ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 A SEMIOTIC READING OF UNCONVENTIONAL FIGURE OF ‘LORD ’ IN SWARAJBIR’S KRISHAN (2001): A RETELLING OF ‘KHANDAVADAHA’ INCIDENT

Sapanpreet Kaur (first author)1, Dr. Ramanpreet Kaur (Second Author)2

1Doctoral Research Scholar, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda 2Assistant Professor, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda

Received: 14 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 July 2020

ABSTRACT: The present paper explores the unconventional figure of Lord Krishna depicted in the play Krishan (2001), penned down by Swarajbir. The play is a retelling of “Khandavadaha” incident which is discussed in the Hindu scripture . With the help of Semiotics literary theory, this article critically „reads‟ the understudied play which eventually introduces the readers the unconventional features of Krishna‟s character. This analytical enterprise finds Krishna‟s unconventional character by observing his various mental states and behavioural tendencies at various junctures depicted in the play which stand opposite to those depicted in Bhagvad Gita particularly. The article underscores the chief cause of burning of Khandava wood in which the outcastes who were inhabitants and thousands of animals were burnt to death. There are two reasons discussed for his heinous act in Mahabharta and in the understudied play as well: first, Krishna wanted to expand his empire and second, the inhabitants were outcasts and unwanted. The conclusion is drawn that Krishna appears as a „perplexed king‟ which is an absolute opposite of „Krishna as a most adorable deity‟ in the world.

KEYWORDS: Krishna, Khandava wood, Mahabharata, Semiotics, Signification

I. INTRODUCTION

Literature has innumerable functions and probably one of the most important ones is the projection of an individual‟s original ideas and collected experiences. It caters space to project original notions and freedom to express, react or retell what has been observed by the writer. Among these functions, retelling has been noticed as a tradition in literary history in all languages. It is an activity of retelling of certain episodes from a scripture or a great book in a different form from its prototype. “Its primary functions involve re-projection of major socio-historic or political events, someone‟s past, retelling of the stories of legends and myths (Mishra1)”. The semiotics literary theory is used as an apt tool to analyse the aesthetic value of the verbal art used by the playwright and help the reader to explore the „retold‟ and „recreated‟ world of the text as it helps us to „read between the lines‟ of the text along with the attributes of a particular sign which can be a character, gesture or any object, because it moves from the languages to all modes of representation employed in the production and interpretation of the text.

The understudied play Krishan (2001) by Swarajbir is a retelling of the “Khandavadaha” incident narrated in the Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Pava, section CCXXX. Swarajbir (1958-) is a well-known Punjabi playwright and a Sahitya Akademi awardee (2016) for his play Maseya di Raat (2013). “Religion is a recurring thread in his plays” (Singh 2014). This is the reason he finds the Hindu mythology as a primary source to choose the themes for his plays. The play depicts a heinous crime of burning of thousands of inhabitants of a forest named Khandva. It is depicted as a deliberate attempt by Krishan/Krishna and who burnt the inhabitants alive for two reasons: first, to acquire the land to expand their empire and second the inhabitants were Bheels, Nishad and Asuras (demons) who were considered as the enemies of the „Aryans‟. Jra, a Bheel along with few others were fortunate ones to find a narrow escape. As they overcome the jolt of this genocide they swear to take revenge from Krishna. Eventually, the climax shows us the victory of underdog Jra upon Krishna when his poisonous arrow mortally wounds Krishna‟s heel. There are two prominent voices occur in the course of action – those are of Krishan and Jra. They seem to express loudly to the audience the perceptions they have for each other. Krishan is filled with hatred for Bheels and considers them feeble in front of his might; on the other hand Jra bears grudges against Krishan for devastating his dwelling along with his clan. As the play progresses, it becomes apparent that Krishan‟s divine being begins to fade and Jra, on the other side, eventually gets over the

3911

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 hearts and minds of audience. The play is a distinctive attempt that constitutes the figure of the most adorable deity Krishan, but in gray. Jra succeeds in winning the sympathies of readers simultaneously raising several questions to rethink by them like why did Krishna do so? If their outcaste beings become the primary cause of their destruction?

The actual incident has been depicted in the Pauranic Encyclopaedia (1975) as a “deadly fight” in which “Krsna killed the Asuras with the weapon discus” (Mani 408, 1975). The whole incident is depicted in this encyclopaedia is as following:

King Svetaki has to perform a sacrifice of duration of hundred years. Many prieststook part in it but after a few years they depart because of becoming blind due to the smoke of sacrificial fire. Svetaki was grieved on it and performed penance of Lord Shiva asking for a priest. Shiva appeared before him and pointed to a priest named Durvasas. With the joining of Durvasas the sacrifice was completed. However, due to the consumptions of oblations for several years the Fire God suffered from dysentery. His face became pale and his body became lean. The suffering Fire God visited Brahma and the latter came with the solution that in the forest of Khandva there lived so many creatures which were the enemies of God and that by eating their fat the disease of would be cured. Accordingly the Fire God came in the said forest. The Fire God tried seven times to consume it but failed due to the interference of deity . The Fire God then in the disguise of Brahman narrated the whole matter to Krishna and Arjuna and asks for their aid. Krishna and Arjuna prepared their arms and set fire to the forest. The inmates of the forest ran hither and thither but find no escape. Krishna guarded the boundaries of the forest so that no inmate could escape. Indra seeing on the great calamity once again attempted to extinguish fire by overcasting the sky but Arjuna made a thick covering of arrows upon the forest and thus failed the attempts of Indra. In this way the Fire God consumed the entire forest. (Mani 408, 1975)

We can see the obvious differences between the prototype of the incident and the one depicted in the text. However, the common thread between the two is the representation of Krishna as in both Krishna is the main perpetrator of the crime. The playwright has transmuted this incident by forsaking the mythological coating and focused upon presenting Krishna as the king of Dvarka. The playwright‟s intellection has succeeded in bringing out an absolutely unconventional image of Krishna which has never been discussed or portrayed as same as in the present play while ascertaining the actuality of the events.

How Is The Text A Species Of Signification?

As the central focus of the article is the analysis of unconventional figure of Krishna portrayed in the text; the adjective „unconventional‟ is used to underscore the decisions taken by Krishna in the text that are not mere the decisions but they convey something „extra‟. Such „extralinguistic‟ characteristic urges the intellect of the readers to actively participate in the meaning making process of the text. In this view, the text is a type of high degree of signification, and “a dynamic process in which meaning is developed by the complex features and structures of the text and their insertion into varying context of production and reception.” (Johnson 98) If the text is considered to be a high degree signification it is further required to understand that the text is a complete unified entity or a macro sign made of small signifying units. The significant property of meaning is that it is not 'transmitted' to us but we actively create it as per the complex interplay of codes. It means that the author does not report the actions plainly but presents a discourse within specific time and place with a craft of language of which the reader has to construct the meaning. Let us then decode the figure of Krishna by comprehending the complex interplay of codes/signs used by the playwright to portray him „unconventional‟.

Analysis

Lord Krishna is the most worshipped and adorable deity in Hinduism. According to Osho Rajneesh an Indian god man, “Krishna is so unique” and “his uniqueness lies in the fact that although Krishna happened in the ancient past he belongs to the future, is really of the future” (2015). Edward Bryant refers Krishna “a pan Indian deity” (Introduction I) whereas Shri Nagesh D. Sonde in Krishna A Study Based on Mahabharata (2008) presents his both godly and non-godly forms. Undoubtedly, Krishna has extremely sacred place among all Indian deities. However, the question arises if Krishna stood for righteousness and for dharama then why did the genocide in Khandva wood happened so ruthlessly? Irawati Karve, an eminent Indian anthropologist and sociologist argues in her book Yuganata (1968), “Not only did they burn the timber; they drove back into the forest all they could and killed the rest. Only a few were allowed to escape” and “the need for expansion explains the burning of the forest, but the question still remains: why was it burned so mercilessly?” (59). The present study takes this heinous act as focal point and presents a critique of it.

3912

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 Now, deciphering the present text Krishan as a species of signs, we observe that the select text renders Krishna wholly a human figure with complexities, dilemmas with tendencies to commit sins. The analysis of his persona in the play is based upon the following four uncustomary idiosyncrasies: a. Krishna‟s Conflict with Jrasandha, b. Anxieties of Krishna upon Loss of Power c. Krishna as Machiavellian Schemer d. From Action to Introspection

These idiosyncrasies come into light as a „consequence‟ of the genocide of the outcasts and due to the disloyalty of many Dvarka chieftains. The sign „consequence‟ does not only indicate to the vendetta of the „victims‟ of the fierce fire, but also the eventual end of Krishna and the Dvarka Empire. The „victims‟ of fierce fire are the outcastes like Bheels, Nagas and Asuras whom Krishna used to consider „beasts‟ in the text.

Krishna is a powerful king of Dvarka but who admitted the vigor of Jrasandha, the king of because he has repeatedly attacked upon Mathura. As a consequence Krishna had to leave Mathura to shift his empire in Dvarka. In order to tackle with all such dissensions he takes some significant initiatives in the process of which his „being‟ goes through many transitions. These transitions are helpful in comprehending different aspects of „Krishna‟. The whole play revolves around his moralism as a „king‟. The beginning of the play is in medias res as we come to know that the Khandava forest has burnt in the blaze in which all the inhabitants and many wild animals got burnt. Few escapists along with Jra have still not come out of the jolt. Jra, in the scene I, imputes Krishna and Arjuna for setting fire to Khandava forest. He says: They set fire…to destroy us!...to debacle us!... so that we bow down to them!...so that they could acquire land!...land for cultivation!...land to construct palaces!...they set fire and then make pretexts that it is a calamity of God of Fire!...And you. You all trust on them!...Krishna, Arjun, Shridhan, Sehdev…these Kings and sons of kings!...I know them all. We have to take revenge from them!...Rise! trust on me! Come with me. (36)

Jra represents the „fury of Bheels‟ by charging Krishna and Arjuna for the destruction „because‟ they are the royalists. As per Jra, Krishna claims his ultimate rights upon the land of the wood because he is in power. The reference to the Fire God is used to criticise the vicious intentions of Krishan and others. Jra who is a survivor of the blaze, not only, signifies the injustice and a prey of abhorrence of the upper castes, but also becomes a scapegoat who gets sacrificed in the process of socialization. That progress takes place at the cost of exploitation of nature and massive killing of natural inhabitants. Here the „Khandava‟ wood symbolises a lucrative piece of land to Krishna and Arjuna on which they can expand their kingdom. When we look at this process of socialisation we understand that from the primitive times to the modern times nature has been becoming primary recourse to the solutions of human problems as well as the primary victim of man‟s exploitations.

The sequence of events in the text begins with „Krishna‟s arrival to Mathura‟ where he kills his maternal uncle Kamsa who was a tyrant ruler of Vrishni kingdom whose capital was Mathura. By assassinating Kamsa Krishna venerated his maternal grandfather Ugarsena as the next king. This proves a significant event as it exhibited the valor of Krishna and signs of a powerful Yadava hero. Among all the Yadava representatives like Kritverma, Sehdev, Satyaki etc., Krishna emerged as the most powerful ruler of the Dvarka city. Afterwards, he never returned to Vrindavan, which is also a significant aspect because he „forsakes‟ his dearest childhood land after establishing himself as a powerful Yadava chief.

The first aspect ‘Krishna‟s conflict with Jrasandha‟ elucidates a new dimension of Krishna‟s persona. It affirms the previous aspect of Krishna‟s being as a King, simultaneously his dubious vigour as powerful Yadava chief. Jarasandha recurrently attacked on Mathura because Krishna killed Kamsa with whom Jrasandha‟s two daughters Asti and Prapti were married. The recurrent attacks perturbed Krishna so he shifted the empire to an anonymous place later came to be known as Dvarka. According to Vettam Mani in Pauranic Encyclopaedia (1975), “To save themselves from the attacks of Jarasandha, the Yadavas united themselves under Sri Krsna and built a strong city in the western islands. That beautiful city was called Dvarka” (266). Apparently Krishna admitted the might of Jarasandha and flew to a safer place Dvarka. This aspect is of vital importance in the understudied text as the rest of the events are based on it. In the play, it is observed that Krishna „over and over‟ „affirms‟ and „asserts‟ to himself and to his people his being as a powerful King. An illustration of such affirmation from the text is presented as following: The beginning, the middle, the end Only Myself! Myself! Myself! Vishnu among Aditya, sun among shimmering lights Maarich among winds and moon among planets! (57)

3913

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 The affirmation can be understood as the subject of two opposing conditions. First, if the person is an integral part of royalty or when there is a fear of loss of any such privilege. Krishna‟s affirmation is in the form of self- praise that constitutes following epithets: infinity, Vishnu, sun, Mareech etc. Krishna uses all these adjectives to emphasize his entity as the highest among all the deities and as an immortal being. We shall understand the main cause behind this proclamation is the wide spread anarchy in the Dvarka city in which Krishna perceives that things are getting out of his control. The cause of this anarchy is the growing corruption among the Dvarka chieftains named Kritverma and Satyaki who use to keep eyes on the king‟s thrown. Because of the prevalence of the corruption the chieftains cease to take care of the public, so the poor common people eventually begin to suffer with poverty and starvation. Krishna, instead of resolving this serious issue turns outrageous and worries a lot, but does not come up with any solution. Therefore the affirmation happens to be an escape from the prevalent harsh conditions in his kingdom.

The „anarchy‟ in the Dvarka city due to the dearth of the basic necessities and „fury of Bheels‟ are two signs that bring Krishna‟s moralism as king under question. When the public of Dvarka decides to meet king Krishna to apprise him about their sufferings, a withered Brahmin reminds them the cause of their plight is “the curse of leaving the motherland Mathura city cowardly” (59). He is then chided by Satyaki for using the word „cowardly‟ because „deity Krishna‟ had „protected‟ them all from Jarasandha and they have forgotten the boon of life bestowed to them. The Brahmin laughs on the use of epithet „deity‟ with Krishna. He criticises the growing trend of using the epithet god or deity with the people in political power. The argument sparks into a deadly fight as Satyaki advances to kill unarmed and defenseless Brahmin. This incident acts as sign vehicle for telling us about the thriving oppression of common people in Dvarka by corrupt Dvarka chieftains.

Krishna remains aloof from all the hugger-mugger and keeps on ordaining through the minister to take necessary action against the violence instigators. When the minister informs to Krishna about the curse of leaving the motherland Mathura cowardly Krishna loses his temper. He broods over the fidgetiness of people. Instead of opting for some action to take control over the worsening situations, Krishna remains passive and often indulges into long introspection periods. In the course of his introspection, he focuses on the glory of Dvarka and the comforts he has provided to the people in the form of fortified houses. However, he overlooks the unscrupulous chiefs and the dearth of edibles in the city. Factually, he tries to placate himself through this contemplation. The underscored temperament of Krishna is absolutely inverse from the one which is depicted in Bhagwad Gita in which he persuades Arjuna to fight for the righteousness which is his primary duty. He says, “Hold as patent on thy work, Reckon thou not on royalty, With no way to ceasing work Never mind outcome but go on. It‟s but yoga If thou strive Wants without Emotions bereft” (Murthy 2013). This means that the primary obligation is to do your duty and shirking from your duty is unmanliness which is against of Kshatriyas dharma.

The second aspect ‘anxieties of Krishna over loss of power‟ is associated with the disputable might of Krishna. We have seen that Krishna presumes himself as an immortal and preeminating, then why does he mull over the might of other Dvraka chiefs and of Jarasandha? In the text, he confesses it to his wife Rukmani: Rukmani: (emphasizing on her words with her status and social rank) Lord! Only my son Pradumana will be the heir to the throne. Krishna: Many Dvarka chiefs also wish so. But the causes of our anxiety are….Kritverma and his fellows. (60)

Kritverma, and Satyaki are the two gallant chieftains of the empire of Krishna. Krishna is worried after the visitation of Kritverma who alleges Satyaki with the charges that the latter is all prepared to claim him the throne. Krishna feels „perplexed‟ over being tricked by those who have been once faithful to him. His perplexity is reflected in his following speech: Whom should I trust? ...and to whom I shouldn‟t? The tree of trust is infested by termite. The roots of devoutness have gone hollow. The life‟s mirror is muzzy…(steps forward, as if trying to look for something from his surroundings)…why there is too quiescence in the palace? Why? (62) „Termite‟, „hollow roots of devoutness‟ and „muzzy mirror of life‟ are all the signs bringing out an understanding to the anxieties of Krishna which is resultant of the disloyalty of Kritvarma and Satyaki. This dialogue reflects Krishna‟s helplessness which is again utterly against of his valorous temperament. During these odds Krishna‟s childhood ally Gopal visits him and makes him nostalgic because each reference to Vrindavan in their talks reminds him his pleasant childhood days. He could feel Vrindavan close to him. Krishna admits to Gopal that: …Vrindavan, what should I do? I was your herdsman…now I am a king! A God! People call me Almighty! They fold their hands in front of me! They ask for all worldly comforts from me!...I also want to express my sentiments to someone! I also want to embrace someone and cry!...Vrindavan! Who can bring back the soothing time spent with you?...Would that! I could hold my past? (75)

3914

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

The apostrophe to Vrindavan by Krishna brings it to life and in this way his sentiments are communicated well. Here, „Vrindavan‟ and „Gopal‟ emerge as multidimensional signs in this discourse. „Vrindavan‟ in a way acts as a confidant of Krishna. He is likely to give vent to his pent up desires while addressing Vrindavan. He „craves‟ to bring back those days, but he „can‟t‟. The pathetic of his being is revealed here; though he considers himself „self-sustaining‟ and „preeminent‟ yet he cannot bring himself what he craves for. In the presence of Gopal, he desires that the latter may remain „close‟ to him because his presence renders him „solace‟. Hereupon, „Gopal‟ may signify to the childhood of Krishna, because it was his childhood name. The visitation of Gopal is actually the reunion of king Krishna and Bal Gopala.

An important and noteworthy fact is that Krishna‟s aspiration to return to Vrindavan turns intensive during the anarchy spread in Dvarka. When sage Uttanka visits Krishna and prophesizes about misfortune end of Dvarka, Krishna begins to knit his own design. He reflects upon making these omens his strength by using them against the corrupt chieftains to reduce their power. This expresses the third significant aspect of Krishna‟s persona of a „Machiavellian schemer‟. In order to control the growing powers of the chieftains Krishna plots a fatal design against them in the form of an ancestral worship event. He ordains Satyaki to arrange for liquor of superior quality to be served in the event; though the liquor consumption is prohibited in Dvarka. Krishna apparently knew that the liquor will germinate the chance of dispute among them and this is how he can propel the „divide and rule‟ policy.

Before the feast takes place, there is a foreshadowing of the impending mishap, through a contention between „Kali‟, „a milkmaid of Vrindavan‟ and Krishna. It is where the fourth aspect „from action to introspection‟ finds signification with highly meaningful signifiers. The milkmaid and „Kali‟ represent to the past and future of Krishna. The past is symbolized tranquil and soothing whereas the future is uncertain and overshadowed with unfortunate events. The contention is significant as it underscores Krishna‟s conscience. The horrific sound of pellet drum is heard, which indicates the beginning of darkest time of Dvarka city. The „Kali‟ dances the Tandava, the dance of destructions with intensity to mark the end of divine dance of love that is „Rasa leela‟.

Before the event, Krishna‟s introspection alarms him again about the wide spread hatred. He tries to find solace in the memories of Vrindavan in the following words: …In Vrindavan, I lived in love and there were temples of love… but Dvarka!...(In extreme anger) I‟ll immerse Dvarka in the abhorrence. Abhorrence and only abhorrence! Overall abhorrence!. All these warriors and men of valor will submerge in the fluid of abhorrence. Those who forget their past, each step of theirs advances towards death. (70)

These words apparently brings out that Krishna has deliberately plotted against Satyaki and Kritverma, from whom he had apprehensions of losing his royalty. However, the plot goes against of Krishna‟s plan as the drunken Satyaki and Kritverma end up hurting each other mortally. The other Dvarka chieftains too entangle in fatalistic rumpus. Amid these horrible times the infuriated Bheels attack the Yadvas and Krishna becomes the prey of a poisonous arrow of Jra. His subterfuge eventually brings him his final end. In this way Jra succeeds in taking revenge of the genocide. The play ends with a chorus in which people from all the stratas of society and other common people of society join each other. They hold one another‟s hands and pray to the Almighty for strength by erasing the differences of civilized and uncivilized. The prayer is a climax of the play that occurs as a sign of victory of an underdog upon the injustice and then the eventual vendetta by Jra. Besides, the gathering of all the people alludes to the commencement of novel startup of life in which dominion of power and exploitation is no more tolerable.

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis brings out an unorthodox image of Krishna that is of „lovelorn and perplexed king‟. Though he is a mighty Yadava king yet he worries about losing his power and is disturbed over the insincerity of Dvarka chieftains. Dormancy upon effectiveness, introspection upon determination and Machiavellian scheming upon prudence overcome his temperament. He gets entrapped in the politics of power so his unsurpassable glory recedes.

In this way the text breaks the popular and accepted image of Krishna that is of a great statesman, a dauntless warrior, and a supreme being.

3915

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 The author barely focuses on the socially accepted characteristics of Krishan which are deeply rooted in the sentience of people and he goes on depicting him as an anti-hero, who is entangled in numerous difficulties one after another. Such portrayal is used skillfully by the playwright as through his character he has tried to represent many things at the same time like historical and contemporary political culture, social flaws and human frailties. According to a famous Punjabi writer and a critic Tejwant Gill, “Instead of presenting Krishan as Supreme Being, Swarajbir divulges historical intricacies of His time as the backdrop of the play because from these intricacies he gives rise to the overtones of contemporary period” (88, 2001). In the foreword of the play, Swarajbir makes the following statement, “I have acknowledged Krishan as an amalgamation of historical and mythical heroes” (I). In this way he develops Krishan and Jra as multi-dimensional signs. Krishan, at some places, emerges as King of Dvarka, whereas somewhere in the middle of action he is a despondent and towards the end he emerges as Machiavellian schemer and shrewd counsel. Jra, on the other hand is the victim of the former‟s atrocities and later on he emerges as powerful representative of the few escapists from the blazing forest.

Although in the scriptures like Bhagwad Gita Krishna stated to stand for „dharma‟ because according to him it is a fundamental part of life. In an essay “Dharma in Bhagwad Gita”, Hridayananda Dasa Goswami discusses in detail the role of dharma in man‟s life as accounted in the Gita. He posits “from other scriptures one may get the impression that life is meant to practice dharma. However, we find in the Bhagavad Gita that dharma itself is meant to assist the real goal of life” (Dharma in Bhagwad Gita). The Play Krishan develops as an opposed document of Shrimada Bhagwat because Krishna‟s portrayal is representation of sovereignty. Being a Kshatriya chief he does not adhere to his „dharma‟ to assist his real goal of life that is to protect his people and the sovereignty Dvarka federation. His dilemmas, introspection and enunciations are impacted by his inclination towards power. Krishna and his Yadava chieftains infringe the Kshatriya dharma by killing the defenseless Bheels. “The most sacred duty of a Kshatriya is to defend the people. However, Krishna being the chief of Yadavas did not adhere to the Kshatriya code and went on with his surreptitious policy” (Karve 59). Though it is a duty of ruling king to expand his kingdom yet this act of Yadavas is sordid. The understudied text has extrapolation of this act and it demonstrates abhorrence for the forest dwellers apparently.

Krishna and his moralism to attain and then maintain the political power evokes the contemporary scenario of the play by articulating the issues like significance of nature preservation and gives voice to the rights of unvoiced outcastes. However, the act of burning of wood is still not justified in the text because it took the lives of thousands of people and became a cause of destruction of Yadu dynasty too. Besides the fact of development, other possibilities of killing the innocents too seek justification. In The Fissured Land by Madhav Gadgill and Ramachandra Guha, the act of Khandava forest is seen as a progressive step taken by Arjuna and Krishna. The authors say in the chapter “Forest and Fire” that “Arjuna evidently wants to clear Khandava forest to provide land for his agricultural/pastoral clan and, to build their capital city, ” (79). It is an emphatic claim we come across made by the authors of the book. Besides, the authors also assert that the burning of forest and killing of wild animals and tribal people is „couched‟ in the terminology of great ritual sacrifice. The use of word „couched‟ lets us to believe that the authors defy the mythical coating of Agni and his disease completely. The conclusion made at the end of the description is straight and ingenuous but in the words of Irawati karve saying, “It appears reasonable to conclude that the purpose of this slaughter was to destroy the resource base of hunting and gathering tribal who lived in the forest” (qtd. in Gadgill and Guha 81). Therefore, the Khandava forest with its wild animal‟s population and tribal inhabitants served as a resource base for the extermination of the bheels, nishads, asuras and nagas and for the development of kingdom. Its destruction rather than conservation assumed priority from the royalists. The play in this way mirrors the ways of execution of power and exploitation of common people from the Vedic times to the present time. The power structures have caused the reinforcement of divisions in the present social system and extensive discrimination against the lower/outer classes. The fundamental ingredient of contemporary politics is reflected by depicting Krishna as a present day crafty politician. Jra on the other hand represents the common man who often becomes the scapegoat of the contrivances of these politicians. They exploit nature as the free of cost wealth available to them for the so called development. The ruling authorities mostly belonging to the upper/middle classes barely pay heed towards the growth of low and outcasts and are absorbed in the construction of optimal political environment for them. In The Penguin History of Early India, the author Romila Thapar apparently calls the act of clearance of forest is the act of „settlement‟. She states: One of the most graphic descriptions of clearing a forest to establish a settlement occurs in the Mahabharata, where the burning of the Khandava Forest to clear land for the settlement of Indraprastha led to large numbers of animals, as well as human and demonic inhabitants, being burnt to death. The presentation of forest-dwellers as demonic would have emphasized their being alien to caste society. (2002, 56)

3916

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 We have seen in the play Krishan that the forest dwellers are conceded as demons and thus they are excluded from the caste hierarchy. So they are not allowed to share abodes with the human beings and thus they use to dwell in the forests. However, like the human beings, the outcastes too are organized in the clans and have families. They are isolated and forced to live in the forests, the reason which Romila Thapar discusses in the same book, is that, “They were stocky in built, dark in complexion, with bloodshot eyes and speaking a strange language” (2002, 56). Thus they were distinguished from human beings. The humans on the other hand left no stone unturned in demolishing their natural habitats and in bringing them to the level of extinction. In this way the framed discourse in the understudied text is an explicit presentation of the dominion of power and also reflects intolerance for the exploitation caused to the outcastes.

III. REFERENCE

[ 1] F. Bryant, Edwin. (2007). Ed. Krishna: A Source Book. New York: Oxford University Press. [ 2] Gadgil, Madhav and Ramachandra Guha. (1992). This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. Berkeley: University of California Press. [ 3] Gill, Tejwant. (2013). “Kaav Naat Krishan Diyan Antreev Partan”. Krishan. Chandigarh: Lokgeet Parkashan. 88-99. [ 4] Goswami, Haridyananda Dasa. (2019). “Dharma in Bhagwad Gita”. krishna.com. http://www.krishna.com/dharma-bhagavad-gita [ 5] Johnson, Jorgen Dines. (2002). Literary Discourse: A Semiotic Pragmatic Approach to Literature.Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [ 6] Karve, Irawati. (1968). Yuganta: The End of Epoch. : Orient Longman. [ 7] Mani, Vettam. (1975). Pauranic Encyclopaedia. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Indological Publishers & Booksellers. Print. [ 8] Mishra, Richa. (2015). Retelling of Indian Myths in Contemporary Indian English Narratives. [Doctroral Dissertation, University of Allahabad]. ShodhGanga. [ 9] Murthy, B.S. (2013). Bhagwad Gita, Hyderabad : Self Imprint. [ 10] Osho, Rajnish. (2015). “Krishna: Complete, Whole, Choiceless”. oshodhara.org. [ 11] Swarajbir. (2013). Krishan. Chandigarh: Lokgeet Parkashan. [ 12] Thapar, Romila. (2002). The Penguin History of Early India From Origin to AD 1300. London:Penguin Book.

3917