Supreme Court Judges Insults Hindus by referring Radha-Krishna as premarital sex partners

Insulting Hindu religious belief by a reference to Radha-Krishna

An open letter to all citizens of Bharat,

Appended is a report on the Supreme Court’s decision on pre-marital sex.

We take exception to the obiter dicta of the Court reported in the media. “Drawing an analogy from the Hindu mythology, the court said, even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together.”

It is shocking that such a statement should have reportedly been made by the learned judge(s). It is shocking because it shows a gross ignorance about Hindu traditions and Hindu history.

First of all, the reality of Krishna is established by the Itihaasa Mahabharata text and the astronomical reference contained in the text. Hence, Krishna is NOT mythology.

It is absurd to refer to the episode of Radha-Krishna in the context of a case related to pre-marital sex. Sri Krishna, Bala Krishna was only 10 years of age when he left Brindavan for the Gurukulam in Sandeepani Ashram. The episode of Radha-Krishna occurred when Sri Bala Krishna was a child 10 years of age.

Bhagavata Purana, does NOT refer to Radha by name but is alluded to within the tenth chapter of the text as one of the gopis whom Krishna plays with during his upbringing as a young boy. Krishna left Vrindavan for Mathura at the age of 10 years and 7 months according to Bhagavata Purana . So Radha is assumed to be a child of about 10 years or less, when Krishna left Vrindavan. http://www.vedabase .net/sb/10/ 45/3/en

I suggest that Bhagavata Purana together with the works of Savant Nimbarka, a vaishnava acharya, should be made essential reading for all constitutional functionaries.
After his education in Sandeepani Ashram, Shri Krishna never returned to Brindavan. He went to Mathura.

What is wrong with our educational system that even learned judges should refer to a seven-year old Shri Krishna and his being a darling of humanity and who enthralled Radha and other Gopikas has NOTHING to do with pre-marital sex since he was in Brindavan only until he was seven years of age.

Is a mother’s affection to a child considered pre-marital sex? Is the adoration by elders of an avatara considered pre-marital sex?

Maybe, there should be a law requiring minimum education in Hindu history and cultural traditions of avatara purusha like Shri Rama and Shri Krishna to all constitutional functionaries.

In this context, it is apposite to recall the words of Justice ASP Iyer who was Justice of Madras High Court. Justice A.S.P Iyer I.C.S (1899-1963) in his book, ‘Sri Krishna – The Darling of Humanity’, says: “Alexander the Great once asked a Brahmin scholar in the 4th century BC. “How can we know a man to be God?” and the scholar replied “When he does what no man can ever do.” To illustrate this divine point, I would refer to how Krishna saved the chastity, dignity and honour of Draupadi at the Royal Court of Hastinapura.
Does a seven year old darling of Brindavan become an example of pre-marital sex in jurisprudence?

Something is amiss here. I hope there will be an apology to all Hindus whose sentiments have been deeply hurt (cf. Section 295A of IPC) by the unwarranted reference to Radha-Krishna as an analogy of pre-marital sexual relationship.

Dhanyavaadah.

Dr. S. Kalyanaraman

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
1[295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2[citizens of India], 3[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.]

1. Ins. by Act 25 of 1927, s. 2.

2. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “His Majesty’s subjects”.

3. Subs. by Act 41 of 1961, s. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 27-9-1961)

4. Subs. by Act 41 of 1961, s. 3, for “two years” (w.e.f. 27-9-1961)

Live-in, pre-marital sex no offence: SC
24 Mar 2010, 0541 hrs IST, ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: There is good news for the votaries of the live-in partners. The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the live-in relationships between the adult couples cannot be treated as an offence.

“When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence,” said a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B S Chauhan.

Drawing an analogy from the Hindu mythology, the court said, even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together.

The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.

The bench passed the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petition filed by noted south Indian actress Khushboo. She had approached the apex court seeking quashing of about 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-marital sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005.

While hearing the case, the judges grilled the counsel for some of the complainants in the case and repeatedly stressed that the perceived immoral activities cannot be branded as offence.

The argument of the counsel was that her comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and ethos of the country.

“Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life,” remarked the court. apparently referring to Article 21 of the Constitution relating to right to life and liberty. The apex court further said the views expressed by Khushboo were personal.

“How does it concern you. We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?” the bench asked the counsel.

The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after the said interview.

“How many homes have been affected can you tell us,” court asked while enquiring whether the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, “Then, how are you adversely affected”?

Khushboo had approached the apex court after the Madrash High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the criminal cases filed against her through out Tamil Nadu.

http://economictime s.indiatimes. com/articleshow/ 5717877.cms? prtpage=1

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Supreme Court Judges Insults Hindus by referring Radha-Krishna as premarital sex partners

  1. Pingback: Mating as marriage judgement is a shocker | Arise Bharat

  2. Pingback: Arise Bharat

  3. skandaveera

    Well now the courts know that their dismissal of those pleas and vouching “safe” for adultery as legally acceptable only leads to things that are eventually even legally unacceptable – are they ready to confess their short-sightedness and talk more in the interests of civilized society, in the interests of moral conduct and peaceful and a safe soceity?

    Reply
    1. priyaa arya

      oh really? so are u trying to say that the delhi gang rape happened because of the freedom gurls are getting now? and that men have all the rights to do whatever they want? why is ur moral policing only for women here in india? why dont all you men vouch not to be seen around after 7 without spouses or a woman companion? show me one man who has followed all the moralities in this nation… hypocrisy at its best….. i say even if a woman is freakin walking naked on the road….. no one has the right to touch her without her consent….. consensual sex and live in are personal choices….. safe society can only happen when you men learn to respect women and their freedom…. as you respect your own…. and stop bothering about people’s personal choice in their personal matters….. pls look into your own souls first… check yourself first before pointing fingers at others….. as kabira said “bura jo dekhan main chala bura na miliya koi…. jo dil dekhyo aapna…. mujhsa bura na koi” be a true human pls….. first learn how to respect people’s personal space…. and then talk about a safe society….. and if we are talking abt pre marital sex… it has been there in our nation during krishna’s time too…. or are you telling me that you really believe in the theory of surya devta and karan’s birth? so pls guys…. stop judging and start living…. society will be a good place to live in automatically…. stop treating the women as devis or sluts…. we are as human as u guys are…. so pls…. live and let live…..

      Reply
      1. Parimala

        Priyaa, I have been reading this debate closely from the time it started a few months back. You first gave wrong information about Bhagvat puraan confusing it with Bhagvad Gita. This is a case of a wrong information stated by Judges of the “Supreme court” of India and is indefensible by that standard. The judge could have his personal preferences and can choose to give any precedence, but it is beyond his purview to give wrong reference. This is unpardonable.

        Secondly, even this reply of yours, you draw your own inferences about skandaveera which are irrelevant to his point. It is probably you who need to introspect about why you need to continue to attack the so-called “guys” when in fact it was you have been continuously crossing the line in decency of expression. I found the “guys” on the forum who tried to give responses to you have infact been pretty decent as compared to your expression.

        BTW, I am a happily married proud Hindu woman with no intention of looking into what each one does in his personal life.

      2. skandaveera

        You must have read my statement before trying to sermon – can you quote where exactly I said “freedom girls are getting” or for that matter any single sentence specific to women? The words I used are very explicit and there is no scope to mistake them – adultery and fall of morality. Why did you read that as a statement about women? The point is simple – rape is one step morally fallen than adultery. Once you give social acceptance to the latter, it is only a matter of time the former would happen in the society – because there is only a legal glitch and no moral question.

        As for premarital relations, they always “exist” – the question is whether they are accepted as a norm – as per history never. They were only exceptions and treated as such. To make them a norm today and call them *acceptable* is absolutely a short-sighted thing and a direct cause for fall of morality.

        For your emotional outburst “no one has the right to touch her without her consent”, ask yourself a simple question – who will protect that right? In absolute terms, if a physically strong brute assaults another human, male or female, where is the restraint? From where does that restraint come? Law or morality or social convention or fear of a stronger force?

        If individuals are “free to do anything”, then then have no case to expect protection from the society, they just live in a jungle law. You are forgetting the basic premises on which civilized societies are built. No, individuals are not “absolutely free” – there are social norms and following those or not following those will keep affecting the individual’s position, safety and respectability in the society.

        Just try to understand how the west evolved into a broken society with high individual crime rate including rape. State cannot provide security if society and individuals are morally fallen.

        You must start thinking from the other direction – what makes an individual respect another individual’s freedom? What is the basis for freedom? What constitutes society, morality and legality?

        It is ultimately a society’s moral self-regulation that controls crime for the most part – only exceptions and acute cases are controlled by the state.

    2. priyaa arya

      skandaveera i completely understand your point of view….. and am sorry for being harsh before….. hope one will understand that it was an emotional outburst….. but on a serious note, i still fail to understand as a human, the concept of right and wrong….. something that can be right for me can be absolutely wrong for you….. and even the societal rules and laws have been changing with the change of times….. polygamy to monogamy….. etc etc….. i am not saying who is right or wrong…. all my point of discussion from the word go is (inspite of the harsh words) pls stop judging….. stop moralizing….. if we talk about morality, then am sorry to say i dont feel domestic violence is being moral…. n 90% cases of domestic violence are in the houses where the marriages have happened with parental consent….. i dont think discrimination is moral….. but if you go in the interiors of our nations the rudhiwadi culture of untouchability still exists…. why go to the interiors? look into the urban homes…. how many of us actually treat our maids and house helps as equals? dats what i call being morally right….. in my home, my maids wear the same brands as me…. they sit with me on the same table and eat…. i believe in equality in every sense….. and thats morality in my eyes…… not fighting in the name of religion and personal preference of partnering….. i am sorry….. maybe i am a li’l daft here…. i do not understand this discussion…. cause i really feel we have much bigger issues to deal with in our nation…… i am sorry if i dont believe in religions as i feel they are all man made…. with various versions…… i am sorry if i dont believe in the various faces of gods as i feel they were humans at some point of time….. what i believe in is today and the problems we are facing as a changing and growing nation today…… me as a person will prefer a broken marriage than a loveless marriage….. but thats again a personal choice….. and maybe thats why have not got married and nor do i wish to get married seeing the state of affairs in our nation……
      i am a proud unmarried woman…. who believes in equality and humanity….. not any religion. once again i am sorry if i have hurt anyone’s feelings….. got a li’l carried away with emotions…… cause maybe, have seen a lot of violence and emotional trauma given to people in the name of morality and religion….. so maybe am too biased and strong on such cases. extremely sorry!

      Reply
      1. skandaveera

        No problem, understand it is an emotion-evoking topic.

        While equality is a different and complex topic, it is not very relevant to this article – so let me move on with a brief comment. Broadly, equality itself cannot be a moral, because phenomenal equality is against the very natural principle of phenomenal diversity. An understanding of essential equality of all beings, and behaving a phenomenally humane (not necessarily equal) way is what a moral value can be. For instance the way bad household owners treat maids, or the way maids with caste hatred behave in households they work to trouble the owners are all situational and not merely questions of individual morality. Like I said, it is more intricate and let me leave it here.

        Morality is not all that relative – there are broadly two schemes of morality the people try to emulate (in cases it chooses to, knowingly or unknowingly). One is the oriental Dharma/Dhamma kind of eternal righteousness which bases individual morality on natural order (agnostic of religious inclinations). One is the occidental Kantian model which bases individual morality on universal individualism. The real diversity is because of the different statures of individuals who selectively chose to be strongly or loosely moral given the same set of values, and the challenges posed by situations to individual’s judgement. The equilibrium and peace in society depends on proportion of people who stand by vs who cross the line.

        My point was simple – common man’s behavior is not absolute and depends on how the convention is shaped for the times. And there are always fringe cases that are rigidly moral and also cross whatever line is conventional. The legal system should not go in a way that loosens this line and encourages more people to go out of the line.

        Talk of extra and premarital relations, it is not without a reason they are not called moral. Their social consequences are quite detrimental, as well as at a relation level they defy the basic question of commitment and hence pose threat to the foundation block of the society namely family. There are always all kinds of cases – people who live bachelors, people who get married and are committed to marriage, people who are not committed to their marriage, people who sacrifice conjugal relations and devote their lives to higher causes, all kinds. While individual choices and situations are diverse, the broad norm is what one could talk at the macro level. From this perspective, the question is what proportion of breaking which convention throws society out of equilibrium. Here is when the question of how to shape individual morality and what examples should be set for people to emulate etc come up. Having seen how the wreckage of family institution in the west also resulted in fall of morality and rise in crime, it cannot be acceptable that our judiciary is making such shortsighted decisions. The courts do not have to legally punish people for individual choices, but calling something norm when it is something that should not be a norm, from the above viewpoint, is quite harmful.

      2. Confused Krishna Bhakta in Canada

        ” Having seen how the wreckage of family institution in the west also resulted in fall of morality and rise in crime”

        In addition, I would also like to address this. The US violent crime rate has been steadily declining for the past 30 years while the number of non-married live-in partnerships have been steadily increasing.

      3. skandaveera

        Not 30, 20 years – I attribute it to the rise of Asian population and gradual increase in family stability as a result. Just keep watching post recession how the next 10 years change.

      4. Confused Krishna Bhakta in Canada

        “I attribute it to the rise of Asian population and gradual increase in family stability as a result. Just keep watching post recession how the next 10 years change.”

        South Asians are merely 1% of the total population in the US and East Asians less than 6%.

        How would those Asians gradually increase the family stability of Non Asian
        Americans? They are not decreasing the divorce rate, in fact, they themselves are getting divorced.

      5. skandaveera

        This argument is replied on another thread. Talk of “rise” and not “percentage”, because decline in crime is what your claim was. Both rise in Asia population and decline in crime are gradual – none so sudden.

    3. Confused Krishna Bhakta in Canada

      — “Well now the courts know that their dismissal of those pleas and vouching “safe” for adultery as legally acceptable only leads to things that are eventually even legally unacceptable ”

      What is your understanding of the world “adultery”? You seem to be confusing it with pre-marital sex. Adultery is in fact extra-marital sex wherein one (or both) spouses are deceiving the other and “cheating on” him/her by having a sexual affair outside of the marriage without the knowledge or permission of the other spouse.

      — “The point is simple – rape is one step morally fallen than adultery.”

      Adultery is of course wrong and grounds for divorce, but to say rape is only “one step” away from it is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous if you are using the word “adultery” as a euphemism for a mutually consensual sexual relationship between two unmarried persons of legal adult age. There is no crime or breech of ethics in that.

      — “Once you give social acceptance to the latter, it is only a matter of time the former would happen in the society”

      There is no social acceptance of adultery in India. In fact it is grounds for legal divorce. Nevertheless, rape is still going on.

      glitch and no moral question.

      Reply
      1. skandaveera

        “What is your understanding of the world “adultery”? You seem to be confusing it with pre-marital sex. Adultery is in fact extra-marital sex wherein one (or both) spouses are deceiving the other and “cheating on” him/her by having a sexual affair outside of the marriage without the knowledge or permission of the other spouse.”

        No, that is *one kind*. In general adultery is not about deception, it applies to relations outside marriage. Of course, the way people define fish or egg to be “vegetarian”, you can play with this word too.

        “Adultery is of course wrong and grounds for divorce, but to say rape is only “one step” away from it is ridiculous. ”

        If you think so, please demonstrate how many steps it is away from.

        ” It is even more ridiculous if you are using the word “adultery” as a euphemism for a mutually consensual sexual relationship between two unmarried persons of legal adult age. There is no crime or breech of ethics in that.”

        It may not be a crime, but definite breach of morality in that, and I have argued elaborately how and why it is. And also why to call it “normally acceptable” eventually results in things that are unacceptable.

      2. skandaveera

        For the word adultery, it just happens to be a western equivalent of the word vyabhicara which has a wider range of meaning. In any case, please read the entire message and offer arguments if you have. You seem to be stuck on an American notion of social morality, which is temporal and largely irrelevant. US have their inability to change those things overnight, and compulsions to legally qualify things as acceptable (and not necessarily because the policy makers think of them as acceptable in the long run). India has a living society which has its ways of regulating morality within the society, with virtually no state interference. First of all, there is no need to legalize things that have been for ages understood at common man level as morally unacceptable. Second, there is no need to read such gross conduct into texts that are meant to convey an entirely different set of messages. Third, there is no need for individuals to claim for public acceptance for private conduct – which in their minds is acceptable. “Acceptance” to an individual cannot be acceptance to the society. Acceptance in society means it should qualify the conditions to become a social norm without disrupting social morality. Which neither premarital nor extramarital relations nor dating qualify.

      3. priyaa arya

        what i am seeing and learning from this is that our culture is the best and all other cultures need to learn from us….. and even the west today is getting better cause of us….. isint that too high headed? ok… let me quote a live example here….. my own sister in law is an american….. and her family has not seen a divorce case since generations….. so it will be good if we do not generalize any culture…. there are goods and bads in all cultures…. and believe you me…. we are far better than what we as india have seen in the 70’s….. when the hippy culture had hit us the most…. and we had kind of become a free sex nation… especially talking about bombay and the metros…… and talking about adultery…… as per the statistics, 80% men in india have their first sexual encounter in their teens…… and this is not the statistic of today…… its going on since generations….. so why such a hue and cry on a woman saying yes to pre marital sex? suddenly we start crying about our culture? show me one man….. one man who has not eyed another woman apart from his wife? what moralities are we talking about? and why are these moralities so gender biased? as i stated earlier…. there is nothing right and nothing wrong till the time you are not hurting another individual…. so pls lets stop attacking the west and stop these baseless criticism of personal choices….. rape is a crime….. and dat has got nothing means nothing to do with a personal choice of partnering….. i did not understand the point yesterday…. and i will never understand this point ever….. dis is the mindset we all need to change here in india…. treat us as equals pls…… if something is ok for you as a man…. how does it become criminal for a woman? what is our culture? in our nation, a woman is neither safe in the womb nor outside….. abortions? killing the girl child live? of honour killings? slavey? untouchibility? what are you so proud of? is that the culture we are talking about and so proud of? i am sorry….. i am not proud of our so called male dominated culture….. in west they just have broken families….. but not broken souls….. here souls are crushed in the name of religion and culture…… all nations go through various phases of changes….. and so are we….. so as a nation pls accept this change rather than having such baseless debates…. do something for your nation, if you are a proud indian, and make it a better place to live… a safe and a serene country…. where people live and let live….. where people have their fundamental rights intact….. pls stop judging and start understanding….. i rest my case here…. i am sorry but actually i am disturbed by the way most of the society thinks and feels….

      4. priyaa arya

        in rural india, tribal women in ghoonghats are raped by the rich landlords….. thats our morality? hit by western culture? or devdasi pratha down south? thats being moral? or sati pratha in east? thats our culture? or even urban india…. where women are literally forced to leave their lucrative careers in the name of family and culture…. is that morality? or the balika vadhus in west india… what is the culture and norm that you are talking about and so proud of? and to top that you are saying that rapes are happening because of morals going low? i see no difference in your and abhijit mukherji’s thinking….. dainted and painted thinking….. god bless our nation1

      5. skandaveera

        Well you mix up too much. Even with another post you made on Mahabharata and Yudhistira calling it a flaw in “our” religion. First, MBH is not a religious text, it is itihasa. Second, Yudhistira staking Draupadi is not upheld as correct by MBH or later literature – it is always shown as an example of the vices of addiction. Now coming to the current post –

        “what i am seeing and learning from this is that our culture is the best and all other cultures need to learn from us”

        Not “need to” – they have and they are learning. Whether it is sciences of yore or philosophies today, *they are*. If you have factual arguments, please make. Ignoring the sermon part, I go to your argument part –

        “in rural india, tribal women in ghoonghats are raped by the rich landlords….. thats our morality? hit by western culture”

        Why this simplistic question? Why don’t you study the origins of feudalism in India and erosion of kingdoms, which caused the opporession of village groups at the hands of landlords? And what does it have to do with Hindu morality? The same question applies to other questions – why don’t you try to study, get statistics and understand? Why do you try to escape the learning part by throwing blame on the “morality” and “culture”?

        I can list out several other “pratha”s, but that is irrelevant to this topic.

        You owe me a lot of answers for the accusations you make – such as equating a criticism of pre-marital relation with anti-woman stance. In a way it is a pro-woman argument, if you can really understand the line of argument in depth. For all the emotional questions you raise such as exploitation of village women by rich landlords, you fail to see how your own arguments about morality are not really logically contradicting exploitation of women. But I leave it to your patience and wisdom to contemplate on.

        ” what is the culture and norm that you are talking about and so proud of? ”

        The norm of Dharma that I mentioned in an earlier post. The culture of respect for humanity. Now what that morality and culture are, is a matter of how much you study them – I cannot give you in a capsule.

        ” to top that you are saying that rapes are happening because of morals going low”

        Of course, I do. Do you think rapes happen when morals go high and people are all well-cultured and follow good ethics? It is definitely because of the downfall of morality and culture. This is why I said you are mixing up too much.

        “i see no difference in your and abhijit mukherji’s thinking”

        That is a problem in your cognitive abilities, and remains your problem.

    4. priyaa arya

      Well you mix up too much. Even with another post you made on Mahabharata and Yudhistira calling it a flaw in “our” religion. First, MBH is not a religious text, it is itihasa….

      well shri krishna is an integral part of mahabharatha right? for me it is itihas (history) So confusion is definitely not @ my end….. if giving a remark on shri krishna can lead to issues like morality, then why can we not quote karan and yudhishtir? its the same era right? pls correct me if i am wrong….. shri krishna was pandav’s first cousin…. right?

      The norm of Dharma that I mentioned in an earlier post. The culture of respect for humanity.

      if you respected humanity, you would have respected different cultures…. and not have been so high headed and biased about your own dharma and culture…. pls stop condemning is a repeated request….. especially when you are hardly aware of the real facts about different cultures….. and i am not talking out of thin air but real experiences….. mujhe usa mein raat mein akele nikalte huye darr nahin lagta hai…. but i am scared of the same here in my own country INDIA….. guess you are unable to understand the point i have been trying to make…. and now this argument is just been taken forward for the sake of it….. u very conveniently used the tribal women rape case and blamed the feudal law for it and did not even bother to answer the rest which was stemming from our own roots….
      i guess we have learned men sitting here who know it all….. condemning any culture to show how great you are, is abso non acceptable! and sorry, you are not respecting me or womanhood by saying that rape is a step lower than consensual sex…… maybe the definitions of morality differ in our case…..
      pls dont even bother to reply to this as i am thoroughly disappointed and am unfollowing myself from here post this….. thank you… and may god help you grow beyond the reigns of man made religions and cultures and help you grow towards the real path of dhamma…. where you learn to respect individual space.

      Reply
      1. skandaveera

        “well shri krishna is an integral part of mahabharatha right? for me it is itihas (history) So confusion is definitely not @ my end….. if giving a remark on shri krishna can lead to issues like morality, then why can we not quote karan and yudhishtir? its the same era right?”

        How does Krishna being a contemporary or cousin of Yushistira *justify* the act of Yudhistira? My statement was pretty straight – Yudhistira’s act is always seen as a mistake and cannot be a flaw in the way MBH teaches morality.

        “if you respected humanity, you would have respected different cultures…. and not have been so high headed and biased about your own dharma and culture…. pls stop condemning is a repeated request”

        Leave my respect or disrespect – I have so far not seen you present any data to substantiate your views. I have only seen you mix up issues, calling one for the other.

        Giving examples is not called “presenting data”. Data is statistical, when you talk of issues like this. Though I disagreed with another person “Confused Krishna Bhakta”, he talked of statistics. So instead of asking me to “respect” cultures, why not talk of cultural impact and crime statistics? Can you make a comparison of crime and rape in US and India and let me know how that fares with your opinions?

        ” u very conveniently used the tribal women rape case and blamed the feudal law for it and did not even bother to answer the rest which was stemming from our own roots u very conveniently used the tribal women rape case and blamed the feudal law for it and did not even bother to answer the rest which was stemming from our own roots”

        There is no “our own roots” in the example you quoted – the issue of brutal landlords is much bigger and it is your mistake to quote it for rape. Because it is not limited to rape – it is a bigger question of *humane conduct*, and lack of it causing assaults on poor peasants, their children, women and old people. Which is why I brought in the topic of morality.

        I told you I can make a bigger list than you can, but that does not prove anything. Talk of Sati or Niyoga or Devadasi or anything – get the numbers century-wise and area-wise. Understand their evolution in time and space instead of void criticism. And then, if you fail to see why they rose in time and why they faded in time, then I will definitely give you a very elaborate answer. But don’t expect me to spoonfeed you without doing your homework.

        “and sorry, you are not respecting me or womanhood by saying that rape is a step lower than consensual sex”

        There is no “respect” or “disrespect” here – if you disagree then it is a disagreement. But if you want to judge my statement, then the onus is on you show the basis for your judgement. And there is definitely no statement I made about women at all – you are the one repeatedly trying to push “consensual sex” as a sign of respect for womanhood. It is not. And please do not reduce womanhood or “woman’s self respect” to that. They are much bigger terms and include

        And again, your sermon – who exactly is talking of individual space? You or me? My argument has been specific to the morality involved in an act, while it is you who are talking of individual freedom and space. If you have the ability to think and talk about what morality consists of, then you would have understood in what frame it should be discussed. From the viewpoint I have been arguing, the question is only what people *do* and what it *results in* – not at all what people *should do* or what people *are free to do*. If you cannot see this difference, then as I said it is a problem in your cognitive ability.

  4. Confused Krishna Bhakta in Canada

    I’m a Krishna bhakta but I don’t see what the problem is here.

    Is it illegal in India for 2 grown adults who consent to it to have sex or live together? What’s the issue exactly that reached court?

    Reply
    1. arisebharat Post author

      A film actress, Khushboo gave a statement that most girls in Bharat have pre-marital sex. Few cases were filed in court in 2005 for offences of obscenity, criminal defamation, outraging the modesty of a woman, promoting enmity among groups under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under provisions of the Indecent Representation of People (Prohibition) Act.

      The Supreme Court dismissed the cases under the Indecent Representation of People (Prohibition) Act, 1986, enacted to punish publishers and advertisers, as publication of her views in a newsmagazine did not make Khushboo an ‘advertiser’ or a ‘publisher’. Similarly, the cases of outraging modesty, defamation, and promotion of enmity between groups were thrown out on technicalities of the law, without much substantive discussion.

      The judgements have to be made based on the existing laws, one of which upheld her right to “freedom of expression”. However, one of the judges went overboard by unncessarily commenting and bringing in the relationship between Radha & Krishna which was based on half-baked knowledge on the subject.

      On serious issues like giving judgements, the courts are supposed to be stick to the domain they are good at and not over-stretch their freedom.

      Reply
      1. Confused Krishna Bhakta in Canada

        While the judge may have went overboard and does not know the philosophical underpinnings of Radha Krishna Lila, it is a fact that in their bhauma lila Radha and Krishna were not married. (Not only that but in some traditional lila and kirtan literature, such as that of the Gaudiya Sampradaya, Sri Radhaji was married to another gwal, Ayan Ghosh, also known as Abhimanyu, but she stealthily would sneek out at night to meet with her beloved Krishna.)

        Perhaps the judge did not mean any harm by the statement but simply used Radha and Krishna as an indigenous example of a freer and more open society, one which India should be proud of and aspire to again.

      2. arisebharat Post author

        Namaste,

        The universally accepted life of Sri Krishna is the Bhagvat Puran. In fact there is no reference to Radha in the entire Bhagvat Puran ! Secondly, in the Bhagvat Puran, it is important to note that Sri Krishna is supposed to have left Brindavan at the tender age of 10 years and 7 months. It is before that age that the Rasa Lila with the gopis is described.

        In some of the secondary texts, Radha Rani is mentioned and the divine romance of Radha-Krishna is mentioned in some of them. However, in all these texts Sri Krishna is described to be present with all the gopis at the same time, meaning they all enjoyed his companionship at the same time. What does this signify ?

        Playing with words like free & open society and trying to equate the concept of free society in the Dwapara yuga with the current concept of ” Free society” is detrimental and the west is already grappling with broken families and a broken society due to this.

        If the judge wants to talk about pre-marital sexual relationships, there are a lot of other examples that he can quote from and there was no necessity for him to overstep his jurisdiction.

        Also read http://www.mid-day.com/specials/2009/may/240509-Radha-Lord-Krishna-Indian-Mythology-Play-Mumbai-Devlok.htm

      3. Confused Krishna Bhakta in Canada

        “If the judge wants to talk about pre-marital sexual relationships, there are a lot of other examples that he can quote from and there was no necessity for him to overstep his jurisdiction.”

        He may simply have been attempting to show previous cultural precedence for it. Why should I assume he was trying to be malicious? Better to think positive and give the benefit of doubt.

        “the west is already grappling with broken families and a broken society due to this.”

        High divorce rate.
        Quite different from two responsible adults mutually agreeing to live together and use birth control methods. In fact, I think that’s a wiser option than getting married and having kids.

        Shri Krishna Sharanam Mama!

      4. arisebharat Post author

        When making comments as a judge, it is very important that he first gets his facts right. Thats the least he could have done. Regarding wanting to live togehter without marriage, it is your personal preference and beyond the purview of this discussion.

  5. B

    A lot of people, including ‘Priyaa Arya’, have misunderstood what the issue is here. The issue is that a person is using a story – let’s call it this for the sake of those who are not religious, yeah? – to validate their point, but the point they are trying to make is not validated by the story.

    Basically, not a very clever judge if the precedent on which he wishes to base his current case is actually not a stated precedent for what he wants to back up.

    It’s like if I were to claim, “There’s nothing wrong with calling children into a grotto and then beating them up – even Santa does it.” This is wrong because there is no version of the Santa story to say that he beats children up, not even in the past (when we were “not living”).

    It’s just a simple matter of misapplication. Poor show on the judge, not just because these scriptures are a deep part of the nation’s law-abiding citizens’ psyche and a man of the law should know better than to make flippant remarks to try and pull in the public – but also because one would hope that Supreme Court judges would be cleverer than to make such a silly technical mistake.

    Reply
  6. Tushar Sharma

    Hi,

    Please refine your knowledge with truth. Shri Krishna married only one woman, Rukmani. An Arya man (true Follower of Vedas), can not marry more then one woman (Although, some exceptions of it are in Vedas but these are fully logical. For detailed information, please explore Vedas).

    To know the truth about Shri Krishna, Please follow the link:

    http://www.satyavidya.org/component/content/article/50-awakening-of-nation/159-lord-krishna-an-enlightening-personality

    Shri Krishna is considered as Avatar. Avatar, as a material, is a human body used by God to publish some of his unlimited powers to re-establish truthful knowledge among the human beings. Avatar is supposed to teach humans the ideal way of leaving and hence, is worth of much respect. Avatar is a physical expression of Almighty, One, and unseen God.
    And even after this explanation, if someone is considering Avatar as a born of God Himself in a body like an ordinary man, then one needs deep meditation before understanding almighty Gods’ power . Don’t say to me that the greatest creator God is not able to create an Avatar body to reveal his powers and he can only insert a soul in a human body. (If you don’t know the difference between God and souls, please read Gita in the light of Vedas.)

    One Obvious Question: If Vedas are considered as the source of true knowledge why don’t they tell about Avatars (Like Shri ram and Shri Krishna) directly?
    Answer:
    1. Vedas are very first books which are reveled for human being before any Avatar.
    2. These books are supposed to provide true knowledge about Almighty God and the way to get His all blessings only.
    3. Future can be predicted but can not be confirmed as it depends on your Karmas. If God had written the information about Avtars in Vedas, it would be against His philosophy about future.

    All information about Shri Krishna (or any Other Avatar) which are against Vedas must be rejected forcefully.

    Vedas are the basics of our religious and social values. Every statement from our Religious books must be justified from Vedas values. If it is contradictory to Vedas then it must be rejected. We all know, Indian religious books had been modified at many places by many anti-Hindus and many idiot illiterate pundits even. And, that false knowledge had been circulated since middle age (or may be before of that, if someone has some research on this, please share with me. Thanks in advance!!!). I don’t oppose any book completely, but I reject every statement in any book which is against Vedas. Even we know, in Vedas also, a few statements had added. Many thanks to Scholar Dayanand Saraswati, who found them and rejected on the basis of Sanskrit grammar and logical grounds (Please read his literatures for those logics) .At least, it is a common sense if some sentence is opposite to other sentences which already have been proven logically then that sentence must be wrong. (FYI. I am not his blind follower. Again, Vedas don’t allow following any one blindly!!!).

    As per Mahabharata, as we know, there is nothing about Radha. And if Radha had been at that time and she had had one sided love with Shri Krishna and had accepted Him as Her Husband by heart (the same way as Savitri accepted Satyavan as her Husband just after having conversations with him) what’s wrong if she remained unmarried whole life with this strong believe that she can’t accept any other man as she already considered Herself for Shri Krishna. This only gives us the proof of Her pure feelings and thus must be highly respectable among all human kinds. Avatars are such ideal personally, anyone with pure heart will affectionate with them, so someone, how lived with them… how could be they be an exception!!!

    Reply
  7. priyaa arya

    Dear arisebharat,
    Pls understand de other side of the conversation…. U r quoting bhagwat geeta… Which was written by a krishna fan for krishna…. A perfect marketing tool… Not just geeta, also de bible and de quran…. Has been written by some human right? Toh ek insaan ke perception ko aap sab bhagwaan ke words kaise maan sakte ho? Aaj ki date mein kyun nahin hote hain bhagwaan n all? USs waqt ki janta illiterate thhi… You guys r educated right? For me, krishnaji was never a god… But a visionary… A great man who was practical and I love to read geeta because it teaches us to be practical… I hv read a zenith other books on history too… So am coming from a vast ocean of research…. Good n bad both… My grandmother is phd history…. Half knowledge is extremely dangerous…. And dats all I can say….Rest is upto u guys…. Call me lowly or whatever…. Wish u guys shake out of dis illiterate mob mentality soon… Cause de world has gone far beyond dis…. All de best 🙂

    Reply
    1. arisebharat Post author

      Namaste Priyaa Arya,
      Firstly, you claim that you have read a vast deal on history and to have reached the “zenith” which is a big thing. Many of the great scholars who I know still do not claim that they know even a drop of our great history, while you claim to have reached the zenith.

      Secondly, I am not quoting the Bhagvad Gita. For a scholar that you claim to be, you must know that the Bhagvad Gita is not the life of Sri Krishna. The Life of Sri Krishna is recorded in the Srimad Bhagvad. The Bhagvad Gita is His gyan that he provides to Arjuna.

      I am happy to note that you believe that Sri Krishna was a visionary and a great man. You must be reading some source material for it which means that it must have been written by somebody. The first recorded life of Sri Krishna is by Maharshi Krishna Dvaipayana also known as Veda Vyasa. If there is the “other view”, it has to be based on some source material NOT just by what you feel.

      The rest of what you say about your grandmother being phD has no relevance to the discussion here. You are right when you say that “Half knowledge is dangerous” and it is even more dangerous to form opinions without going to the source material first.

      Finally, you have addressed the mail to me, but are quoting what someone else has said about you in the comments section. I have not used words like “lowly etc”..It would be good for you to respond to whoever has made personal comments not to me.

      If you notice my post and my response, on no occasion have I made any personal comments on anyone. It would be good if you refrain from making comments like mob mentality.

      You claim to be interested in research, it would be good if you go to the source material of our Itihaasa in their original form. It would do you a world of good.

      Swasti.

      Reply
    2. likeanyone

      You claim that you know a wast literature. And call the vedic literature as primitive and puny. Why should I take your view. why not some scientist, more known and educated than you. Super intelligent scientist. Albert Einstein on Bhagavad-Gita “When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.”

      Oppenheimer Nuclear scientist quates for Baghavad-Gita
      “I am the mighty world destroying ‘Time’ – engaged here in
      annihilating all beings. Even without you, not one of all
      the warriors arrayed in these rival armies shall survive”

      The interpretation is that every thing in creation is subject
      to cycles of creation, sustenance and annihilation through Time.
      Only Almighty is beyond the influence of Time – He is eternal.
      The Upanishads, whose essence the Bhagavad Gita incorporates,
      say that Almighty created the entity Time and gave it all the
      powers of creation, sustenance and annihilation. No created
      being can control Time. Only Almighty, the creator of Time,
      can control Time if necessary. In the verse, “I am the Time”
      means “I am the creator of Time”.

      What Mr. Oppenheimer said was symbolic in nature. The rest of the
      world thinks that humans are doomed anyway no matter what they do.
      The Upanishads provide methods to go beyond it.

      Reply
  8. priyaa arya

    u want to know about indian culture??? real indian culture was an open culture…. which is evident from our mythologies….. the so called culture that we so claim to be ours is the culture that came into existence post the muslim invasions….. the sharma sharmi and the purdah system….. pls go and study your history with an open mind, without binding yourself in the images of this god and that….. understand your real roots….. am shocked to see that such shallow and stupid and iliterate thinking still preevails?????? i thought we had grown above this….. am saddened to see this today…. the judge was somewhere not wrong…. he has read our history with more open mind than the most of you here who dont want to grow beyong the iliterate attitude of this god and that….. be it krishna or rama… they were humans whom we, the so called hindus of the world have made gods…. there is only one divine power…. mother nature….. universal power…. no one and nothing else matters….. ye sab cheezon se upar kab utthoge aap sab?

    Reply
    1. arisebharat Post author

      Priyaa Arya,
      Apparently you have not read the Srimad Bhagvat. We are not discussing what “real Indian culture” was according to you. The issue is very specific to what the judge commented on Radha- Krishna which has no written evidence anywhere. Our epics have recorded a number of incidents which may not be practised in today’s society. In fact marriage itself has been recorded as 8 forms in Hindu epics, so it is not that our ancestors shied away from recording anything. But, the question here is when the judge talks about something loosely referring to today’s context and extrapolating it to Sri Krishna. Krishna was just 7 years old when he left Gokul as per the Srimad Bhagvad never to return again. So your statement ” the judge was somewhere not wrong…. he has read our history with more open mind ” is flawed. It shows a self-flagellating attitude which accepts any comment on our culture as true without bothering to check what the Principal text has to say about it. In fact the Judge’s statement shows that he knows nothing about Sri Krishna and he is only exercising his influence by using his position to propagate a falsehood.

      Reply
    2. likeanyone

      Mother Nature is a vedic concept too. So don’t use harsh words to make a concept of vedas to trash another concept of vedas. do one thing, research some Islamic life style and quran, may be you will get what you want. Purdah and 4 wives, sex slavery, Burkha.Vedic studies are used by the scientific community to make them realize that the God was not against science and is very well connect for the science. Don’t be so ignorant, get a hint at Hinduwisdom . com.

      Reply
      1. priyaa arya

        am sorry dude….. if one cant criticize our own religion….. we have no right to criticize any other religion….. religions are man made….. god never made religions….. wish you guys understand this….. and make this world a better place to live….

      2. skandaveera

        @Priya Arya – in logical sequence there is something called learning and understanding that precedes criticism. You must do the former before jumping to the latter.

  9. priyaa arya

    none of you were even living during that time!!!!!! so how the hell are you so sure that there was sex envolved or no???? why are you guys still behaving like illiterates???? pls grow up…. religion is not made by god… but by us…. god made us alike… we divided ourself…. stop dwelling on history and make your future bright….. mere krishna, meri radha, mere allah, mere jesus…. what???? i pity you guys man!

    Reply
    1. arisebharat Post author

      Priyaa Arya
      You statement “None of you were even living at that time” has no meaning…
      One does not need to live to at that period to understand history. One understands history by going through various texts and biographies. The life of Sri Krishna is written in the Srimad Bhagvat. As per it, Sri Krishna was just 7 years old when he left Gokul as per the Srimad Bhagvad never to return again. So, it seems that by making coming comments as illiterates, you are just exposing yourself. In fact in our country, the illiterates have a far greater understanding of our epics than the so-called literates who view everything only from the “Western glasses”. The west has no history to be proud of , whereas we have. Therefore Swami Vivekandanda says, ” “This is the ancient land, where wisdom made its home before it went into any other country… Here is the same India whose soil has been trodden by the feet of the greatest sages that ever lived… Look back, therefore, as far as you can, drink deep of the eternal fountains that are behind, and after that look forward, march forward, and make India brighter, greater, much higher, than she ever was.”

      And Rabindranath Tagore said, “If you want to understand India, read Swami Vivekandanda”. Let us not use our half baked knowledge to make comments on our great heroes.

      Reply
    2. likeanyone

      Religion is made by people to divide and conquer the lands and get the wealth in the name of God. The religions like Islam and Christianity has done so in the past. There are very huge evidences. Religion is made to bind the people but not Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana Dharma says Moksha and liberation. Each person should self realize there own path towards God not by converting but by Karma, Yoga, Dhyana, Puja, Daan, etc. Dharma is for liberation not to bind people in culture. Culture is a part of religion or path to connect to your ancestors.

      Reply
    3. well wisher

      Dear priya ,

      rise above the feeling of sex , lust and fear .
      Lord Krishna is termed as triloki nath or the owner of the three world , namely heaven earth and hell.

      Findings of ram steu in palk strait , diging up of indus valley civilization in pakistan where stone were found to be in christined glass form ,indicate something near to war where heat and pressure created was so high that nothing could have turned stone except explosions to the tune of nuclear bomb (i.e. brahmatra)

      If u want to know about hinduism then have u ever heard the name of saint Agustiya ?? he has written about every human being whpo is going to take birth on planet earth ,about everyone’ janma (don’t believe me go and search for Naadi Atrology)

      And still don’t wanna believe me OK , no probs , but u cannot ignore Law Of Karma !!

      So called prophet muhammad of islam married a 6yr old girl, had sex with her when she was 9yr old,(paedophile)

      He used to get 1/5th of war booty , he married his daughter in law,what kind of religion do u call this???

      Think logically !! slavery is legal in islam ,having sex with captured woman in war is halal (means legal ) in islam.

      contract marriages for 1 day ,2 or 10 day is legal in islam (misyar and muttah ) It is nothing but legalized form of prostitution.

      Do u know by the way that it is written in so called holy quran that if a man wants sex with his wife the lady cannot ignore it .” A wife is tilth for his man ” -Holy Quran.
      Still don’t believe me go and search for it.

      Ya and the best part ,all muslim men if they go to heaven they will get 72 virgins ,yeah virgins to have sex .It is also there in quran go and read it ..

      And sorry if u r a muslim women u will only get to see ur husband sleeping with those woman .!!

      Whereas Hinduism Bhuddism teaches about MOKSHA (i.e freedom from the cycle of birth and death ,what lord budha ,mahavira have already attained.)

      we don’t want criticize anyone from any religion nor we want to convert anyone but when people start saying “Holier Than Thou” means my religion is better than yours or u r following something wrong,then the problem arises.

      Judge ur self !! a religion teaching sex and slavery or a religion teaching MOKSHA and Law Of KARMA!!
      JAI SHREE RAM JAI HANUMAN !!JAI SHREE KRISHNA !! HAR HAR MAHADEV !!

      Reply
      1. priyaa arya

        i dont believe in any religion…… as simple as that….. we also have mahabharata which took place only because a man put his wife as a stake in chausar….. our religion is not guilt free….. my point was never which religion is good or bad….. talking about moksha while condemning others is something my brain fails to understand…… is this called moksha???? i dont go by what is written…. i use my common sense….. i will again say pls rise above all this….. we have bigger issues to tackle in our nation than this….. wont say anything beyond this now!

  10. snr

    Here is what the Harivarnsa has to say:

    With a young, new moon sailing untroubled through the balmy autumn nights, Krishna felt playful and exuberant . . . sometimes, stirred on by pleasurable emotions, he sported with girls from the camp through the dark, warm nights. The girls ecstatically drank in his countenance as if it were the moon come to earth. With his bright arm bands and wild flower garlands, Krishna’s glowing presence made all Vraja glow. Entranced by his graceful ways, the girl herders greeted him joyously as he strolled about. They pressed their full, swelling breasts against him, their eyes darting about. Eluding the restraint of mothers, fathers, and brothers, the pleasure drunk girls dashed through the night to his side. Forming a row, they sang praises of his deeds, each girl striving to outdo the others . . . Their limbs were soon covered with dust and dung as they struggled to satisfy Krishna, like excited female elephants topped by an aroused bull elephant. With wide eyes beaming with love, the deer eyed girls thirstily drank in their lover’s dark form. Then others had their chance to find pleasure in his arms. When he sighed with pleasure, the girls joyously echoed his melodious sounds. Their hair, once carefully bound and parted, lay strewn about as they fell back fulfilled, stray hairs caressing the nipples of their breasts. On many a moonlit autumn night, Krishna and the herder girls joined in these revels, amusing themselves in delicious play.

    Reply
    1. arisebharat Post author

      SNR, it seems you have not read the article at all. To try and explain a spiritual aspect of Bhagavata to someone who is bent upon seeing sexual overtures in everything is futile it seems.

      To explain what the Rasa Lila is all about, you will have to come out of your current mindset.
      The sceptics quote Harivamsa or Bhagavata in parts to try and malign Lord Krishna. Their intentions are clearly understood when they coolly ignore that the same texts as part of his Lilas extol other aspects like Krishna lifting the Govardhana in his little finger, like killing Agasura, Putana as a baby, dancing on the 101 hooded snake Kalindi’s head and so on. Even in the Rasa Lila…being present as a companion to all the hundreds of gopikas at the same time. If you want to understand the Rasa Lila, you must first believe that Krishna could achieve all the above at the tender age of 10 . When you do that , you realise that you are not talking about an ordinary human being, but the Paramatma’s purna avtaar.

      Reply
  11. Karthikeyan Balakumar

    As thinking citizens, I believe that consensual sex is a good thing. Radha and Krishna were in love with each other, and their love did require you and me to believe in them. They were happy, their love was divine, and they loved each other very very much. Premarital sex you say. Marriage itself is a social evil.. How can there be any love if if is bound by social obligations.. Radha lived a life of her own after Krishna left, forever, in love with him, and longing for the companionship. As a matter of fact, she was older than Krishna, Lakshmi had incarnated on earth due to a curse before Vishnu did, to suffer in his absence was the worst of punishments, she suffered for her one true love to be born..

    We must all want that sort of love for ourselves.
    I love my Radha.

    Long live Radha Krishna..

    karthikeyan balakumar

    Reply
    1. arisebharat Post author

      Dear Balakumar, While I understand your love for your Radha, it is important that all believing Hindus start reading the Bhagavatam in its original form and understand all the Lilas of Sri Krishna. Can you kindly quote the reference from where you have quoted the above ?

      Reply
  12. b.meeta

    we all heard the stories of lord krishna from our parents since childhood. What our learned judges heard from their parents. Had they told them sex stories of radhakrishna. Shame on u.

    Reply
  13. Madhusudan

    @amol

    those who have been handed out the religion and have never enquired to understand are the ones who do not care about religion. and think all religions are bakwaas… those who think economic development is the only goal of life will never be concerned about religion. and will rant on important issues related to religion.

    Those who understand their own religion and others religion will certainly protest against such blatant distortion of facts and quoting out of context. It seems you have not gone through the whole comments section… please get informed.

    Reply
  14. amol

    blah blah blah….why do you care what someone else says about your beliefs? you believe what yhou want ..period. I say all religion is bakwaas anyways…. does it change anything for you? whatever strong feelings we have for so called ‘religions’ – its just something you were born with and fed into your minds… get rid of it!

    Reply
  15. warr

    a_s_s people of India who dont respect our own Gods . Supreme court is nothing but baseless room of idiots sitting and giving verdict . Just last week I saw in news channel how Judges copy in Exam to get promotions .

    Why dont they order detailed examination of Taj mahal which was once Hindu temple . All muslims favoring people and sick politicians of India

    Reply
  16. prakash

    No civilization confers religious status to its mythological characters save Indian. Honestly none of the characters especially Krishna having a harem and live in relationship with Radha can hardly evoke religious sentiments in any one mind. But if Hindis consider him as their deity, then there is every justification for Khajurao temples.

    Reply
    1. MS

      you said “Honestly none of the characters especially Krishna having a harem and live in relationship with Radha can hardly evoke religious sentiments in any one mind” and you say its because it is mythology.

      But sir, for 80% of India(The Hindus) the characters of Krishna and Radha do evoke religious sentiments. And its not mythology. And Krishna did not keep maintain harems. please read the article http://ariseindiaforum.org/cultural_preservation.php?type=53

      And why only India also Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Nepal, etc. significant population in these countries are connected to the Vedic roots.

      Reply
  17. Dr. Gour Mohanty

    The reference to Lord Krishna and Radha is absolutely unwarranted,in bad taste, highly provoking,and by this the Hon’ble Court have committed an act of gross profanity.According to Srimad Bhagabatam Lord Krishna left for Mathura at the tender age of 10 years 7 months ,and in Bhagabat the name of Radha never occurs.Further it is only in Brahma Baibarta purana one finds details of Krishna and Radha ; and their marriage ceremony was conducted by Bramhadev himself.This evidently makes a devastating exposure of the abysmal ignorance of the learned Judges in Hindu mythology .Yet these blessed persons won’t desist from making irresponsible statements from their high pedestals!It is equally true of majority of so-called highly learned people occupying lofty positions,since their secular education and upbringing kept them totally insulated from ancient Indian history,mythology and culture ,as all these bore the taboo of “Hindu”and hence anti-secular ,and therefore should not be touched with a barge pole .

    Further the issue before the Supreme Court was the ‘Freedom of Speech’ from which the Court should not have digressed to ‘Freedom of Sex’,and even in such exigencies while the Court had put pointed questions to the complainant ,it was extremely desirable for the learned Judges to have observed that ,though Khusboo is exonerated for not committing any breach of law,but these type of celebrities /film personalities unfortunately becoming icons to the young people should not be emulated,keeping in view the long tradition ,conventions,morals and ethos of our land.

    The learned Judjes have through their obiter dicta ( as I have not gone through the final judgement) failed to dicriminate between sacred and profane ; between what is legal and what is legitimate.The Indian ethos clearly distinguish between ‘shreya ‘ and ‘preya’.

    Finally though it is perfectly within the bounds of existing law not to marry and have consensual sex ,and openly flirt with several consenting women; I dare say that if the Hon’ble judges would have adopted the same in their early life ,they couldnot have been elevated to the high position ,as such acts though not illegal are not honourable as well .

    Reply
  18. Harita Saranya

    The reference to the mythological episode of Radha and Krishna is is an insult to the revered avatars and sheer display of irresponsible and ignorant behavior of the top judicial posts of India and of the judges in person.
    Its is absurd to mention such a thing.
    Radha and Krishna episode as a realtionship between a devotee and the Lord.
    If they can’t respect the faith and feelings of the oldest order of faith in the world , I don’t call them wise.

    Reply
  19. Rahul Yadav

    The Hon,ble Supreme Court has quoted the Holy Name of Radha Krishan in such a cheap matter that,s slanderous to all the Hindus. The Supreme Court may the the highest Court of the land but can,t go to the extent to hurt the sentiments of Hindus. The Hindus as whole should condemn vehemently. Had such a statment quoted for Prohpet Mohmmad or Jesus Christ or Guru Nanak, the Hue & Cry must be Launched at world level. The Hon,ble Chief Justice of India & President of India should immediately intervene the matter & should ask the concern Justice to withdraw the such vulnerable quote against the Hindus from the judgement in question and seek unconditional apology from the Hindus, so that the fire be not broken out ahead.
    This is a clear case of dilution of the value of the highest court in India.Never before we have seen such cheap judgments from any of the esteemed persons occupying the highly respected seats

    APPEAL
    The members of the Hindu fraternity across globe are requested to forward a copy of this telegram to the Apex court on their behalf and/or on behalf of their organisations urging the Supreme Court to make them a party to the PIL. The contact numbers/address etc of the Supreme court are
    given hereunder:
    The Registrar,
    Supreme Court of India,
    Tilak Marg,
    New Delhi-110 001 (India)
    FAX NOS. 011-23381508,23381584,23384336/23384533
    e-mail: supremecourt@nic.in
    Copy of Telegram
    25-03-2010
    The Chief Justice
    Supreme Court of India
    New Delhi
    This is in reference to the reported comments made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 23rd March 2010 in the case of actress Khushboo.
    We hold the opinion that the Supreme Court is within its rights to deliver the judgment which it holds right in the eyes of law. But the example cited about the relationship of The Supreme Personality of Godhead Shri Krishna and Shrimati Radharani by the Hon’ble Court has hurt the sentiments of the Hindu fraternity and devotees across the globe. The relationship between Sri Krishan and Shrimati Radharani is spiritual and that is why They are worshipped centuries after centuries including lifelong celibates.
    On one hand Supreme Court gives Shri Shri Radha Krishna example to justify pre maritial sex and in same breathe it says that Hindu religion and pastimes of Sri Sri Radha Krishna is a mythology (The court said even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology.) So if all Hindu scriptures are mythology according to the Supreme Court then why you are referring from them? When it comes to believe in ideals of Bhagavat Geeta, you will say its all mythology. And when it comes to justifying leaving together then you give such example of Krishna??? This is nothing but hypocrisy and blasphemy. If you believe in Krishna then believe it in entirety and if you don’t then, don’t believe anything about it. Sometimes people urge that Yudhisthir ate meat too, so we can eat as well. But when it comes to Yudhishthir’s vow of telling truth, then they say its mythology. Who says, the intellectuals are not hypocrite.
    If Supreme Court says, Mahabharata and Ramayana are mythologies, how come Supreme Court and all the other lower courts in India allow Bhagwad Gita as a holy book of Hindus and allow Hindus to take oath in the Corts keeping right hand on Bhagwad Gita! So SC is contradicting itself and it is nothing but blasphemy. Blasphemy is irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs.
    Its very offensive on part of the Supreme Court that it has roped in the relationship of Radha Krishna to justify such immoral relationships. Is that the way to quote episode from scriptures? What is SC trying to suggest? That the Supreme Lord Krishna and His eternal consort Shrimati Radharani is involved in immoral affairs!! How many times have be ever bothered to follow good examples from Hindu scriptures other than quoting in mindless manner the episodes from sacred books of Hindus. Hindus treat whole world as manifestation of universal consciousness. That makes it a most secular religion in the whole world. Will SC then ask the government to make Hinduism the official religion of India by quashing the clause that makes India a secular country. What’s really shocking is that there are many provisions in Hindu scriptures that do not support premarital sex or live in relationships. Then what was the need to quote episode involving Radha and Krishna. We know one religion whose founder was allegedly the owner of child wife. So will the SC ask the followers to own the child wife. Will it make pedophilia a no offense for followers of that community. When we do not have the guts to uphold the right values inherent in our Hindu religion then what right do we have to quote lesser heard phenomenon’s out of context and bring them in application as it is ?
    It’s very funny that without proper knowledge of the scriptures the Supreme Court is speculating what it should have not speculated. Lord Shri Krishna lived in Vrindavan till he was 11 years old and He left Vrindavan for ever and never ever returned to Vrindavan. All the Gopis and Shrimati Radharani remained in Vrindavan. Lord Krishna Has Rasalila when He was only 8 years old. So first understand that Lord Krishna was a small child and all Gopis were also small children’s and as such there is no question of any such relationship. He also lifted Govardhan hill when He was 7 years old. All of you should first understand the position of Lord Krishna and then speak. If one wants to speak about Lord Krishna or wants to give example or quote from his pastimes, then he has to except all other pastimes and see the whole thing in same context. First of all let us understand who is Krishna? Lord Shri Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead as per all Vedic literatures. So if he is the Supreme God, it means everything in the whole creation belongs to the God. It means all the wealth of this world, all beauty of this world, all knowledge of this world, all power of this creation, all renounciation of this world belongs to Him. It also means that he is the husband of all living entities. According to the Vedas only Purusa is the Lord and all other livng entities are prakriti (feminine). So Lord Krishna is the husband of every living being ever existing.

    Shrimati Radharani is the eternal consort of Shri Krishna. They are inseparable. They are the adi dampatti. Lord Krishna appeared around 5000 years back in Vrindavan. But Lord Krishna is unborn. Like example is given that it appears every morning that Sun is taking birth from the eastern horizon and disappering in the sea. But does Sun take birth in the morning and dies in the evening. In the same way Lord Krishna appears with His eternal consort and associates and perform His beautiful pastimes so that to attract all the living entities back home back to Godhead. So Shrimati Radharani and Lord Shri Krishna are the eternal consort and the Supreme Lord.

    Also Lord new that people in Kaliyuga will speak nonsense so he enacted the pastime of remarrying Shrimati Radharani. Lord Krishna married Shrimati Radharani when they were small. This vivah ceremony was conducted by Lord Bramha himself. This pastime took place in Bhandirvan and is explained in Garga Samhitta and Gita Govinda. Also all Gopis of Vrindavan were also married to Lord Shri Krishna when Lord Bramha has stolen all the friends of Lord Krishna for one year. When Lord Bramha has stolen all the calfs and the friends of Lord Krishna for one year, Lord Krishna expanded Himself as the cowheard boys and calfs for the full one year. During this time all the Brajabashis got their son’s married. Since only Lord Krishna Has expanded Himself as all the cowheard boys’s, Lord Krishna had actually married all the gopis. After all these pastimes, Lord Krishnan performed Rasa lila.
    Supreme court has crossed many lines here. Personally speaking, the supreme court (a very sacred democratic institution) should not promote the cause of relationships based on convenience and lesser moral values. Its judgement should promote the relationships based on responsibility and higher moral values.
    We request the Hon’ble Supreme court of India to treat this letter as a representation and review its comments/order of 23rd March 2010 or the same be modified and withdrawn. Even the verdict about relationship between two majors, that is the physical relationship, require to be changed in view of the ethos and traditions of the Hindus/Vaishnav society and land we belong to.
    We will continue to express our disagreement with the reported comments unless the same are reviewed or withdrawn after giving an opportunity of hearing. This may also be treated as PIL. Thanks and regards.

    Reply
    1. Arjun

      I am agree 100% with u. It is our duty to save and repect our culture in this tough and vulgar world.

      LIVING TOGETHER WITHOUGHT MARRIAGE is WHORE
      Woman is a mother, sister, daughter, daughter in law and when she has no relation like this, she is whore.

      Reply
  20. Rajeev

    its shame that now lawmakers and so called law protectors are only seeing the balck and white ..i.e if something is not offensive as per law then how should it should be stopped like …liberty of living has given adoor way for live in relationship ..now the question is ….Whether a society should not be binded by virtue of Ethics and Morrales….if not then what is the difference bewtween Animal kingdom and human kingdom…

    But here i will not entirely blame the judges the crux of the matter is that how much aware we as people are and to what extent we are ready to go to define the boundaries of ethics and morals..coz even the very definition has to be legally correct .

    So law alone can never do justice it is the inner transfomation or awakening of inner conscience of people or youth of this country !!!

    But yes bringing the context of Lord Krishna and Radha here is very unfortunate .

    Reply
  21. swayam

    how embarassing! Krishna was God Himself. The facts and figures about Lord Krishna reveal that Radha was Krishna’s maternal aunt. How could he have such licentious relationship with his own aunt, mausi, who was so much older than him.

    Reply
    1. likeanyone

      Dont be so ignorant. Radha not related to Krishna in any form. You mention Mausi . Mausi means Mother’s sister. Krishna’s Mother Devaki (Birth mother) or Yoshomati (raising Mother) did not had any sister. Its a Christian missionary propaganda to defame Hinduism. Get out of it.

      Reply
  22. Yogesh Madan

    They are relating wrong thing for doing right thing in society.GOD please forgive them as they are using the wrong fact for the welfare of society.

    Reply
  23. amit deor

    They should get their facts right before making a statement based on any religion.

    If they want to draw an analogy based on any religion, first they should know it well.

    Its ironical that at such high positions, people do not know how an analogy is drawn.

    First they should know the facts well before drawing an analogy.

    What can we expect from such people at such high positions who do not even know how to draw an analogy?

    Reply
  24. Kavita Renny

    Atleast such nonsense is not expected by such officials. it proves how uneducated our decision makers are. only evils can try to spoil the divinity of God. No logic….no education….no cognition….only fools.

    Reply
  25. Kapil Bajaj

    What a Sadful act…Moreover it’s supreme court who is saying this. don’t know then why it is called supreme who don’t know even a bit about supreme.

    Reply
  26. soni

    example of lord krishna is not appropraite well premarital sex is leading to a teenage mother or a single mother , which is a issue for both parents. well i personelly dont agree. in medical point of view it is good to have sex after marriage,as there wont be any risk of sexual tansmitted disease too.

    Reply
  27. Shweta Bhatia

    Pointing fingers at Lord Krishna is just like raising hand on your parents.
    The foremost reason for Lord Krishna’s incarnation was the welfare of mankind, however, the law makers of today because of their wicked and self-centred minds managed & had the courage to throw ridiculous remarks at Lord Krishna(our creator).
    Mind it! Horrendous acts like that of the lawmakers are the outcome of nasty minds….The lawmakers should think twice before issuing such a disgraceful remark and hurting the religious sentiments of people.
    A thoughtless order by SC.

    Reply
    1. Arjun

      I am agree 100% with u. It is our duty to save and repect our culture in this tough and vulgar world. May Lord Krishna and Mata Radha bless u!

      Reply
      1. adarsh

        I am agree 100% with u. It is our duty to save and repect our culture in this tough and vulgar world.

        LIVING TOGETHER WITHOUGHT MARRIAGE is WHORE
        Woman is a mother, sister, daughter, daughter in law and when she has no relation like this, she is whore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s