An interesting debate on X about Sri Krishna with Indian and foreign Hindus

By Maria Wirth

Yesterday, there was an exchange on X/Twitter, where I took part. It was interesting so I post here, too.

One Austrian, Gloria Gotthard Reich, posted the following:

“Krishna is God. He is eternal. He does not belong to a particular person, people or nation. Krishna is God for everyone and all.”And she attached the below photo with the prominent line “Krishna is not Indian”.

(I should mention that she had posted this earlier, too, and in another post she once said that Shiva is racially ‘white’ and has blonde hair.)
Her tweet got over 1 lakh views within 1 day, far more than my tweets usually get, even though her follower count is 12k and mine is 145k.

One @HellooSuee replied rather harshly:
“We don’t need a gora pakora stealing our Gods.”

The reaction to this tweet was in my view out of proportion. Almost every Hindu took Gloria’s side and came heavily down on HellooSuee. Some suspected her/him not to be Hindu. Others said, the tweeter is harming Sanatana Dharma. We should be glad when foreigners practise our Dharma, etc…

I felt @Helloosuee might have had genuine uneasiness when a foreigner declares that Krishna is not Indian, and I have actually similar apprehensions, maybe knowing westerners better than Indians do. Trying to appropriate Yoga as ‘Christian Yoga” is only one example.

So I replied to the post by HellooSuee:

“I think @HellooSuee could have used better language, but the outrage on her is too much.
Gloria Gotthard Reich @Ingestohter may not be aware (the pic is obviously not made by her), but there is clearly an attempt to take Hinduism away from Hindus, if I can say so.
Yoga is only one example.
Imo, Krishna has 2 sides – the person who was a King in Bharat and his direct identity/ knowing of being Brahman.
I would say, Krishna, the human form, was Indian, like Jesus was from Palestina (that’s what I learnt in school).

Why would anyone deny this? And make even posters to declare that Krishna was not Indian?
It doesn’t seem to be in good faith.

I wonder why Hindus came down so heavily on Helloo Suee but defend Gloria whose post also has its weakness.
Brahman of course is not describable, pervading and containing us all.” (end of my reply)

After that, there was a very lively debate in comments where another foreigner, William Seaborn, strongly took the side of Gloria.

He wrote among others:
“Krishna is the source of all that exists. Krishna existed before India existed. Krishna existed before the material world existed. Limiting Krishna to India is an insult and blasphemous.”

My reply:
“Is it so difficult to understand that there is also the Sri Krishna within Maya who was king, cousin of Arjuna, in Mahabharata… who was Indian, but his Divinity is not Indian, like our Divinity also is not Indian, Russian, German etc..

Why deny this?

I am suspicious because I once heard an US woman from Yoga Alliance at a yoga conference in India praise India for giving Yoga to the world.
I told her, I am glad, she acknowledged the Indian origin.
She immediately tensed up and said, of course we resist that some Indians claim that India owns yoga…

She also mentioned in her talk that “Yoga Alliance is on a roll now”.. So many institutes sign up (and pay). That may be the reason for not crediting India.” (end)

William wrote again:
“I’m saying that the almighty Krishna, his divinity is not Indian. I’m saying Krishna is universal and beyond nationality. Is it so difficult to understand? But some people got offended.”

So, I replied a bit longer:

“Look, William, absolute Divinity is without form and name, is pure (thought-free) consciousness. it is pervading everything. It alone is. everything in this apparent ‘creation’ is THAT only.
Do you agree?

So that indescribable, attributeless divinity is usually called Brahma(n) (not to be confused with the creator Brahma in the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) or simply TAT (THAT). it has no history, no birth or death.

It is within all the Devas, Avataras, humans and the whole of nature.
Agreed?

Now when ISKCON followers (some do) claim, it is ONLY Krishna who is the absolute Supreme, from whom everything originates and by whom all is permeated, there is a problem.
Can you see it?

Because Krishna is ALSO one of the manifestation of THAT in the form of an Avatar of Vishnu, naturally with attributes.

So if you take one Avatar and claim THAT ALONE is the absolute Truth, and everyone needs to accept Krishna as the Absolute Godhead, it puts people off, me at least. It reminds me of the dogmas of Christianity.
Could you follow?

in the Ganapathi Atharvasirsa Upanishad, Ganapati is claimed to be THAT from which all originates, but in the Shiva Upanishad, it is Shiva, in Srimad Bhagavtam it is Krishna.

Also Read: https://www.newsgram.com/religion/2025/06/03/blind-belief-is-not-satisfying

So it means, THAT is not only in everything and everyone, but everyone IS basically only THAT because the rest is like a dream.

Therefore, I prefer the Vedic terminology when i refer to the Absolute. I see the Devas and Avatars as access points, because they have attributes, they can be imagined, can be loved.
Could i make my point clear?”