Thomas myth spread by Historians! Historian-liars on the increase in India!

I was surprised to see an article / paper written by one Dr. K. Sadasivan, Professor & Head. Department of History, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli appearing in the “Journal of Indian History and Culture” (JIHC) March 2003, Tenth issue, published by C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Institute of Indological Research, The C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation, 1, Eldams Road, Chennai – 600 018. The journal is edited by Dr. G. J. Sudhakar and the editorial board consists of –

a) Dr. K. V. Raman,

b) Dr. R. Nagaswami,

c) Dr, T. K. Venkatasubramanian and

d) Dr. Nandita Krisjna.

The editor in his note recorded –

“Dr. K. Sadasivan, of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has added his scholarship to this issue through his paper “Early Tamil oral, Literary and Archaeological traditions and St. Thomas Christians“

The learned editor’s complimented paper is appearing in the journal spreading to twenty pages (JIHC, pp.17-38). What and how the Professor has added his scholarship? Anything new? NO.

The learned Professor has just vomited what the propagandist missionaries and fraudulent group has already aided and abetted with the unscrupulous Archbishop & fundamentalist elements. Dr. Sadasivam has ironically not read what Dr. N. Nagaswamy has written about “the doubtful Thomas”. He has happily concluded as follows:

“It can be understood from the foregoing study that even in the absence of any documented history, the universal and local Christian traditions are unanimous in their views that St. Thomas arrived in India in 52 A. D., reached Mylapore via the west-coast (Thirivithancode-Aralvaimozhi pass), performed there his apostolic service in converting the natives to his religious fold and suffered martyrdom there at the hands of a native in A. D. though there are differing versions are there about his killer(s) and the place of his martyrdom. Moreover, the presence of a strong St. Thomas community, the tomb, the Chapel and the Cross, and the architectural remains, makes us believe that St. Thomas was living among the Tamils of first century A. D. however, it is premature to postulate a theory of Christian influence in Tamil works, particularly, Tirukkural, though it seems to display the possibility of having been influenced by the Bible or Christ/s Sermon on the Mount. But, a spark of Christian influence on the Tirukkural is not impossible as this didactic work is believed to have been written in the second century A. D., when St. Thomas Christians in the West Coast were still entrenched and began spreading the Gospel of Christ” (pp.33-34).

So the cat is out. Denying Christian influence on Tirukkural is to place it in 2^nd century and accept it! This makes one to remember what M/s. Arulappa and Acharya Paul Company has done in early 1980s. Now who is doing that to make Sadasivam to come to the same conclusion?

He asserts to conclude: “the universal and local Christian traditions are unanimous”. What is that universal tradition? Something alien or superman-type? Came from heavens or sent by Christ and revealed to Sadasivam? And that too the traditions are unanimous! It is unfortunate that as an historian should he lie like this.

Moreover, the presence of a strong St. Thomas community, the tomb, the Chapel and the Cross, and the architectural remains, makes us believe that St. Thomas was living among the Tamils of first century A. D. Are the historians so naïve and gullible to believe instead of asking for historical evidences? Definitely, something has happened to this gang of historians who decided to accommodate such false, that too, already well-known forgery and fraudulent act. Who gives such dating of first century A. D and all? Not only his dating is wrong but also the notation, as now only BCE and CE are used. The learned historian has been so “christianic” to follow Anno Domini! Any way to follow fraudulent and forge history such dubious dates have to be followed.

“But, a spark of Christian influence on the Tirukkural is not impossible as this didactic work is believed to have been written in the second century A. D., when St. Thomas Christians in the West Coast were still entrenched and began spreading the Gospel of Christ”. Very well indeed. Had Arulappa been alive, he would have generously funded to Sadasivam of Tirunelveli,  as he did to Acharya Paul of Sri Rangam. How e gets the same “research methodology” of Arulappa and Co.?

The acknowledgement of Dr. G. J. Sudhakar is unbelievable: “Dr. K. Sadasivan, of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has added his scholarship to this issue through his paper “Early Tamil oral, Literary and Archaeological traditions and St. Thomas Christians“. He has been a history Professor of Loyola College, editor of several history-journals, office-bearer of IHC, SIHC, TNHC etc. So his admission and appreciation of “scholarship” aiding and abetting false history, fraudulent history etc., is intriguing and appears to be heading for dangerous situation.

Dr. Nandita Krishna has been of course not new for the spread of myth, as she has already contributed her mite in “The Hindu”. For details: See www.hamsa.org However, being a great-daughter of C. P. Ramaswami Iyer in his name the Foundation runs and publishes this journal, this is something unfortunate, as she could have avoided it. At least, she could have told Sudhakar not to publish it. But, what is done becomes history!

Anyway, why Indian historians have been becoming liars? One has to study this aspect.

Responses