Shri Krishna’s Real Story: BeyondFolklore and TV Dramas

Before we dive into this article, I want to share something important. Yogeshwar Bhagwan Shri Krishna is not just a historical figure—he holds deep emotional and spiritual significance for many people. Everyone has their own beliefs about him, and for some, these beliefs are unshakable.
I request you to set aside everything you have heard or believed about Shri Krishna before reading this. Only with an open mind can you truly understand the facts and perspectives shared here. Otherwise, your existing thoughts may block you from seeing a different truth.

My bond with Yogeshwar Shri Krishna deepened when I started studying the Mahabharata (Jai Granth). Like many others, I had heard several popular names associated with him—Maakhan Chor (Butter Thief), Ranchor (One Who Fled from the Battlefield), Raas Rachaiya (Creator of the Raas Leela), Radha Ballabh(Beloved of Radha) —Then who was Rukmini?, Lampat (Playboy/Womanizer), Chaliya (One Who Uses Clever Tactics)—and countless more. People use these names lovingly, but I often wondered: What is the truth behind these titles? Did such incidents really happen in his life?
We proudly say that Shri Krishna is our ancestor. And when I think about our ancestors, I see them as beings of great virtue and purity. Their noble character is why India is still considered a land of righteousness. But then, when I hear certain names given to Shri Krishna—like Chitchor, Maakhan Chor, Raas Rachaiya, Chaliya, Lampat, Ranchor—a question troubles me:

• Would we ever want to be called by these names?
• Would we ever call our own father or grandfather by such titles?
• How can the giver of the Bhagavad Gita—who spoke so much about Brahmacharya—be associated with such labels?

This doubt distanced me from Shri Krishna for a long time. But one day, I became curious about Karna's life. I watched countless YouTube videos and TV serials, yet they all told the same version of the story. Then, by divine coincidence, I stumbled upon a Quora article about Karna’s death, where the writer claimed that Shri Krishna had accused Karna of many things—backed with references from the Mahabharata itself.
 
This made me wonder: Why not read the Mahabharata directly instead of relying on second-hand sources?
 
As I read, I discovered a completely different Shri Krishna—one whose true character was far from the commonly told stories in TV shows and folklore. His life was not what I had imagined. Stay with me as I uncover the real Shri Krishna—not the one we see in tales, but the one revealed in the Mahabharata itself.

If I talk about Shri Krishna’s popular birth story in short, I’m sure you all must have heard this tale before "Shri Krishna was born in Mathura to Devaki and Vasudeva inside a prison, as his uncle Kansa had imprisoned them due to a prophecy that Devaki's child would kill him. On the night of Krishna’s birth, a divine miracle occurred—all guards fell asleep, the prison doors unlocked on their own, and heavy rains began to pour. As Vasudeva carried baby Krishna across the Yamuna River to Gokul, Sheshnag Nag spread his hood to protect them from the storm. Krishna was safely exchanged with Yashoda’s daughter, and he grew up in Vrindavan under the loving care of Yashoda and Nanda".
Don't you think that God cannot be so foolish as to announce through a divine prophecy that Kansa would be killed, only to then let seven children die first, then have Krishna born, then have a baby girl sacrificed in his place, and finally have a snake protect him while crossing the river? Snakes, by nature, either see others as food or enemies—even their own offspring are not spared—so how could one suddenly become a protector? Doesn’t this story sound more like a fairytale? According to Mahabharat (SabhaParv, Chapter 14.30):

कयचत् वथ कालय कंसो नमय यादवान् । बाहथसुते देावुपागछद वृथामतः

Shri Krishna told Yudhishthira about all of Kansa’s sins and wrongdoings, but he never mentioned that Vasudeva and his mother Devaki were imprisoned (which would have been for at least 10 years, given that they had eight children). This was one of Kansa’s biggest crimes, yet Krishna did not bring it up. This proves that Krishna killed Kansa because he had oppressed the Yadavas, not because of any prophecy. If Devaki and Vasudeva had actually been imprisoned, Krishna would have surely mentioned it. The fact that he didn’t means they were never truly held captive—this was just a later fabricated story to make Krishna’s birth seem like a fairy tale. If his birth had been so divine, Maharishi Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa (Ved Vyasa) would have definitely mentioned it in the Mahabharata, and Krishna himself would have spoken about it.
 
Now, the question arises—who was Mata Yashoda?

आहुकं पितरं वृद्ध मातरं च यशस्विनीम्‌

If we refer to the Mahabharata, we do not find any mention of Mata Yashoda, but Mata Devaki, who is also called Yashaswini, Mahabharat (Sabha Parv 2.34), is mentioned multiple times. So, does that mean Mata Yashoda never existed?

संवर्धता गोपकुले बालेनव महात्मना । विख्यापितं बलं बाहोस्त्रिषु लोकेषु सञ्जय

If we look at the Puranas, it is said that during that time, Yadavas often sent their children to villages for upbringing. Vasudeva had a city residence in Mathura and a village residence in Gokul. So, it is likely that Shri Krishna was raised in the home of someone in Gokul, and that woman came to be known as Mata Yashoda.

पार्थः प्रस्थापयामास कृत्वा गोपालिकावपुः

Not only Krishna, but even Bhagwan Balram and Devi Subhadra spent their childhood in a similar way. When Arjuna sent Subhadra in Gopi or Gwalin attire to meet Draupadi (Mahabharat Adi Parv 219.21), it was not just a disguise but a reflection of her early life. She naturally felt connected to this form because she had spent her childhood among the cowherds.
While Mata Yashoda is mentioned in the Puranas, the stories about her vary across different texts. This makes it difficult to determine which version is the absolute truth. Hence, I have chosen to rely on Mahabharata as the primary reference to draw my conclusion.

We have seen Shri Krishna in TV serials, movies, cartoons, and pictures as a chocolatey boy—without a beard, mustache, or a strong, muscular body.
But according to the Mahabharata, how did Shri Krishna actually look? What was his real form? We find descriptions of his true appearance in multiple places. Acoording to Mahabharata (Sabha Parva 2.35):

प्रांशुः कम्बुग्रीवः श्यामः पीतवासा जटाधरः। श्रेणीभूतो महाबाहुः शङ्खचक्रगदाधरः।।

He was Tall and strong, with a conch-shaped neck, dark complexion (Shyam Varna), wearing yellow garments, with matted hair, broad shoulders, and mighty arms. He holds a conch (Shankha), a discus (Chakra), and a mace (Gada).
 
Mahabharata, Udyog Parva (67.12) says:

सुनासो विबुधश्रेष्ठः समवक्त्रो महाद्युतिः। अरक्तनेत्रः कृष्णस्तु श्यामवर्णो महाबलः।।

Shri Krishna’s face was symmetrical and radiant, his nose was well-shaped, and his eyes had a slight red tint, indicating divine energy and alertness. His complexion was dark, and he possessed immense strength.
 
Mahabharata, Drona Parva (10.7) says:

सिंहवक्त्रः सिंहगतिर्गजस्कन्धो महाहनुः। दीर्घबाहुः विशालाक्षः सुभ्रुवः सुललाटिकः।।

Shri Krishna had a majestic presence, similar to a lion and an elephant, symbolizing power. His shoulders were broad, his jaw was strong, and his forehead and eyes were large, signifying intelligence and divinity.
 
Mahabharata, Karna Parva (30.54) says:

तेजोमयः परं तेजो नित्यं ह्रीमानकम्पनः। दृष्ट्वैनं हि भयं याति मृत्युश्चापि सायुधः।।

Shri Krishna’s divine glow was fearsome, and even death (Yama) was afraid of him. His courage and composure were unmatched, making him an invincible force.
 
Mahabharata, Udyog Parv (95.1) says:

तेष्वासीनेषु सर्वेषु तूष्णीम्भूतेषु राजसु । वाक्यमभ्याददे कृष्णः सुदंष्ट्रो दुन्दुभिस्वनः

Shri Krishna, had beautiful teeth and a voice like the sound of a war drum.
 
Shri Krishna was tall, strong, and radiant, with broad shoulders, mighty arms, and a dark complexion (Shyam Varna). His symmetrical face, deep red-tinted eyes, beautiful teeth, and lion-like presence exuded power and wisdom. Dressed in yellow garments and carrying his conch (Shankha), discus (Chakra), and mace (Gada), he appeared both divine and fearsome.
 
There is no mention of Shri Krishna being clean-shaven in the Mahabharata. In fact, certain references indicate that he had a fully grown mustache and beard, reflecting his mature and majestic personality. Ancient Indian warriors and kings commonly kept facial hair as a symbol of strength and wisdom, and Krishna, being a Kshatriya and a Yaduvanshi leader, would have followed this tradition.
 
His voice thundered like a war drum, commanding respect and authority. Even Yama, the god of death, feared his brilliance. Shri Krishna was not just a warrior but the embodiment of strength, wisdom, and divine energy.
 
*PDF of all the above quoted references (verse locations are subject to change as they are updated over time)

The Mahabharata presents Shri Krishna as a truthful, righteous, and undefeatable personality. He himself declares:

नोक्तपूर्व मया मिथ्या स्वैरेष्वपि कदाचन। न च युद्धात् परावृत्तस्तथा संजीवतामयम्।।

(Mahabharata, Ashvamedh Parva, 70.30): No lie has ever been spoken by me, even in jest, nor have I ever retreated from battle.

यथा मे दयितो धर्मो ब्राह्मणश्च विशेषतः। अभिमन्योः सुतो जातो मृतो जीवत्वयं तथा।।

(Mahabharata, Ashvamedha Parva, 70.31): As Dharma is dear to me, and especially the Brahmanas, may this dead son of Abhimanyu be revived.

यथा सत्यं च धर्मश्च मयि नित्यं प्रतिष्ठितौ। तथा मृतशिशुरयं जीवतादभिमन्युजः

(Mahabharata, Ashvamedha Parva, 70.33): Just as I righteously killed Kamsa and Keshi, by that truth, may this boy be revived.
 
Despite these declarations, why is Krishna later given names like Ranchor (one who fled from battle) and Chaliya (trickster)?

A Deliberate Attempt to Tarnish His Image

Krishna was the protector of Dharma, not a deceiver. Later stories attempted to weaken his divine and flawless personality, adding unnecessary narratives that contradict his own words in the Mahabharata.
If Krishna himself says he never lied, fled, or acted unrighteously, then shouldn’t we trust his words over later distortions?

Many people always include Radha's name in Shri Krishna's stories or narrations. Whenever there is a story about him, people chant "Radhe-Radhe" with devotion. But have you ever tried to find out—could a person like Shri Krishna, who is known for his impeccable character and who himself has said:

यदा संहरते चायं कूर्मोऽङ्गानीव सर्वशः | इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेभ्यस्तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता ||

Bhagvad Geets 2.58: Just as a tortoise withdraws its limbs from all sides, one who withdraws his senses from sense objects is firmly established in wisdom.

उद्धरेदात्मनात्मानं नात्मानमवसादयेत् | आत्मैव ह्यात्मनो बन्धुरात्मैव रिपुरात्मनः ||

Bhagvad Geets 6.5-6: One must elevate oneself by one’s own mind, not degrade oneself. The mind alone is one’s friend, and the mind alone is one’s enemy.

ब्रह्मचारिव्रते स्थितः मनः संयम्य मच्चित्तः | युक्त आसीत मत्परः ||

Bhagvad Geets 6.14: Firmly observing Brahmacharya, restraining the mind, and focusing on Me, one should sit in meditation with unwavering devotion.

तस्मात्त्वमिन्द्रियाण्यादौ नियम्य भरतर्षभ | पाप्मानं प्रजहि ह्येनं ज्ञानविज्ञाननाशनम् ||

Bhagvad Geets 3.41: Therefore, O best of the Bharatas, first control the senses and destroy this sinful enemy, which is the cause of ignorance and loss of wisdom.

ब्रह्मचर्यं महद् घोरं तीर्त्त्वा द्वादशवार्षिकम् । हिमवत्पार्श्वमास्थाय यो मया तपसार्जितः ।। समानव्रतचारिण्यां रुक्मिण्यां योsन्वजायत । सनत्कुमारस्तेजस्वी प्रद्युम्नो नाम में सुतः

Mahabharata, Sauptik Parv 12.30-31: After practicing the most intense Brahmacharya for twelve years in the Himalayas, the son I obtained through my austerities was Pradyumna, born to my wife Rukmini, who followed the same path of purity.

आगच्छेयमहं द्यूतमनाहूतोsपि कौरवैः । वारयेयमहं द्यूतं दोषान् प्रदर्शयन्

Mahabharata, Van Parv 13.1-2: O King! If I had been in Dwarka or nearby earlier, you would not have fallen into this great crisis. I would have gone to that gambling assembly without the permission of the Kauravas and tried my best to stop gambling by exposing its many flaws

अद्यप्रभृति सर्वेषु वृष्ण्यन्धककुलेष्विह । सुरासवो न कर्त्तव्यः सर्वैर्नगरवासिभिः ।। यश्च नोsविदितं कुर्यात्पेयं कश्चिन्नरः क्वचित् । जीवन् स कालमारोहेत् स्वयं कृत्वा सबान्धवः

Mahabharata, Musal Parv 1.29-31: From today onwards, no Vrishni or Andhaka Kshatriya, nor any city resident, shall prepare intoxicating drinks. If anyone secretly produces an intoxicating drink anywhere, that criminal shall be hanged along with his family
 
How he engage in something as disgraceful as "Raas Leela," falling in love with Radha but not marrying her?
 
Despite this, people never mention the pure and divine love of Mata Rukmini and Shri Krishna. They never chant "Rukmini-Krishna", even though she was his lawful wife and a symbol of true devotion and dharma. Mata Rukmini loved Shri Krishna so deeply that she left her entire family behind to marry him, rejecting the wealth and power of her father and brother. Shri Krishna, in turn, accepted her lawfully, fought against her brother Rukmi, and never married anyone else besides her. He loved her immensely and remained devoted to her. She sacrificed everything for Krishna, yet even today, many ignore or even dislike Rukmini’s association with Krishna.
 
We frequently chant "Radhe-Radhe" and acknowledge that Radha was Shri Krishna’s lover. But as I mentioned earlier, Shri Krishna was our ancestor, like a father or grandfather to us. Would you ever refer to your own father by his girlfriend’s name? Would you call him immoral? And do the women who chant "Radhe-Radhe" ever think—how would they feel if their husband loved another woman even after marriage and ran to her when she called? Why don’t we shudder at the thought of associating such things with Shri Krishna?
 
The Mahabharata, Vishnu Purana, Harivamsha Purana, and Bhagavata Purana—which are considered the primary scriptures associated with Shri Krishna—do not even mention Radha, not even symbolically. People try to forcefully find Radha in certain words, but if you interpret Sanskrit correctly, the meaning changes completely.
 
In ancient times, all idols of Shri Krishna found in India depict him with Mata Rukmini, or his brother Balram and sister Subhadra—there is no trace of Radha. The concept of Radha was introduced much later, in texts like the Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Padma Purana, written much after Shri Krishna’s time, with no historical basis.
 
Now, let’s analyze the references in these later Puranas and see what actual relationship Radha and Krishna had.

Radha: Daughter of Krishna

In the Brahmavaivarta Purana, Brahma Khand 5.25-27, the origin of Radha is described as follows:

आविर्बभूव कन्यैका कृष्णस्य वामपाश्र्वतः | तेन राधा समाख्याता पुराविद्भिरश्वजोत्तमः

A girl appeared from Krishna’s left side. The Brahmins who knew the ancient scriptures named her 'Radha'.
In the next verse, Radha is referred to as the deity who presides over Krishna’s life force, stating that she emerged from Krishna’s very life-energy:

प्राणाधिष्ठात्री देवो सा कृष्णस्य परमात्मनः । श्राविर्वभूव प्राणेभ्यः प्राणेभ्योऽपि गरीयसी

She is the presiding deity of Krishna’s life force. She appeared from his very breath and is even greater than life itself.
 
First, stating that Radha was born from Krishna’s left side and then immediately claiming she emerged from his life force is a contradictory and irrational statement by the author. A body part and life force are not the same thing. Clearly, the Purana writer did not maintain consistency in his narration.
 
Moreover, we all are part of our parents—that's why we are called their children. If Radha was born from Shri Krishna’s body, then according to this logic, she should be regarded as his daughter, not his beloved.
 
This same Radha, who is described as Shri Krishna’s eternal companion in Goloka, is later said to have been cursed by Shridama and born on Earth as the daughter of the Gopa chief Vrishabhanu.

Radha: Krishna’s Maternal Aunt (Mami)?

The Prakriti Khand, Chapter 49 of the Brahmavaivarta Purana describes Radha’s earthly life in the following verses:

राधा जगाम वाराहे गोकुलं भारतं सती । वृषभानोश्च वैश्यस्य सा च कन्या बभूव ह

In the Varaha Kalpa, Radha went to Gokul and was born as the daughter of the Vaishya chief Vrishabhanu.

अतीते द्वादशाब्दे तु दृष्टा तां नवयौवनाम् । सार्धं रायणवेश्येन तत्संबन्धं चकार सः॥।३८।।

When Radha turned twelve and reached youth, she was married to a Vaishya named Rayana.

Who was Rayana?

The text further clarifies:

कृष्णमातुर्यशोदाया रायणस्तत्सहोदरः । गोलोके गोपकृष्णांशः संबन्धात्कृष्णमातुलः

Rayana was the brother of Krishna's mother, Yashoda, meaning he was Krishna’s maternal uncle (mama) in his earthly incarnation.

The "Chhaya Radha" Theory

The Purana introduces a peculiar justification to avoid contradictions regarding Radha’s multiple relationships:

छायां संस्थाप्य तद्‌गेहे साऽन्तर्धानमवाप ह । बभूव तस्य वैश्यस्य विवाहश्छायया सह

Radha placed her shadow (Chhaya Radha) in Rayana’s house and then disappeared. Rayana’s marriage took place with this shadow Radha, not the real one.
Krishna later reinforces this by saying:

मत्कलांशश्च रायाणस्त्यां विवाहे ग्रहीष्यति । विवाह काले रायाणस्त्वां च छायां ग्रहीष्यति

Rayana, who is a part of my own divine essence, will marry not you but your shadow.
Even Radha herself states:

ग्रहमेव स्वयं राधा छाया रायाणकामिनी

I am the real Radha, while the wife of Rayana is merely my shadow.
 

The Hidden Intent Behind "Chhaya Radha"

This concept of "Chhaya Radha" seems to have been created to justify contradictions in Radha's marital status. If Radha was married to Rayana (Krishna's maternal uncle), it would mean that Krishna had an illicit relationship with his own aunt (Mami). To avoid this moral dilemma, the Purana invents the idea that Rayana married only Radha’s shadow, while Krishna kept the real Radha with him.
This manipulation exposes the contradictions and fabrications in Radha’s narrative, highlighting that both Radha and "Chhaya Radha" are fictional constructs of later Purana writers.
 

Radha’s Harsh Words for Krishna

In the Brahmavaivarta Purana (Shri Krishna Janm Khand, Chapter 3), Radha rebukes Krishna with strong words:

हे कृष्ण विरजाकांत गच्छ मत्पुरतो हरे । कथं दुनोषि मां लोल रतिचौरातिलंपट

O Krishna, beloved of Viraja, go away from me! O fickle one, thief of love, debauched one, why are you troubling me?
She further says:

शीघ्रं पद्मावतीं गच्छ रत्नमालां मनोरमाम् । अथवा वनमालां वा रूपेणाप्रतिमां व्रज

Go quickly to Padmavati, to Ratnamala, the beautiful one. Or go to Vanamala, whose beauty is unparalleled.
 

Radha’s Anger Towards Krishna – A Contradiction?

Radha did not hesitate to call Krishna "Rati-chor" (thief of love), "Lampaṭa" (debauched), and "Dhūrta" (trickster). But this raises an important question:

How Can Someone Curse Lord Krishna?

We have studied in the Mahabharata that Krishna is the divine protector, and the upholder of dharma. He was revered by all, and his wisdom was unmatched. How can such a Lord be insulted and cursed? This suggests that the Krishna depicted in the Brahmavaivarta Purana is not the same Krishna of the Mahabharata.

Is This a Different Krishna?

If your answer is yes, then it becomes clear that these later stories were additions meant to tarnish Krishna’s divine character.

Only Rukmini Was Krishna’s Wife

Nowhere in the Mahabharata do we find Krishna engaged in such behavior. The Krishna we know was a symbol of righteousness, devotion, and divine wisdom. There was no other woman in his life except Mata Rukmini.
This later depiction of Krishna’s involvement with Radha and other women appears to be a later fabrication, possibly to dilute his true image. These stories were likely created to destroy his bright and spotless character.
The real Krishna was devoted to Dharma, and Mata Rukmini was his only true consort.

Many people say that the Mahabharata does not depict Shri Krishna's character, only his role in the war—his childhood and divine plays (leelas) are not included. Some people argue, "The whole world believes in it, only you are saying otherwise. Do you think you know more than everyone else? Go and ask Vaishnavs, saints, and gurus—they all accept it. But you have come with your own knowledge." Others sarcastically say, "Oh, were you there at that time? Did you see everything yourself?"
My response to these three points is as follows:

• Those who have not read the scriptures properly are the ones who claim that the Mahabharata does not contain Shri Krishna's life story.
   
• If truth were determined by numbers, then since Hindus are fewer in number compared to Christians and Muslims worldwide, would that mean their beliefs are correct and ours are wrong? If you agree with this logic, then I am ready to accept that truth is decided by numbers.
   
• Neither I nor you were present at that time to witness it firsthand. So, the only way to know the truth is through scriptures. If someone claims that ancient India never existed just because they haven't seen it, should we stop believing in history? We accept historical facts by studying historical texts, and that is how we acknowledge the truth.

 
Lastly, it does not matter what a particular saint or guru says. More than half of them turn spirituality into a business. Some provide good motivation, but do they truly understand the scriptures? No. I can name many saints who do not believe in Radha and have said various things about her. Therefore, I request you to let go of preconceived notions, empty your mind, and accept the truth.

Through deep study of the Mahabharata, it becomes evident that many widely accepted stories about Shri Krishna have been shaped by later interpretations and folklore rather than original scriptures. His portrayal in ancient texts reveals a powerful, disciplined, and righteous leader—far from the romanticized or mythical image often presented today. Misconceptions surrounding his birth, upbringing, and relationships, particularly with Radha, contrast with the strong historical and spiritual role of Mata Rukmini, his lawful wife. By understanding Shri Krishna through authentic sources, we gain a clearer picture of his true greatness, wisdom, and unwavering commitment to dharma.