Got this email thrice. Another output from the original petitioner, Dr. K. This time its the Supreme Court Judges who seem to have injured feelings and caused all kinds of grievous harm to the religion. The man is seriously impressive, I mean, not a day goes by without him getting offended. Of course, if you actively misread the facts, then one really cannot do much. There is no source, as far as I can tell, of anybody mentioning that Krishna was married to Radha, living in extra marital sin is not a problem at all. And if one starts looking at Mahabharata as a historical text rather than a mythological text with allegorical references rather than factual references, then one cannot help the other person. Seriously, some of these people are just amazing. Comical, seriously comical. And this is the chap who everybody is following willy nilly in the Doninger petition which I referred to just yesterday. What does he want to do with all these apologies? Aachar dalna hai?
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 beliefs1 [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.