Ban on Gita?

Siberia is contemplating banning the Bhagavad Gita in Siberia on the grounds that it is ‘extremist literature’.

Fact – Siberian Court is to take a decision of banning the book – “Bhagavad Gita – As It Is”, distributed by ISKCON, however, this might lead to the banning of all/any versions of Bhagavad Gita in general.

Reason – it advocates war and this is ‘extremist literature’.

Well I guess the Gita is extremist in the sense that it is radical, it is different, and it is revolutionary. Yes, it is all this, but not extremist in the current sense of its meaning i.e. it is not terrorist material!

Yes, Gita does advocate a war. The recitation of the Gita takes place in the epic Mahabharata, on the battle field of Kurukshetra, when Arjuna declines from fighting the battle since all the ‘enemies’ were his relatives. It is then that Lord Krishna recites the Gita and gets him to fight the battle. Yes, Krishna did encourage Arjuna to fight the battle. So is it not promoting war?

Herein lies the difference in the war of Kurukshetra and any other war.

The war of Kurukshetra was not just a war for a piece of land. When seen in context, it was a war for the establishment of justice. All norms of civilised behaviour had been broken, all diplomatic efforts had been explored and every possible effort to avoid the war had been resorted to. This war itself was a consequence of immense greed and selfishness and a series of misdeeds towards mankind in general. The war was the last option and there was no going back to the discussion table (as per the corporate jargon). The only choice one had was to have a just-war then or have an evil-war later on. With so much at stake, it was just right on the part of Lord Krishna to instil in Arjuna a sense of duty that simply dictates that there must not be any slackness in the actions performed in anticipation of the results.

To see Gita as a treatise on war and peace only is missing the basic point. The basic principle of Gita recommends a war only for the protection of dharma in pursuit of karma (duty) of the addressee, and that too as a last option. The dharma, which encompasses more than the term ‘religion’, is primarily about karma or duty. The true implication of what Krishna told Arjuna in Gita was that the war was a quest for justice and the ultimate objective of the war, was preservation of mankind. Krishna did not support an un-equal battle, a war which was not a Dharmayuddha - or righteous war (as against a ‘religious’ war), without allocating the burden of karma (duty).

Gita is not just a book, but a song of philosophy. If one reads it and understands it (both are two different activities), then one doesn’t have to know much else. Many read it as a ritual, but few understand the essence of it. Reading Gita is self-actualization – better known as ‘swadhyay’, but how many people can understand the simple meaning of this word and the work in general?

Should we be worried about Siberia banning the book?

My answer is why should we? Will banning the book by an obscure court of a Siberian town undermine the might of the book? Is the banning of the book not an act of utter illiteracy on the part of that Society? Isn’t it their loss, that they are keeping a section of the world population away from such a profound work of philosophy?

But not raising a voice might be misconstrued as a weakness of the nation?

Will it? Doesn’t the nation have priorities within rather than outside? Why allow some selfish politician to make the profound work of literature his dice to play with? Who are the people complaining – the ones who know nothing more than the spelling of the word ‘Gita’? Aren’t these the same people who themselves seek ban on books every now and then? Aren’t these the same people who wouldn’t hesitate to burn any other work of literature, when it would suit them?

Will it not hurt our national pride?

Will it? Where does our national pride go when the world sees our parliamentarians hurling missiles at each other in the august parliament of ours? Where does our national pride go when we see state-sponsored-hooliganism unleashed on our national heritage like museums and other artefacts? Where does our national pride go when the world observes our abysmal state of preparation for international events and the level of service standards?

So should we let go and not protest and raise our voices?

Yes we should protest and raise our voice. But raise it for the right reason. Raise your voice against the fundamentals – banning any work of literature. Protest against the ban which does not allow debate and discourse. Protest against the ban which does not allow a different cultural view point to coexist with the local. Protest against the ban which does not allow others to read a class of literature just because some parochial viewpoint has been given precedence against a more culturally inclusive thought process.

To conclude, I would like to quote Jesus Christ, from the Bible “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34). I guess that comes to me naturally because I have been brought up on the tenets of Gita which is a philosophy which the Siberians will be denied by their own courts of law!

Many have said that in the epic Mahabharat, use of weapons of mass destruction has been promoted. We will see that next.

Two Stories and One Meaning

Let me tell you two stories from mythology.

Krishna atop Kaliya

When Lord Krishna was young, during his stay in Vrindavan, he and his friends used to go to play in the banks of the river Yamuna. Around that time, the water of the river was poisoned due to the presence of a deadly naga, known as Kaliya. Nobody could use the waters of the river and all marine life was either dead or driven away due to the poison of Kaliya. Kaliya was a ten headed snake and had been driven away from its home with his family due to its enmity with Garuda, the traditional enemy of all serpents. Once, Krishna while playing near the banks of the river, jumped into the river to fetch a ball which had fallen in the river, which to the onlookers seemed nothing less than suicidal. Deep in the river bed, the boy Krishna challenged the serpent which resulted in a battle between the unequal’s – i.e. the boy Krishna and the mighty ten headed snake. But soon the divine Krishna overpowered the snake and on the request of Kaliya’s wives, allowed them to go alive from there, but not before the people of Vrindavan saw the boy Krishna dance atop the hooded Kaliya.

A Vase painting of Hecules slaying the Hydra

The other story is from the Greek myth of Hercules and his adventures. As part of the adventure, Hercules had to undergo twelve tasks and this story pertains to his second task. According to this myth, Hercules had to kill a water serpent with many heads, known as Hydra, which was threatening the nearby villagers. Hercules was the son of Zeus and one of his mortal lovers, while the Hydra was the result of the mating between a monster and a creature which was half snake and half woman. The major difficulty in killing the hydra was that if one of its head was cut, then two more would grow in its place, and one of the heads was immortal. To cut short the adventure, Hercules managed to kill the many headed monstrous snake by scorching the stump of the snake after cutting off each head before two could grow out there. Finally the immortal head was cut off with a golden sword and the same was put under a giant boulder, so that it could never raise its head again.

Both the stories have a few things common and that is the many headed snake raising its hood to harass people and that it needed heroes to either control or kill them, both to eliminate the threat to mankind. Both the stories, details the acts of heroism and the battle of unequal. Both the animals were powerful and poisonous and in the earlier case the hero was a boy and in the second case, the hero was a mere mortal (though aided with divine intervention).

Both these stories, though from different cultures, have a bearing on today. Today a fragile old man is fighting the menace of a many headed monster whose name is no more Kaliya or Hydra, but Corruption. The hero is not as divine as Krishna or as heroic as Hercules, but a frail old man with no bearings or trappings of a hero, rather a rustic simpleton called Anna Hazare. His war against corruption is not going to be what Krishna faced in Yamuna or Hercules faced in a mythical island. His war is tougher – what with the heads of the monster having spread all over the country. If he slays one, many come up elsewhere. If he tries to cut off one head, all the other heads come and hold him with ten times more power than earlier. The modern Hydra has thousands of heads and a lonely Hazare or his immediate circle of friends cannot to the mighty task. It is a battle of unimaginable inequality. He needs all of us, from every nook and corner of the country to support him and stand by him. Hazaare needs hazzaron (thousands) hands to kill the monster.

Come one, come all and support the crusade against corruption. Let’s leave a clean country for our children. Let’s cleanse the Vrindavan of the  poison spewed by the many headed monster called corruption perpetrated by the very people whom we have entrusted with governance, both past and present.

Arjuna's Dilemma

On this Janamashtami, Lord Krishna’s birthday, I would like to clear some dark clouds shrouding the name of Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna’s role in Mahabharata has been seen by many as that of a conspiring opportunist who takes advantage of situations and even goes against the rules, especially during the final war of Kurukshetra. In short, many have compared him to the modern-day politician. I will discuss one such act of his which has been criticised by many an intellectual.

Before the war of Kurukshetra began, Arjuna did not want to fight citing some quite obvious reasons of killing so many innocent people for a mere piece of land, of which some had nothing to do with it. He wanted to avoid the mass-killing. The Nobel laureate Mr. Amartya Sen in his Theory of Consequentialism propounds that one must weigh the consequences of every action that one takes and he goes on to say that by coaxing Arjuna to fight, Lord Krishna instilled in him what Mr. Sen refers as ‘consequence-independent judgments’. He goes on to ask if this was this fair on the part of Lord Krishna.

At the onset I am not sure Arjun’s reluctance to fight had anything to do with the Theory of Consequentialism. His reluctance to fight was due to state of dejection, coexisting with a predominance of tamas (meaning lethargy and darkness), and this is considered to be detrimental to ones spiritual and psychological well-being. Instead of considering this as a reaction in the field of morality, one needs to consider this refusal to fight as a psychological reaction on Arjuna's part, which Lord Krishna had to cure through the process of counselling.

In order to be able to make the right moral decision, one must have the right psychological balance first. All this, needless to say, was consequential calculation on the part of Lord Krishna. While Arjuna was confusing compassion with cowardice, the dialogue between the two (better known as Bhagvada Gita) was to make him recognise the same. Lord Krishna was against weakness and cowardice and not love for ones fellowmen. Apart from Arjuna's need to go back to the required state of his mind, from where he could grow psychologically, ethically and spiritually, it seems that once he had come to the battlefield with his responsibility to give leadership to a vast army as a General, it may be quite questionable whether he could relinquish his commitment all of a sudden, at the very last moment. Lord Krishna wanted him to fight for the establishment of justice. When maintenance of justice was the principle involved, it was imperative on a kshatriya (the warrior) to resort to appropriate means, including taking up of arms.  To borrow Mr. Sen’s term again, was this (i.e. establishment of justice) consequence any less?

Let me provoke with a question which one might relate to better. Would taking up arms by our Government against a huge (or rather ever-increasing) group of terrorists be seen as spilling of blood, even when we know that some of them have been our brothers till some time back? Would we have said the same thing about General Sam Maneckshaw if he had declined to fight the Pakistanis just before the battle stating he did not want to spill the blood of his own brothers? Then why this double standards when it comes to judging mythical heroes?

Kurukshetra was no ordinary war for a mere piece of land. It was a war for the establishment of justice. All norms of civilised behaviour had been broken, all diplomatic efforts had been explored and every possible effort to avoid the war had been resorted to. The war itself was a consequence of immense greed and selfishness and a series of misdeeds towards mankind in general. The war was the last option and there was no going back to the discussion table (as per our corporate jargon). The only choice one had was to have a just war then or an evil war later. With so much at stake, was it not right on Lord Krishna’s part to instil in Arjuna a sense of duty that dictated that there must not be any slackness in the actions performed in anticipation of the results?

You tell me!

Friendship Day

Last Sunday was Friendship Day and all day long I kept receiving messages on the essence of Friendship form many of my friends. The stores all around my place were selling friendship-bands, strings, rings – what have you? All this made me wonder, just what is a friend?

Aristotle has said that a friend is a single soul in two bodies. Where do we find such soul-mates these days? Were there earlier? All of us have grown up on the legends of Krishna-Sudama, so I will not repeat it. But what about other famous friends? We have read about the friendship of Duryodhan and Karna in Mahabharat. Karna, despite the knowledge of the Pandava’s being his younger brothers, does not desert his friend Duryodhan when he needed his help the most. A friend in need they say is a friend indeed. But could this not be seen as Karna’s indebtedness to Druyodhan’s favour done to him when the world was questioning his royalty?

What about another famous pair from Mahabharata – Krishna and Arjun? Weren’t they friends too? Krishna in Mahabharata portrays all the qualities that we ought to look for in a friend. According to George Herbert, “the best mirror is an old friend” and Krishna was an apt mirror to Arjun. Krishna was the one who showed Arjun who he was and what he ought to do, especially during his time of dilemma, a time when many of us look for friends. The Gita delivered by Krishna was profound knowledge to know oneself, and that is why even today, studying Gita is considered to be swadhyaya – ‘study of thy self’.

Finally a small Greek legend that epitomizes the concept of friendship. Damon and Pythias were two good friends and both were the followers of the famous philosopher Pythagoras. At one point of time, Pythias was accused of plotting against Dionysius I. Pythias was sentenced to death as a punishment for plotting against Dionysius. Pythias requested to visit his home before he was put to death, but Dionysius did not accept this request as he was sure Pythias would never return. Pythias suggested that he hold Damon in his place till he returned. The friendship was well known, so Dionysius accepted the request, but went on to suggest that if Pythias did not return within the stipulated time, then Damon would be executed in his place. Both agreed. To cut the story short, till the due date, Pythias did not return and as promised Damon was readied to be executed. As the executioner was about to execute Damon, Pythias turned up just at the nick of time. He then went on to explain that on his way back home, his ship had been attacked by the pirates and how he was thrown overboard and how he had to swim back to reach just on time to save his friend. Dionysius who heard it all was moved by the friendship and released both and even employed then as counsels in his court.

This legend has inspired many a modern version of remakes and adaptations which have been viewed over and over again as an example of friendship, just as we have modern adaptations of Krishna-Sudama. Today, friendships do not have such altruistic flavours, but, so what; there is no harm in reliving the old legends and myths with such glorious examples.

Here’s wishing all my readers a Happy Friendship Day, albeit belated!

A Game of Dice

A recent research on Shakuni made me focus on the game of dice. Why is the game of dice so important and integral to some of the myths in our mythology? Also are there any other references of the game of dice other than that of Mahabharata? Let’s see.

The significance of the game of dice has been read by one and all. The visual depiction of the game too has been viewed by many. The game of dice and the vice of gambling associated with it is evident in the way Yudhishtira loses all his assets and family, including his wife even after repeated efforts to stop the game. The way he loses it all is one aspect, just as the fact that there was also some amount of trickery in the game, but that is another subject. For the present, we will stick to the game of dice.

The game of dice, or chaupar or paasa, as it were better known was similar to a board game with dice. Except that these dice were not cubical as they are in  the modern times. These were rectangular, six sided dice with two sides being the smaller sides with no numbers. That left four longer sides which carried numbers 1 to 4. Dice were made of different objects, like terracotta, Vibhitaka nuts (the fruits of the Vibhitaka tree, which were sometimes the size of a hazelnut), ivory, bones, wood and even metals. The method of the game varied from location to location, but the basic motive generally remained gambling, besides recreation. This we see as the common theme in all the myths associated with the game.

The first myth is associated with Lord Shiva and Parvati. According to the Puranas, Lord Shiva and Parvati used to play the game of dice regularly. Once the game got so interesting that they started betting during the game. Parvati pledged her jewels, Shiva pledged his trident, and Shiva lost.  To get his trident back, Shiva pledged his serpent, which too he lost and this way, Shiva was left with just his begging bowl. Humiliated, Shiva left for the forest. Lord Vishnu intervened and asked him play again and win back all that he had lost. Shiva went on to play again, and this time he won everything back. Parvati smelt a rat and called Shiva a cheat and this led to an argument, till Lord Vishnu came and revealed that the dice moved as per his commands and that is how Shiva had won. He also went on to say that a game of dice was as unpredictable as life and was always beyond control, sounding the players to be careful before wagering during the game. The story moves on, but we will discuss the rest of the story some other time as the rest does not have anything to do with a game of dice.

The next story is associated with Lord Krishna and Rukmini. According to this tale, the King of Vidarbha had promised her daughter’s hand to Shishupala. His daughter, Rukmini was in love with Lord Krishna and both run away (Krishna was supposed to have ‘kidnapped’ Rukmini). Rukmin, the brother of Rukmini felt insulted and vowed never to return to his region till he had not avenged the insult by killing Krishna. A battle followed, but Rukmin lost, and was granted a lease of life by Krishna. However, Rukmin never returned to his region to honour his vow. Krishna and Rukmini get married in Dwarka. As the story moves on and during one such family wedding, all the relatives instigate Rukmin to invite Balarama, Krishna’s elder brother to a game of dice as he had a weakness for gambling. During the game, Rukmin and his group win by cheating which infuriates Balarama and he ends up killing Rukmin for cheating. The game of dice was organized at a grand scale and the trickery was acknowledged by an aakashvani (voice from the skies).

There are quite a few stories in our mythology which gives importance to the game of dice. At the core of the game, is gambling and at times cheating. This very clearly shows that the game was associated with a lot of merry-making, drinking and wagering just about anything, land, kingdoms, humans and even wives! Though this was played in full public view, there were many instances of misdemeanor and breaking of rules for an ulterior motive. But as Lord Vishnu said in the myth of Shiva and Parvati, a game of dice is an unpredictable and an uncontrollable game. Players should be careful, and as any vice, know when to say no and must have the ability to withdraw.

Fast-unto-death aka Blackmail?

Does fasting unto death amount to Coercion, or blackmail?

This question has arisen in the recent ‘fast-unto-death’ undertaken by Anna Hazare. The discussion has been taken onto the level of ‘in-principle’. Many well-known opinion-makers and self-proclaimed societies conscience-keepers have said that ‘in-principle’ such acts are not correct. In a democracy this could be a deadly ‘weapon’ that could be misused and the government could be regularly blackmailed to give in to the civil societies demands.

What seems to have been overlooked is that this act is a non-violent weapon, if a weapon at all. Also, does the government not exist for the civil society or is it the other way round?

The issue of blackmail or coercion is a secondary issue. In my opinion the issue is at a different level. If we sideline the blackmail idea for a moment – then this is nothing but the classical issue of means and ends. To achieve a definite objective, we resort to certain means – the end justifies the means, in this case. The right methods need to be taken, whatever it results in being immaterial, is means dictating the end.

In the epic Mahabharata, Lord Krishna tells the Pandavas prior to the war of Kurukshetra that their focus should be on the end, which is the establishment of the rule of dharma. The war is just the means to achieve the objective. To achieve the ultimate end, which is so noble, if the means are not-so-noble, then so be it. Breaking or rather bending a few rules is not quite sacrilegious, as long as the end goal of establishing the law of dharma and establishing the rule of right over wrong is achieved.

The inevitable bloodbath during the war of Kurukshetra has to be seen in this regard. Enough crimes were committed – attempts to kill the Pandavas, depriving them of their right, dignity and livelihood, disrobing of Draupadi in public and many more such acts are to be seen as the overflowing of the cup of woes. Conciliatory efforts were made prior to the war and the option of peace was exhausted. War and the annihilation of the perpetrators of evil was inevitable and the need of the hour. Was there any other option?

Anna Hazare’s act of ‘blackmail’ needs to be seen in this light. Was there an option? Hadn’t we had enough? Has democracy not been taken for a royal ride? Can voting once in five years undo the wrongs of the last five years? For certain issues, is it worth the wait? Do the likes of Ms. Tagore and Mr. Bhatt, who have no meaningful claim to fame, have any better suggestion, besides telling us about the harmful effects of such acts on democracy? Even if Anna Hazare was wrong ‘in-principle’, was it not for the larger good of the society and a noble one at that? The nation rallied behind one man, as that seemed to be the only ray of hope in the grim horizon. If this man is guilty of blackmail and coercion, what would you term similar acts by the Father of the Nation about half a century back?

To borrow from a recent product commercial, I can only say, that if this act of blackmailing is a blot on the fabric of democracy, then yeh daag achha hai!

Guardians of Gandhiji

A recent book on Mahatma Gandhi by Joseph Lelyeld has created a furor in India. To correct myself, it is a review of the said book which has created a furor as the book has not been read as yet. The error of understanding is on the part of the reviewer or the author, is yet to be ascertained, but the ‘guardians’ of Gandhi have taken upon themselves to ban the book already.  India has a rich tradition of banning books without reading them – a rare distinction in a democracy!

A person of Gandhi’s eminence who was a champion of democracy and a person who had opened his own life to scrutiny by writing his brutally frank autobiography – does he need modern day guardians to protect him or his legacy? Who has given our politicians the right to ban a book which they have not even seen, forget read? Is this being fair to Gandhi who would have called for a debate, rather than take such a derogatory step? Are the people who are turning into his guardians, even eligible to lay a claim on his name or is regional association a good enough cause for ‘owning’ Gandhi?

Having taken it on them to guard Gandhi, I want to ask, does someone like Gandhi, need mortal aid? Is his legacy so flippant, that he needs some botched hands to guard him? Can his contribution not overshadow a few grey shades of humanity in him? Has there been any human being who is not a combination of both good and not-so-good qualities? Can anybody identify absolute goodness in any individual? And if yes, who defines such goodness?

There are many references in mythology, where we have treated our heroes in a similar manner. Bhishma from the epic Mahabharata is known for his great sacrifice as well as his contribution to the Kuru family, but we don’t forget to accuse him of his silence during Draupadi’s disrobing. Ram in Ramayana, known for his selflessness, bravery and his ability to mobilize support, is also remembered for his single act of banning Sita in his later life. Same with Krishna, the orator of Gita, a treatise of righteous path and Dharma, is nonetheless referred to as a ‘politician’ for certain acts or decisions taken by him during the war of Kurukshetra in Mahabharata.

Despite the singular acts of omission or commission by such mythological heroes, their contributions have not overshadowed their personalities. I would think that the same is applicable to a personality like Gandhi. The overall contributions have been assimilated, but errors (a debatable term) are being gloated upon. When we look at today’s politicians promoting their children, we accuse them of nepotism. When we read about Gandhi not championing the cause of his son, we call him a bad-father (and we also call him the father of our nation!). If this is not our inherent double-standards, then what is this?

Finally, I am a staunch critic of banning books, no matter what it says. Besides giving the book an avoidable publicity, banning also demeans the personality or the religion it allegedly defames. Democracy demands debate and advocates choice. As a responsible citizen, I must be given a choice to decide what I read and what I don’t.

Illiterates should not take this decision for me.

Holi – Festival of Colours

Holi, plainly put, is a festival of colours. It is a Spring festival which heralds the advent of the lovely romantic season of love. In the days of secularism, we can say that it’s a day to celebrate the bond of friendship and soaked in colour, all forget the distinctions of caste, creed and colour. But the origins do have roots in mythology of our times.

There are different versions of the origin of Holi, but I would like to focus on one of them, which relates to Lord Krishna and his love, Radha.

According to a myth, Lord Krishna as a child was extremely disturbed by his dark complexion and jealous of Radha’s fair complexion. Fed up of the constant comparison more as a complaint, Krishna’s mother gave a solution to the child. She suggested that he change the colour of Radha’s complexion with any colour of his choice by smearing the colour on Radha’s face! Krishna was impressed with the idea and proceeded to the same, and thus started the festival of playing with colours and on this day, you will never find anybody with the complexion s/he was born with. Over a period of time, this simple child-like play gained prominence in the poet’s expressions of love, romance and eroticism of the eternal relationship of Radha and Krishna and soon blossomed into a full fledged festival of colours. More so, in Vrindavan, Mathura and Barsana (the birthplace of Radha). The festival has special significance in these areas which are supposed to have been graced by both Krishna and Radha, where the festival goes on for about two weeks.

Another aspect of Holi is the license to misbehave and uttering of obscenities. In a repressed society, a sudden burst of enthusiastic intermingling and an unfound freedom of expression gives way to hurling of abuses and usage of vulgarities, without much reprimand. There could be a number of reasons for this. The primary amongst them lies in the myth of Bhakt Prahlad. One of the other important myths of Holi celebration, is the episode of Prahlad’s aunt, Holika, trying to burn Prahlad under the instructions of his father, but is reduced to ashes herself. Since then, the burning of a bonfire prior to the festival of Holi, Holika-dahan, is part of the ritual. In many parts of India hurling abuses and throwing cow dung at the bonfire as a mark of disrespect to Holika for her unkind intentions is a norm, and is practiced even today. In Bengal, a pot which is painted with demonic eyes and lips, is put in the bonfire, and at the peak of the fire, it is ceremoniously burst by a large bamboo! Over a period of time, this has changed its attention from Holika to women-folk in general.

One more reason for such an act could be the secular aspects of the festival. In a society where caste-system was so prevalent and rigid, here was a festival which was trying to eliminate the generations old system. It gave vent to many from one caste to hurl abuses at someone from another caste and still get away by chanting – bura na mano holi hai (Don’t mind, its Holi!) and at times settle a long-pending score!

Obscenities or not, but here is a day full of joy and fun – so go ahead and have a fun-filled, eco-friendly, green Holi!

Happy Holi to all my readers!!!

Radha Krishna – A Divine Romance

On a day when love is in the air (besides being at the florists, the jewellers and all sorts of gift shops), it would be sacrilegious to talk of anything, but love. A romantic love story of mythical times, may be? Amongst all the love stories, it is that of Radha-Krishna which comes to my mind and why not? Radha-Krishna and their love has been a subject of much reverence as well as ridicule. The modern times sees the escapades of the two through the coloured glasses and with a wink of the eye.

So what is it about them, which though scandalous at times, grandparents do not shy away from sharing it with children? In a closed society like ours, why has such romance between the two been allowed and venerated? Even though the typical pictorial representation of Radha and Krishna has never showed the difference of age, it is well known that Radha was both older than Krishna as well as married.

To begin with who exactly was Radha? Some say she was Krishna’s maternal uncles wife (his maternal aunt to be precise), whereas some say she was just another, but a favourite gopi (milkmaid). Radha was considered to be the daughter of one Vrishbhanu and that she grew up in Barsana. Nothing much seems to be mentioned about her childhood. The most important thing to note is that there has been no mention of Radha as a character in any of the ancient literatures, be it Bhagavata, or the Vishnu Purana or Harivamsa or even the Mahabharata. There is no trace of Radha in any of the main texts even though Krishna is a prominent personality in all of them. Radha first appears in the Brahmavaivarta Purana but is not available for any significant reference.

Radha was brought into prominence by Jayadeva, the author of Geet-Govinda, around 12^th century CE. Jayadeva was from a village in Orissa and was the court poet of the-then King of Bengal, and wrote this poem during his alleged relationship with a devdasi, Padmavati. He is later supposed to have married her. His inspiration was both his personal love affair as well as his spiritual quest. The poem explores the relationship of Radha and Krishna in all the elements of a relationship, which is both a divine and an erotic exploration, with all the aspects of love. The poem brought in a momentum in the Vaishnav sect of the times and soon Bengal saw a series of spiritual writers like Vidyapati and Chandidas writing on the relationship of Radha and Krishna. Radha was on her way to deification.

The relationship raised eyebrows and the eroticism was more than evident. What did all this imply, especially when all know that Krishna’s stay at Vrindavan was part of his childhood? This divine relationship is to be seen through metaphysical glasses and it is then that the beauty of it all is so evident.

The root of the word Radha is ‘Radh’ * implies worship, adoration. To take this further, anyone who worships or adores Krishna is Radha. It seems that Radha was more of a concept than a person. The aspect of her love defines the love for god. Selfless devotion, not craving for a name to the relationship and forgetting herself in him, was the main aspect of this kind of devotion. Radha’s love did not arise out of a compulsion of being god-fearing, she loved Krishna in an absolute terms. It was not a love of subjugation, but a love of equality.

Another aspect of her love is the age factor, especially the difference. To see this in a different angle, god is ageless, so Krishna being a child was of no major significance. Needless to mention that even at that age, some of the acts performed by him were beyond his age. Radha being older is to be seen as her being an adult who knew what she was doing. This took the relationship beyond the realm of infatuation. One could not submit to someone without knowing what one was doing, and her being an adult made it more acceptable, than if she was portrayed as a child.

Finally, Radha being married was to be seen as someone who was married to the societal norms and responsibilities laid by the society at large. Her seeking Krishna was someone seeking redemption by being within the society and without shirking her immediate responsibilities. Nowhere do we get a sense of her marital life being unfulfilled.

This relationship defined a spiritual quest of a different kind. This was a love of equals and here god is treated at par. Krishna was not a god and Radha was not a goddess. I would end with a beautiful myth which epitomises the relationship. Once, the gopis, who were jealous of Radha, took boiling milk to her asking her to drink it as requested by Krishna. Radha gulped down the milk and got back to her work, which surprised all of them, but left without saying anything. Later when they met Krishna, they saw that he had burnt his mouth and throat! This could be stuff of poetic fantasy, but it epitomises the divine relationship.

This love story is not for all to tarnish, but to see the deeper meaning in the romance. At the cost of repetition, I must add – in myth lies the message.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

* ‘Krishna Charitra’ – By Bankim Chandra Chatterjee

Krishna

On the day of Lord Krishna’s birth (Janamashtami), one can tell numerous stories which have already been told and retold, each time more fascinating than the previous one. So on this day, I thought of raising a very pertinent question.

Who is Lord Krishna?

Lord Krishna is different to different people in our country. For children he is the lovable prankster who revels in stealing butter from every other household and teasing one and all. For the one with romance in his/her heart he is the one who can romance many together and reach heights of both sublime and erotic romance as immortalised in Jayadev’s Geeta-Govinda. For the religious, he is the ultimate God, Vishnu’s avatar who was on a mission to rid the world of evil and show mankind the path – the marg-darshak. To the not-knowing-where-s/he -belongs, he is both to be revered and ridiculed depending on the course of conversation; he is an opportunist who has his way and justifies all thru with his gift-of-the-gab.

The epic Mahabharata is incomplete without Krishna. He is an important character in the epic and his absence is felt in many a scene and the mind does tend to feel at times – this would not have happened had Krishna been there.

But herein lies the dichotomy that is Krishna. Some say, he is an enigma, and some say he is the answer. When tales of his heroic acts along with him being the fountainhead of knowledge exists, then why do we still see only aspects of his guile and deception?

Depending on which group one belongs, Krishna can be anything from a prankster, to a romantic hero to a politician to a philosopher to a modern day corporate leader. As someone would say – he is all and all is he.

So who do you think is he?