this nasty name-calling, Satiricus is sure Cameron, as a patriotic Christian Englishman, must be swearing by King James Bible, called the authorized English version, but there is a malevolently mischievous man among Satiricus’s accursed acquaintances who asked, Did Jesus authorize it? If he did, how come in the original version in Aramaic, which was Jesus’s mother tongue, he is said to have plaintively cried, “Oh Lord, why have you deserted me?” but this has been omitted in the modern version of the Bible? Satiricus did not know the answer, but fortunately for him it was already given in 200 AD by a Roman philosopher. He said: The translators of the Bible seemed as if drunk while doing the translation. That explains it. The translators were experiencing transports of joy. Oh well, all said and done (the translation), it is good to see the British PM as the dauntless defender of the faith, unlike an equally prominent deserter of the faith of the recent past, namely Reverend Robert Taylor (1784-1844). To his book Discovery of the Origin, Evidences and Early History of Christianity a biographical chapter on the author was later added by another writer by name Cutner captioned “The Devil’s Chaplain.” In its opening paragraph Cutner wrote: “Among the number of priests, parsons and pastors who left the Christian Church….one of the most celebrated was Robert Taylor. He was….an ordained Church of England clergyman….On the day Taylor came of age, he tells us that he was fool enough to receive the sacrament.”
Taylor is now history, but how much is this history on Cameron’s side, Madam?