Jesus Christ spoke neither in Hebrew nor in Aramic, but in Hindustani, during his encounter in a vision with Sadhu Sundar Singh, who, as a boy, had burned a copy of the New Testament. Had the Saviour spoken to the Indian saint in the language of the Jews, his message would have been totally lost upon Sunder Singh.

Hurt by the directive of the Tamil Nadu government that archanas in temples should be performed in Tamil in line with its policy to popularise Tamil engum-ethilum (anywhere and everywhere), a section of the pro-Sanskrit devotees, including a temple priest, have moved the court against the government for its alleged `interference with temple rituals'. How warranted is their protest?

Does the directive amount to interference with the temple rituals? No, if we go by the Justice MaharajanCommittee report which says, `Agamas do not speak of archanas, and neither the archakas nor the devotees understand the Sanskrit'. The order, in any case, also enables the exercise of any devotee's preference for the performance of archana in Sanskrit.

Resistance to any innovation or change for the better, is common in every age, but only to die in stages. No doubt, Sanskrit-lovers, too, will fall in line with the directive of the government in due course.

Days were when translation of the Bible was considered an act of heresy. Very few people ventured into it. John Wycliff dared, only to pay with his life. Similar was the fate of William Tyndale, who picked up the threads from where the former left and translated the whole book into English. The only fault of reformers, religious as well as social, is that they think and act much in advance of their time.

With the passage of time, opposition to Tyndale's common tongue Bible died down and his effort was hailed. What was more, hiswork was endorsed by no less a person than Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London, under whose leadership the copies of the same Bible had been earlier burnt.

Devotees who swear by Sanskrit argue that Devanagiri is supposed to be the language of communication with God and that mantras when translated ceases to be mantras, for they lose the powerful sound which creates divine effect. When the first modern version of the Bible was introduced replacing words such as `Thou' and `Thy', commonly used in the King James version, with `you' and `your', people felt that the new Bible, though easy, had lost its divine effect.

Style and structure of any language, too, undergo changes with the passage of time. The English spoken and written during the Jacobian period in which the King James Version, otherwise known as the Authorised Version, has been written, is different from the English spoken and written now. The modern version of Psalm 121:1, `I will lift up my eyes to the hills from where my help comes' is betterunderstood than the same psalm from the Authorised Version: `I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help'. Similarly, the modern verse in Job: `He (Job) had seven sons and three daughters' is simpler and more direct than `There were born unto him (Job) seven sons and three daughters'.

Now, with the publication of various modern versions, there is hardly any opposition to the use of modern terms. What is more, even the publishers of the New King James Version, have abandoned such archaic terms. It is not the language of scripture or mantras that matters, but understanding them.God is no respecter of persons, or languages, but of hearts.