Lord Krishna’ in Swarajbir’S Krishan (2001): a Retelling of ‘Khandavadaha’ Incident

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 A SEMIOTIC READING OF UNCONVENTIONAL FIGURE OF ‘LORD KRISHNA’ 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 Mahabharata. 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 Arjuna 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 Agni 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 Indra. 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).

Load more