In north India, particularly in the Mathura region, Krishna is worshipped as the Lord of Radha, and “Radhe Radhe” is the common civilian greeting in this part of the country. Krishna is also revered as Radha-Ramana (Beloved of Radha), and as Radha-Krishna. Radha shunned all contemporary mortal ties for sublime submission to her Lord, and her devotion was recognized in an eternal and endearing union, so much so that Krishna has never been worshipped with any of his wives, not even the beautiful Satyabhama or the wise and devoted Rukmini.
Interestingly, the famous Katyayani temple in Chattarpur in Delhi is making attempts to elevate Rukmini to divine status, but this is a recent development. Though the main images in the temple are of Radha and Krishna, the slokas on the lintel extol the virtues of Rukmini. I do not know how many devotees have noticed this; I myself discovered it about a year ago.
Radha is a key figure in Hindu dharma; with a lineage going back over two millennia. The earliest literary reference to her amorous relationship with Krishna is found in Hala’s Gatha Saptasati, a Prakrit compilation not later than 200 AD, which suggests she must have been a rising divinity a few hundred years prior to this mention. A cowherdess of the nomadic Abhira tribe, her divinity was established by the post-Gupta period, and she emerged as a major figure in the Krishna sampradaya in north India. Along with the Abhira god Gopala, the Vrishni god Vasudeva, the Yadava deity Krishna, and Narayana of the Hindukush mountains, Radha played a role in the evolution of the Vaishnava sampradaya and the incorporation of major groups into Arya (noble) dharma.
Her divine status grew in subsequent centuries; the twelfth century philosopher, Nimbarka, called her the deity who grants all desires. Around the same time, Jayadeva ennobled and immortalized the love of Radha and the gopis for Krishna in Gita Govinda. As Hindu society suffered intense political and cultural oppression in the medieval era, Radha emerged as the epitome of unswerving devotion in the face of grim social odds. By anchoring the survival of the besieged Hindu dharma in the strength of the personal faith of individual devotees, Radha became the lodestar of a tormented people. This explains why Chaitanya ‘Mahaprabhu’ (1485–1533 AD), whose devotees compelled him to leave his native Bengal to escape the tyranny of the nawabs for the relative safety of Puri, embraced her as his ishta deva (personal deity).
Radha symbolizes the unification of deity and devotee through bhakti, making the body the temple that no iconoclast can destroy. It is therefore painful to see this gracious goddess ridiculed and her worship compared with the Western world’s transvestite tradition, by a de-nationalized and sensation-mongering media. I concede that once Uttar Pradesh Inspector General D.K. Panda’s wife decided to go public with her grievances against the officer, the media could not have ignored the story. Also, a man in such a responsible position should not neglect his family, as alleged by his wife.
Still, many Hindus felt humiliated watching repeated telecasts of the sari-clad and bejewelled Panda, dancing in support of his claim to being an incarnation of Radha (Doosri Radha). They felt that far from highlighting the bhakti of the police officer, who claimed to be transformed after personal darshan of Lord Krishna, media juxtaposition of his antics with the grievances of his estranged wife demeaned the entire bhakti tradition in which all devotees, men and women alike, are like gopis in their relationship with god. Who does not remember Mirabai’s famous challenge to her own guru – how can there be another man in the city of Krishna? For centuries, male dancers have dressed as women as part of their Krishna bhakti, the most notable modern exponent of this tradition being Vedantam Satyanarayanan.
The trouble with the IGP, who claims to have been visited by Krishna nine years ago, is that he seems to lack credibility with his family and some sections of society. Going by her statements to television crews, Mrs. Panda’s main grievance appears to be denial of funds for herself and her children, which, if true, calls for legitimate redressal. This is something the families of both parties, as also senior officers of the UP Police Department, should have tried to resolve amicably and in private.
However, if Mrs. Panda’s only grievance is personal embarrassment at the attire and behaviour of her husband, as seems possible in view of her manhandling him when he decided to leave their official accommodation (wrenching his nose-ring and ear-rings), she should be advised restraint. There are two distinct issues at stake here. One is Mr. Panda’s intense new religious belief, which deserves respect. Mrs. Panda’s discomfort at the form of his bhakti and search for her own space entitles her to seek legal separation and maintenance, but it does not entitle her to belittle his faith with the derogatory language and insinuations she has made on television. Worse, she has invited media attention in a manner that had demeaned the faith of millions of devout Hindus, and it may be pertinent for the UP Police to investigate what forces prodded Mrs. Panda to go public in such a sensational manner.
The second and equally important issue is the right of an estranged wife to secure the legal relief granted to her (Rs. 7000/month). The UP Police did well to restrain Mr. Panda from taking household goods away from their joint residence in the absence of a court decree, and senior officers would do well to ensure that the IGP complies with the court order on maintenance for his wife. It is unfortunate that the State Government woke up to the Doosri Radha episode long after television channels had made a joke out of him. Senior police officers must explain why they did not redress the genuine problems of the Panda family before they hit television screens nationwide.
A noteworthy aspect of the Doosri Radha episode is that, unlike Sri Ramakrishna Paramhans and Sri Aurobindo, both of whom had visions of the Divine Mother Kali, which determined the subsequent course of their lives, Mr. D.K. Panda showed no inclination to quit the service, renounce the world, and lose his salary, though some say he has now opted for premature retirement. For years he attended to his official duties, after his own fashion, which kept him within the ambit of police discipline. While in service, he must be restrained from posing for television cameras with sindoor and jewellery, while wearing his uniform.
Simultaneously Mrs. Panda, who has been married for nearly 32 years and has already taken her domestic travails to the court, must be made to realize that using the media to make a mockery of her husband’s religious beliefs and settle domestic scores, is tantamount to contempt of court. Her actions suggest that she is seeking to corner her husband through a pincer movement – on the one hand she has secured an interim monthly maintenance allowance, and on the other hand she is forcing Departmental action against him. These actions appear to be premeditated, and the discerning public has a right to know if she is motivated by pure malice or is being guided by other agencies.
The Pioneer, 29 November 2005