Prashant Bushan’s Krishna remark is not the first of
its kind to come from the stable of the legal fraternity. Earlier in 2010, while reserving its judgement
on the SLP filed by actress Khushboo for her remarks on pre-marital sex, the
bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and
Justice B.S Chauhan observed even a more bizarre version of Lord Krishna. In
their eagerness to quote a precedence (as legal fraternity used to do) for
pre-marital affair from ancient Indian context, they said that even Krishna
and Radha had a pre-marital live-in relationship! That was the worst
blasphemy for which the judges never expressed any remorse or apology nor were
they asked by any to correct their statement.
Sounding on similar lines, Prashant Bhushan’s tweet
on Krishna as an eve- teaser shows just one thing - that those in judiciary are
ignorant of the stories on the lives of Hindu Gods and have no knowledge of the
intricate meanings and symbolisms behind those stories. In their professionally
induced urge to quote precedents, they take liberty to blabber something from
hearsay and expect people to accept as gospel. Strangely they seem to be
ignorant of what constitutes blasphemy when it concerns their own views and
words.
Somehow all of them including those who come with a
liberal stamp are fond of talking about Krishna and Rama in some ways that are
always wrong! Prashant Bhushan claims that he is not religious but has heard
the folklores of Krishna’s childhood. That gave him the justification to speak
what he thought rather than what that religion implied by those stories. The
result is that he not only showcased his poor understanding of the religion professed
by his mother but also the failure on the part of his mother to inculcate in
him the right idea of the religion she followed.
As a legal person he is bound to spend hours on every
page of the law book he reads, but did he spend any time on the truth behind
the photo that he has uploaded in his tweet?
If he had looked at the sources of these folklores,
he would have known that Krishna was not even 10 years old when he was supposed
to have been eve-teasing Gopikas. The above picture in his house shows Krishna
in Vrindavana, when he was not even an adolescent. After his stay in Vrindavana the next event in
his life was killing Kamsa. When Krishna killed Kamsa, he had only completed 10
years of age. He never returned to Vrindavana after that nor had any playful
time with young girls after that age.
An experienced lawyer that he is, if Prashant
Bhushan thinks that Krishna of under-10 indulged in eve –teasing of Gopis, then
it is perversion of his mind. But he as a self-proclaimed non believer of a
religion (Hinduism), saying not just false, but a derogatory statement about a
popular God of that religion exhibiting a concept of revered form of devotion,
has only betrayed his brazen hatred and aversion towards that religion. If he
is a non- believer of Hinduism (that is what is implied when he said that he is
not religious) he should not have dabbled with the characters of that religion.
Since he has done it he is fit enough to be called as a communal one.
The basic problem in this kind of reckless talks by
the likes of Prashant Bhushan is that the Hindu texts have not been read in
detail by them. Atleast they could have a taken a leaf out of the other popular
events in Krishna’s life. If devotion is the central theme around the Gopikas
getting attracted to Krishna, the fruit of devotion is exhibited in the
vastraharan episode of Draupadi in which she was saved by Krishna –Bhakthi. How
can an eve-teaser become a saviour of a woman facing an assault on her
integrity, that too in a king’ court by her relatives?
But that same episodes cannot be seen in the right perspective
by the so-called intellectuals of India is known from the fact that not long
ago actor Kamal Hasaan told in a interview that Indians
are respecting a book that highlighted a woman being pawned away in gambling!
There is only one name for these persons – perverts!
While it is not worth writing on perverts and their perverted
thoughts, I think it needs to be highlighted that the very basic idea in
Prashant Bhushan’s version of Krishna is wrong. What Bhushan wanted to emphasis
is that Krishna was after carnal pleasures. Contrary to that, Krishna was regarded
as a Naishtika Brahmachari which means he was an eternal celibate! Though there
are myths that he had 16,000 wives – which is impossible and can only be a myth
– he was regarded as a celibate. The proof of this is found in the episode that
saw the lifeless baby of Uttra (born to Abhimanyu) swinging back to life by the
touch of Krishna.
When all the off-springs of Pandavas were
annihilated by the Apandavastra of Ahwatthama, the foetus in the womb of Uttra
was also not spared. It was still-born and could be revived only when touched
by a Naishtika Brahmachari. And none other than Krishna held it with a pledge
that the baby spring back to life if it is true that he is a Naishtika
Brahmachari. The baby came to life and came to be called as Parikshit, the
first descendant of the Pandavas to come to throne after them.
This is history, more than a religion and religion
is another facet of it. Similarly Ashwatthama is also history and not a myth as
there are inscriptional evidences to show that Pallavas were descendants of
Ashwatthama. Pallavas were great devotees of Vishnu and were known for distribution
of water to people over larger tracts of land, perhaps as a mark of atonement
for the numerous deaths caused by the Brahmastra shot be their ancestor
Ashwatthama. With a little more care to know who these characters of ancient
India are and why they behaved in the way they did and what inner meanings were
there behind the outwardly perceived ideas, one can easily avoid being looked
upon as dumb-headed one or a pervert as Prashant Bhushan has chosen to make himself
appear.
