Krishna, Radha and Shahid Afridi

Spotted this post on my friend Bhaskar Dasgupta’s blog that details the latest instance of ‘Hindu’ ire. A series of clips:

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.

Krishna left Vrindavan for Mathura at the age of 10 years and 7 months according to Bhagavata Purana.

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.

Does a seven year old darling of Brindavan become an example of pre-marital sex in jurisprudence?

Why does all of this put me irresistibly in mind of Shahid Afridi? [And I hope I am not offending any “Hindu” sentiments here — even Afridi is not mythology].

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Krishna, Radha and Shahid Afridi

  1. Hi Prem,
    I dont comment much but I think Dr.Kalayanraman makes sense and Bhaskar has missed it. The incident of Radha and Krishna living together is mentioned in reglious books which also says Krishna is the God in human form. The same religious books say Krishna lifted Govardhan, danced on head of snake etc. The point is we should not justify what we humans do based on what Krishna did. This is what Dr.K refers to when he says what is the point of dragging Krishna here when we talk about ordinary mortals. I am a practicing Vaishnava and seriously these kinds of comments from learned judges is pretty stupid and offensive in the least, they have no business commenting on what is not their domain in the same way I interpret law…

    • *grin* A point that appears to have missed some, judging by a few of the questions I was asked on Twitter, and more in email.

  2. BTW, have you folks read the latest Sobhaa De (is that the latest spelling) article from Dubai on MF Hussain in today’s TOI. WTFs abound:
    1. TOI thinks Sobha meeting Hussain is a story that deserves front page mention.
    2. MG Hussain says he wears socks to respect local traditions. Did anyone read any irony there? MF Hussain and respecting local traditions!

  3. But, seriously, what was the need to drag Krishna & Radha into a discussion on pre-marital sex? Would they dare to quote the example of Mohammed and Ayesha if we were discussing paedophilia? And before you guys jump on to me, I am not Hindu. Somewhere along the line, we have defined secularism as anti-Hinduism.

    • Oh, I agree, entirely — considerable wtf-ness in hisonnor’s pronouncements. I merely seek to suggest that shrill outrage at the drop of a hat, and templated ‘petitions’ that serve absolutely no purpose, have led to a situation where even genuine concerns will not be taken seriously.

      • I don’t care what the lunatic Hindu/Muslim fringe say. I feel the best way to deal with them is to ignore them as long as they don’t take the law in their hands and mercilessly crackdown on the them if they do it. But, enough of this hypocrisy from the so-called secularists. It’s ok for MF Hussain to paint nude Hindu Goddesses but you cannot have a cartoon of Mohammed. As Dr. Hilda Raja asked in her letter to N.Ram, now that he has found shelter in progressive Qatar instead oF India where we don’t appreciate art, can MF Hussain try drawing the prophet fully dressed?

        • Like I said — on the larger point, I agree. Much as I dislike the lunatic fringe, I’m on board with the larger point that you have to treat all religions, and related sentiments, equally.

Comments are closed.