Thursday, August 11th, 2022 01:38:37

Patent For Exorcism

Updated: August 2, 2014 11:20 am

India that is Bharat


IT was not long ago that an eminent economic journal of Christian England had described in devout details how the present Pope is proving himself a more and more successful vender of Christianity. Well, he does seem to know all the tricks of the Christian trade. The first and standard one among them is to ask forgiveness for this and that. So once more he has asked forgiveness of the victims of child sex abuse by many Christian priests for many years. This seems to have become a regular righteous ritual, and if one of these victims dismissed it as just an exercise in public relations on the Pope’s part this goes to show that public relations are an essential part of any big business and so the MNC that is Christianity was only sticking to a time-tested selling technique.

At the same time, His Holiness has also shown himself to be a ‘turn-around CEO’ for Christianity Inc. by introducing eye-catching innovations. One of them is his very recently bestowed blessings for exorcism. For the other day Satiricus read in the papers that the Pope has officially extended support to the work of exorcists in the Catholic Church when a group of priests engaged in saving people from demons was recognised under church law. According to the believe-it-or-not newspaper report, The International Association of Exorcists, a group of 250 priests “battling the forces of evil across 30 countries” has now received the Vatican’s legal recognition.

Well, now, it is nice to know that demonised Christians can now hire the soul-saving services of practising demon-destroyers or ghost-busters. But this pernicious pagan has a devilish doubt if, as the dictionary says, exorcism means driving a demon or evil spirit out of a person with the invocation or use of a holy name, has such a holy name been patented for the exclusive use of these licensed demon-demolishers? They may have thought of “Christ”, but is that holy enough when in Christ’s days ‘Christ’ merely meant a leader? And if they thought of “Jesus” was that not also the first name of the thief Barabbas who was also crucified? Satiricus gives up. Maybe the doubting demon inside this non-Christian nitwit needs a secular specialist from the Vatican to vanquish him.

True Leader

THE fine art of decently clothing the naked truth is not easy to master. Take Satiricus. He is a professional wordsmith, and yet he does not know the right words necessary for it. On the other hand take Congress leaders. Only the other day one of them made a dazzling display of his expertise in it by saying what looks like Congress’s minority-mongering is actually proximate secularism. And now we have another expert from the family stable who first said Rahul Gandhi “lacks the temperament to rule” but later artfully explained that all he meant was that Rahul Gandhi was not hankering after power.

See? Satiricus is an acknowledged retard, but he really had no idea that there can be such a thing as a leader who does not want to be a leader. Of course it is not that as Satiricus stupidly supposed Rahul Gandhi does not want to be a leader because he knows he does not have what it takes to be a leader. Rather, as yet another Congress leader declared, he has “all the attributes of a genuine leader”. There you are! There is nothing fake about Rahul Gandhi’s calibre as a leader. Was he not a real leader when he tore up an ordinance passed by the Government of India? Was he not a true leader when he called the Government of India ‘my’ government? Then again, his many attributes of a genuine leader included his penetrating perception of the country’s myriad problems through which he has to lead his countrymen. It was on the strength of this incredible insight that during his first pre-poll TV interview his answer on all questions from foreign policy to fiscal deficit was single and singular empower women. Who needs any more attributes?

Of Nationalist & National

THIS nationalism business is getting beyond the infantile understanding of Satiricus. For on the one hand the Indian National Congress has found to its consternation that Indian nationals do not want the Congress, while on the other hand the Election Commission is saying to the ‘Nationalist Congress’, you may be nationalist in name but do you now qualify as national? To make matters worse, a columnist recently eruditely differentiated between Hindu nationalism and secular nationalism. This is too much. Satiricus recalls those Congress government ads of “one nation, one people” and wonders….why does this one nation now need so many nationalisms? Why can’t Satiricus call himself a nationalist and leave it at that? Ah, that’s the rub! Nationalist of what nation? Of India that is Bharat, or of India that was Bharat?

Comments are closed here.