"RadhaKrishn" TV serial under fire

Sumedh Mudgalkar as Krishna and Mallika Singh as Radha

A popular TV serial in Hindi about the loves of Radha and Krishna has now reached its 275th episode. The program has stirred up a bit of controversy (Hindi article) as some Brijbasis devotees objected to the programs, saying that it misrepresented and vulgarized the Divine Couple. An article was written by one of the staff members of Vrindavan Today (not yet published) also showing disapproval for the program. I thought that we should report any dissenting actions taken by Brijbasis, but if we wished to take an editorial stance it should be done separately. At any rate, the matter was passed on to our editorial board for their opinions.

I must admit right away that I haven't watched the serial, but I know devotees and Brijbasis --  including Paramadwaiti Maharaj, whom I saw shortly before leaving Vrindavan -- who have watched and enjoyed it. Shortly afterwards I posted the Hindi story on Facebook and got reactions from several of my friends, much of which was also negative. One of the arguments was based on Krishna's age, since the actors (see picture) are portrayed as being in their late teens rather than being much younger children. Others said that the scriptures were not being followed, that the program was misrepresenting Radha and Krishna as a mundane couple, that the Divine Couple was being exploited for commercial reasons, and so on.

My first thoughts were as follows:

I do not agree with the reactionary attitude that is so defensive about Krishna's śṛṅgāra-rasa. For the Braj rasika sampradāyas, Krishna is one whose entire being is absorbed in śṛṅgāra-rasa,

śṛṅgāra-rasa-sarvasvaṁ śikhi-piccha-vibhūṣaṇam
aṅgīkṛta-narākāram āśraye bhuvanāśrayam

I take shelter of him who is the shelter of all the worlds, who has accepted human form, the totality of whose being is given to śṛṅgāra-rasa and who is decorated with a peacock feather on his crown. (Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, 93)

This is why the Gaudiya Acharyas have established Krishna's age appropriately, even though the Bhagavatam says he was only ten when he left Vrindavan for Mathura (ekādaśas-amās tatra gūḍhārciḥ sabalo'vasat, BhP 3.2.26). But for śṛṅgāra-rasa, Krishna's and Radha's forms to be meditated are universally accepted throughout all rasika śāstras and sampradāyas as being mature adolescents (nava-yauvana). After all, we don't see Krishna represented as a ten year old and Radha as nine in any deity form. Without kaiśora-vayas, there cannot be śṛṅgāra-rasa..

These Gaura-govindārcana-smaraṇa-paddhati (122, 156) tells us that Krishna's age, though officially according to the Bhagavatam is only 10-6-5, has a functional age is 15-9-7 1/2.. The reason given is that because he is a prince and has a capacity for enjoyment that is exceedingly great (mahārājakumāratayā bhogātiśayena), his functional age is to be multiplied by 1 1/2. Similarly, for the same reason, Radha's age, established as 9 years, 5 months and 20 days should be increased by 50% to get her actual, functional age of 14-2-15.

Thus Dhyanacandra concludes:

atraiva śeṣa-kaiśore ṣoḍaśahāyane sadā |

vraje vihāraṁ kurute śrīmān nandasya nandanaḥ ||

Here only [in Braj madhura-rasa] the son of Nanda engages in his pastimes, eternally 16 years old at the end of his kaiśore age. (Gaura-govindārcana-smaraṇa-paddhati 123)

If Krishna is śṛṅgāra-rasa-sarvasvaṁ, then he does not think of Kurukshetra or preaching dharma when he is in the kunj. The Gita Govinda gives a more realistic picture of how the rasik looks at Krishna. Everyone in Braj worships Radha and Krishna in their forms as nava-yauvanam in the spirit of rāgānugā bhakti. There are no deities of the Divine Couple in bālya or paugāṇḍa. The problem here is the depiction in a television serial meant for general public consumption. .

I am logically inclined to think that in the Kali-yuga, there is a general movement to sexual liberalization. Any depiction of the madhura-rasa of Radha and Krishna is a way of harnessing this energy and turning it towards the Supreme Lord.

Of course, a perfect representation of Radha and Krishna using human actors is impossible. In Braj, the lilas are depicted by young boys, originally pre-pubescent in order to preserve the innocence and to prevent misinterpretation. Nowadays, of course, you have older boys and that often results in rasābhāsa, for those who are not culturally attuned to it.

When modern artists attempt to create some kind of "rasa" through the medium of television, devotees immediately fear the worst and believe it is not a satisfactory representation and cannot produce the spiritual rasa. 

In my humble opinion, without the fundamentals of rasa having been developed in "mundane" literature and drama, Rupa Goswami could never have adapted rasa theory into bhakti theology. So to make a radical distinction between the two is a futile attempt to avoid the problem, which is what to make of eroticism and the romantic sentiment.

The orthodox want external depictions to reflect their siddhānta, siddhānta-virodha is never pleasing to Mahaprabhu. It is unlikely that he would have approved or watched such performances. But public presentations, imperfect as they are, in song, lila kirtan, etc., have been used since the very beginnings presented it in a way that is barely distinguishable from material rasa. The only condition is that these are not ordinary human beings, but the Divine Couple, Radha and Krishna. Its externals are otherwise the same.

Thus, according to adhikāra etc., the perception is different:, but the vastu-śakti of Radha-Krishna's names, forms and lilas, even imperfectly depicted, remain unchanged.

nivṛtta-tarṣair upagīyamānād

bhavauṣadhāc chrotamanobhirāmāt |

ka uttama-śloka-guṇānuvādat

pumān virajyeta vinā paśughnāt ||

The virtues of the Lord
who is glorified in the greatest poetry
are sung by those who know no thirst;
it is the medicine for the material disease
and it is a joy to hear;
other than the soul-killers,
who will care nothing for them? (BhP 10.1.3)

To insist that only the scriptures be followed is a contradiction. The vernacular lilas like Chandi Das influenced Rupa Goswami, is there any doubt of it? Where was their scriptural source? If there was a flaw in Chandi Das's portrayal, Rupa Goswami corrected it, sanskritized it, but he didn't reject the dāna-līlā or nau-līlā. Where are the stories from the Govinda-līlāmṛta and Kṛṣṇa-bhāvanāmṛta or Camatkāra-candrikā in the Bhāgavatam, etc.?

To say that there should be NO depictions of Radha and Krishna obviously goes against our siddhānta. To say it must perfectly follow the tattvas of the Bhāgavatam, etc, is asking too much. The purpose of drama is to create rasa, therefore the writers and actors must have freedom to follow their craft. This program is popular because people in India already think of Radha and Krishna as a love story. Love is śuci, ujjvala, madhura -- "pure, brilliant, sweet," even in the material concept of the Indian poeticians. If they had not established romantic love as the purest rasa, there would have been no scope for madhura-rasa-bhakti.

I am not particularly moved by the puritanical reactions by Hindus to these kinds of misrepresentations of Krishna. It seems to me that when we do this we fall into the same box as the fundamentalist Muslims who complain so loudly about cartoons of Mohammad. In a way, they are correct that God cannot be represented in form and lila. But that is not our Vaishnava philosophy. It reminds me of Prashant Bhushan's comment that Krishna is an eve teaser and the Hindu reaction to it.

Of course, as always, I bow down to Babaji's siddhānta and he is the ultimate authority where Vrindavan Today is concerned. But I personally don't think that we should condemn this program. The line between kāma and prema may be absolute, but the process of attraction to Radha and Krishna and revelation of their pure divine love is a gradual and progressive one. I don't believe that rasābhāsa (which there no doubt is plenty of) is any worse than nāmābhāsa, and we know that repetition of nāmābhāsa is beneficial and one must incessantly chant the offensive Name in order to be purified.

I can understand that one may say, śravaṇaṁ naiva kartavyaṁ sarpocchiṣṭaṁ yathā payaḥ ("One should not listen to the stories of Radha and Krishna spoken by a non-devotee, any more than one should drink milk touched by the lips of a serpent."), so I agree that it is the duty of the devotees to point out rasābhāsa and rasa-virodha when it manifests, but my opinion is that on the whole it is a good thing that Radha and Krishna are receiving positive publicity in the Indian media. Any publicity is good publicity. At least people are talking about Radha and Krishna.

---

To the above Babaji responded succinctly as follows.

---

I take strong exception to Jagat's above comment.

"On the whole, I am not particularly moved by the puritanical reactions by Hindus to these kinds of misrepresentations of Krishna. We fall into the same box as the fundamentalist Muslims complaining about cartoons of Mohammad. In a way, they are correct that God cannot be represented in form and lila. But that is not Vaishnava philosophy. If Krishna is śṛṅgāra-rasa-sarvasvaṁ, then he does not think of Kurukshetra or preaching dharma when he is in the kunj. Gita Govinda presents a more realistic picture of how the rasik looks at Krishna."

Jagat has not seen the serials and does not know how gross the presentation is. It is not a puritanical reaction by Hindus. Śṛṅgāra-rasa also has its maryādā. It is not that you can present any sort of eroticism and call it śṛṅgāra-rasa. Śṛṅgāra-rasa is for the sahṛdayas and not for the common gentry. No sahṛdaya will take any stock in this TV serial.

It is useless to cite Bilvamangala in support of a TV misrepresentation. Even Bilvamanagal would not agree to it. Such a gross presentation only sends a wrong message to the audience. Krishna is not preaching dharma in the kunj and his kunja-lila is not for those who are still captivated by sex desire. Mahaprabhu did not discuss śṛṅgāra-rasa with common devotees even 500 years ago. If you want present śṛṅgāra-rasa then do it as per the rasa-sāśtra, and not as per the grāmya style, like a soap opera or sitcom comedy.

The general principle is that our sthāyī-bhāva becomes excited by seeing uddīpana-vibhāva. People in general have kāma as their sthāyī-bhāva. These Radha-Kṛṣṇa līlā depicted by mundane actors (they are not some brāhman boys from Vrahja) only act as uddīpana-vibhāva. This only leads to degradation and nothing else.

It has furthermore become a trend to bash any Hindu who raises a voice against such misrepresentations and they are immediately compared to Muslim fanatics. You should listen to Rajiva Malhotra "Breaking India" videos and books.

The situation is very very serious. Most of Hindi movies have a political motive. They will have a Muslim hero, a Hindu girl falling in love with him, making fun of some Hindu sadhu, praise for the Sufis, Sufi music, etc. Most movie heroes are Muslims - Amir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan, Feroze Khan. Slow poisoning. Then we have stupid TV shows about Radha and Krishna's love affair, Ram and Sita. And Hindus do nothing. Try anything like this with ISlam and you will be slammed.

---

Some of the readers may have watched my debate with Satyanarayana Das Babaji, so you will know that I have disagreed with him on this subject before. You can watch that on YouTube. As always I am very careful in these controversies and always very respectful to Babaji. So I have left things here for the time being rather than making any rebuttal.

If you listen to the video debate you will appreciate that he is a much more expert debater than I. So following his suggestion I have started listening to Rajiva Malhotra and trying to appreciate his position, which is that there is a sustained attempt to undermine Hinduism coming from various quarters, including Marxists, Islamists, Christians and secularists. I have to agree with both him and Babaji (you can see their four-part conversation on Shri Malhotraji's Youtube page).

Jai Sri Radhe.