sign in sign up
<<
Home , Demigod, Nishadas, The Mahabharata (play)

THE HEROIC CHARACTER DECONSTRUCTION OF BHARATAYUDHA WAR IN EPIC

Fransiska Olivia Sipota Christian Tritunggal School E-mail [email protected]

Abstract The Mahabharata is an epic story written by . The story tells about the heroism of which ended in their victory at the battle of Bharatayudha against the . People believes that the Pandavas are heroes who become the core of the epic story. The interpretation of heroism of Pandavas are believed by people because they are the children of . In addition the Pandavas are believed as the protagonist characters who are powerful than ordinary , they are good and honest. Through decnstructin theory the writer reveals the other side of the Pandavas that is hidden behind their heroic action. By reading and looking for the minor texts in the story, the writer finds that the Pandavas are not as heroic as people think. There are many things that make them look as ordinary human that are far from heroic attitude. Whereas Kauravas who are considered as the cowards and they have a bad character, but they have the attitudes as a more than Pandavas. The writer finds the binary oppositions in the text to search for the faults of Pandavas and the of goodness Kauravas that will change the view of the two main characters in the story. By using the theory of deconstruction the writer can find other truths in the story of the epic Mahabharata.

Keywords: deconstruction analysis, hero, heroism, Derrida, Mahabharata.

because it shows people’s image. Some 1. INTRODUCTION literature can be formed into manuscripts Literature is a personal expression of or canon texts that are full of values and human life. It can be the experiences, beliefs, and those even be trusted that it feelings, thoughts, passions, ideas and really happened in the past. beliefs that are drawn through writings. Every nation has its own canon Literary work is created to be enjoyed, texts that create its cultures and ideal understood and utilized by the people history. The text can be an ideal history

104

because a canon which is read continually the other stories. (Mohan Ganguli, as a colossal story or epic tells about the 1896:33). glory of the heroes or . It makes the Mahabharata itself becomes ideal history becomes the only true precept of four principle genuine history. purposes of life. Sugandhi (2005:62) said

The people agree that the ideal the four principle purposes called Catur history is the standard values of all human Purusartha or Catur Warga; those are life. It is the climax of people pretention Karma, Artha, Dharma, and Moksa. The and tough accumulation to move with the central story of Mahabharata is values that is compromised among them. Bharatayudha war which is just like a great

The stories inside the canon text are trusted civil war. In a word, Mahabharata tells as a life orientation that will always exist about conflict between Pandavas and their among the people. cousins, Kauravas. They fought each other

One of the greatest canon texts that to seize the Hastina throne through the war. ever exist is Mahabharata epic story, a The war happened in Kurushetra field great work of Vyasa. It is a Hinduism which ran for 18 days. It involved almost sacred text just like Veda, Vedanta and the entire kingdoms in , both minor

Purana. This sacred text originally comes and large kingdoms. from India. The original work of it uses The five Pandavas are

Sanskrit, the ancient language of India. Pandudevanata’s sons from his two wives,

Mahabharata itself is divided into 18 and . They are Yudhistira, sacred texts or they call as Astadasaparwa , (from Kunti), and

(asta=8, dasa=10, parwa=sacred text). Sadeva (from Madri). Actually, they are

Every sacred text represents one heroism the avatar of gods. That is why they are story, but every story has a connection with very strong and kind. Yudhistira is well

105

known as the kindest person in the world. All the animosities are declared

People say that in his whole life he never through their efforts to destroy the makes a mistake or sin. Some people also Pandavas. Everything they try to defeat say that because of his kindness, his blood Pandavas, but none of their efforts work is white which marks his holiness. well. The climax of their efforts to distract

Bhima is known as a very strong the Pandavas and claim the throne of knight among his brothers. He is different Hastina is when they agreed to join the war from his brothers; he has cruel face, but his that they call Bharatayudha. In this war, heart is so kind. Arjuna is the most they gather the allies to win the war handsome man in the world. That is why knightly. Thousands people die to defend he has so many wives in his life. He is good their country. This is the greatest war that in . Nakula and Sadeva, the twin was ever told in the epic story. Because

Pandavas, are the wise men. They are hard Bharatayudha does not only describe how worker and like to serve their older to fight each other, there is a value about brothers. the art of war, an idea of respect

It is different how people usually intertwined with honor, demonstration of describe about Kauravas. They represent integrity, etc. the cowards and the wickedness. Although As it is known by public that in this they are the Pandavas’ cousins, Kauravas epic, Pandavas always become the have the bad characters. All that they do protagonists, but Kauravas always become are only the distractions. They are jealous the antagonists. Pandavas are considered with their cousins because in their view, as the knights, they are virtuous and wise.

Pandavas have everything. They have No one deny it. But everything can be seen honor, the crown of the Hastina and love from various points of views. There is also from people and also gods. an opinion that says it is not fair for the

106

antagonists who are always bad in the an existing story line which we read. But, public opinion. No one is perfect; as a great literary work that has ever been everybody has the mistakes they ever made, it definitely has the great purposes made. or meanings behind it. Every word that is

Pandavas is a hundred percent the already written can keep another meaning. ordinary human who are also full of mistakes, though they are told as the avatar 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK of gods. Moreover, the gods in this epic The theories include the characters in the also do all kind of errors. In the other side, literature, post-structuralism theory, and the Kauravas also have their own virtue. deconstruction theory that influence the

But people never see it as goodness; they characters in the Mahabharata epic. think nothing of the Kauravas. A. Character in Literature

Mahabharata which are believed to When we discuss about be a basis of life tells about the heroic of literature, we often use literary terms

Pandavas in the whole story. There is no like character, characteristic and harm if this epic says so; it teaches people characterization. Character is an that the good always conquers the evil, but imaginative person who inhabits a story. is too one-sided view if we think nothing They are the life of literature; they are the of the antagonists’ goodness and never objects of our curiosity and fascination, matter of the protagonists’ errors. The affection and dislike, admiration and antagonists will always be hated by people condemnation. As stated by Harmsworth, and will never be considered as a good “Character is a brief descriptive sketch of example to live the life. personage who typifies some definite

Facts about the literature of quality. The person is describe not as an

Mahabharata epic are not only limited by individualized personality but as an

107

example of some vice or virtue or type” and they can only be seen once in a while

(1972: 21). But the usage of character term in the story itself in English literature has two different Based on the character, there are meanings. First is character as an protagonist and antagonist characters. individual figure of the story. Second is James L. Potter in the Element of translated as attitude, anxiety, emotion, Literature said that protagonist is someone desire and moral value of the individual or something that gets into pressure in the figures themselves. According to Stanton, story. The protagonist is a main character character can be meant as disposition in literary works that is able to raise

(1956: 17). Sayuti explained that character sympathies of the readers. He also said that is fictional personage that experiences the the antagonist is the main person or things phenomenon in the story (1996: 43). that against the protagonist. The antagonist

Nurgiyanto said that character is not always a human; basically it stands aimed at characteristic and attitude of the directly opposed to the protagonist and characters that is interpreted by the readers gives rise to the conflict of the story (1983:

(2002: 165). It shows personal qualities of 23). the character in the story. We can say that antagonist does not

Judging from the character‟s role necessarily have to be a person. It could be or importance in a story, characters are death, the devil, an illness, or any divided into the major/main characters and challenge that prevents the main character the minor/peripheral characters. The major from living happily. In fact, the antagonist characters can be seen from their could be a character of virtue in a literary appearance function. The minor characters work where the protagonist represents evil. are the characters which are not involved The understanding about the with the theme and characters in the story concept of the character cannot be

108

separated from the concept of the and forceful. Talmud said that a hero is the characterizations. In a literary work, the one who conquers his evil inclinations. author creates the characteristics of the Russian proverb says hero is someone who figures that are able to support the figure hangs on for the one minute more (Gibbon, existence itself. This is very essential 2002:1). because the figures should have characters A Call to Heroism noted that the that seem to live in a story. According to word hero comes to us from the Greek,

Potter (1967: 4), the characters of a figure meaning . Off spring of a divine are reflected through the characters' name, parent and a mortal parent, the heroes of dialogue, action, physical appearance, were less than gods but figure description, soliloquy, and the greater than ordinary . The Greek comments from other figures. notions a hero as a superhuman and

B. Heroism Definition godlike who think other people first before

Heroism represents the ideal of their private life. Later in their history, the citizens transforming civic virtue into the Greeks applied the word hero to human highest form of civic action, accepting beings, for example Alexander the Great either physical peril or social sacrifice. In (2002:4). the twentieth-century philosopher Joseph According to Shakespeare in

Campbell believed that all heroes take Machbeth, he described a hero as justice, journeys, confront the unknown, endure verity, temperance, stableness, bounty, trials, and return home transformed-as did perseverance, mercy, lowliness, devotion,

Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus. patience, courage, and fortitude (Gibbon,

Christians believe that heroes are humble 2002:5). So, the writer takes an antonym and turn the other cheek. Frederich for each Shakespeare's definitions and

Nietzche believed that heroes were proud finds the good definitions of what hero is

109

not: unjust, untruthful, intemperate, Thirdly, the hero must be true to life. And unstable, stingy, wavering, vengeful, finally, the hero must be consistent. arrogant, capricious, impatient, cowardly, C. Post Structuralism and volatile. Deconstructionists find the Before we discussed about post word hero meaningless. In their view, no structuralism, first we should know about one is selfless or noble. It criticizes that what structuralism is. So structuralism is a heroism is always a virtuous. Oxford theory that has been exist before post

Advance Learner’s Dictionary describes a structuralism. It sought to bring to literary hero is a person who is admired by many studies a set of objective criteria for for his noble equalities or courage analysis and a new intellectual rigor.

(Hornby, 1995:558). Structuralism devoted its attention to

Some people describe a hero is matters of literary form (i.e. structure) courageous and handsome and valued rather than social or historical content. glory in battle than life itself, but for other There are four main common ideas people, hero also often means oppressor. underlying Structuralism as a general

Today, people describe a hero as a person movement: firstly, every system has a who takes an unpopular position, standing structure; secondly, the structure is what up for principle, persevering, forging determines the position of each element of accomplishment out of adversity. a whole; thirdly, "structural laws" deal

People mostly demand the heroes with coexistence rather than changes; and have these four values in their life. First, fourthly, structures are the "real things" the hero must be good and thus manifest that lie beneath the surface or the moral purpose in his speech. Second, the appearance of meaning. hero must have propriety, or manly valor. Post structuralism is the name for a

movement in philosophy that began in the

110

1960s. It remains an influence not only in not satisfactory; because it is evident that philosophy, but also in a wider set of post structuralism tries to deflate the subjects, including literature, politics, art, scientific pretension of structuralism cultural criticisms, history and sociology. (webs.wofford.edu).

This influence is controversial because According to Smith (2001), post post structuralism is often seen as a structuralism is appropriate understood as dissenting position, for example, with improvements and developments of respect to the sciences and to established structuralism. Contemporary post moral values. The movement is best structuralism ideas will never be exist summed up by its component thinkers. without the earlier innovation of

Some scientists believe that the structuralism. If structuralism is heroic in later developments were already inherent its desire to master the world of artificial in the earlier phase. One might say that signs, post structuralism is comic and anti- post structuralism is simply a fuller heroic in its refusal to take such claims working-out of the implication of seriously. However, the poststructuralist structuralism. If structuralists tend to not mockery of structuralism is almost a self- doubt the existence of reality (that is some mockery; poststructuralists are material, human, or social' economic structuralists who suddenly see the error of substratum that lies beneath the ideas), so their ways. poststructuralists, on the other hand, do Basically, post structuralism is a doubt the existence of reality, or at the very bunch of separate theories that is exist after least they emphasize the extent to which structuralism. Young (1897: 1) said that the widely understood difference between the name of “post structuralism” is only

“ideas” and “reality” is one constructed useful as long as it has function as an through discourse. But this formulation is “umbrella word” (kata pelingkup), that

111

identify itself meaningfully in temporal According to Derridas‟s Of and special deal with structuralism. It Gramatology, deconstruction begins with involves a displacement; it is an the assertion that language is inherently interrogation to structuralism methods and unstable; it utilizes Heidegger‟s assertion assumptions, makes a transformation of that the written word can only signify structuralism ideas by changes them to be meaning, and not „mean‟ something in conflicted with each other. itself: hence, we have Derrida‟s famous

D. Deconstruction Theory of Derrida assertion that „nothing exists outside the

Deconstruction is unthinkable text‟. (Faruk. 2012:205). without post structuralism. The notion of We can say that deconstruction is deconstruction is indissolubly linked to the a way to bring the contradictions that hide name of Jacques Derrida. Derrida offers an behind our concepts and beliefs in the text. overture towards a new complexity, to Deconstruction suggests that language is understand how our interpretations of not a stable entity, and that we can never politics, religion, or works of art are exactly say what we mean. Therefore, delimited by the structures allowing us to literature cannot give a reader any one represent our ideas. single meaning, because the language

There is some notion of itself is simply too ambiguous. deconstruction according to experts as Deconstruction does focus on the text. It follows; lexically prefix ' de-' means a cannot be apart from the text, but its view decrease, reduction, or rejection. So is wider than only reading the text. The text deconstructions can be interpreted as a is not limited by its meaning. Even the reduction against the ways of the deconstruction refused the old structure construction, in this case is an idea. that has been trusted. The

deconstructionist rejected the notion that

112

the text reflects the reality. Instead, they „aporetic‟ moment – takes the form of say that the text constructs the reality. something that cannot be explained within

According to Faruk, Derrida standard rules of logic what distinguishes explains that language is a temporal a deconstructive analysis, in other words, process. When we read a sentence, there is is that it always begins from an presence a meaning of the text that is always seem undeconstructible (Lucy, 2004:1-2). delayed. The former meaning is modified There are several elements in by the next meaning. In every sign there aporia, but the writer only uses irony are traces of the other words that are element. Irony is a figure of speech in executed by the sign so that it can be the which words are used in such a way that final meaning. Furthermore, the meaning their intended meaning is different from is never equal with itself because the sign the actual meaning of the words. It may that emerges in the different contexts is also be a situation that may end up in quite never completely the same (2012: 209- a different way than what is generally

210). anticipated. In simple words, it is a

To make it easy to analyze difference between the appearance and the deconstruction, the writer uses binary reality. There are three major of irony opposition that compares the characters of (http://literarydevices.net/irony/): the hero in the text. To find the binary 1. Verbal irony opposition of the characters, the writer Verbal irony occurs when a uses aporia. Aporia is A Greek term speaker speaks something contradictory to denoting a logical contradiction, „aporia‟ what he intends to. It is an intentional is used by Derrida to refer to what he often product of the speaker and is contradictory calls the „blind spots‟ of any metaphysical to his/her emotions and actions. To define argument. Hence the aporia – or the it simply, it means when a character uses

113

statement with underlying meanings to Literary Studies, “It is applied contrasting with its literal meanings, it primordial textual science of religion, legal shows that the writer has used verbal irony. practice, and divination. These traditions

2. Dramatic irony place the main emphasize on the internal

Storytellers use this irony as a textual aspects of a literary works." (Mario useful plot device for creating situations Klarer, 1999: 76). where audience knows more about the The text-oriented approach is situations, the causes of conflicts and their primarily concerned with questions of the resolutions before leading characters or materiality of texts, including editions of actors. manuscripts, analyses of language and

3. Situational irony style, and the formal structure of literary

It occurs when incongruity appears works. Text-oriented traditions, however, between expectations of something to center on the text primarily investigating happen, and what actually happens instead. its formal or structural features.

Thus, entirely different happens from what Through this approach, the writer audience may be expecting or the final will analyze the main characters of outcome is opposite to what the audience Mahabharata that are taken part in is expecting. It is also known as irony of Bharatayudha war by investigating situations that generally include sharp Mahabharata epic story. contrasts and contradictions. To make a simply application of

deconstruction in the study of literary texts

3. RESEARCH METHOD Roland Barthes does the following steps

In this research, the writer uses (Norris. 2002:8-9): text-oriented approach to analyze the data. 1. Identify the binary

According to the books of An Introduction opposition of the text. The binary

114

opposition acknowledges the human a contradiction between the black and tendency to think in terms of opposition, white which is opposite to each other, for example, Reason/Passion, although the fact that black exists because

Man/Woman, Inside/Outside, of white and conversely. This kind of

Presence/Absence, Speech/Writing, etc. contradiction should be found in the

Derrida argued that these oppositions were analysis of literary works by using the arbitrary and inherently unstable. theory of deconstruction.

Deconstruction rejects most of the From Mahabharata epic there are assumptions of structuralism and more several main oppositions in the literary vehemently “binary opposition” on the works, i.e.: grounds that such oppositions always Pandavas - Kauravas privilege one term over the other. Bhima – Doryudhana

2. Oppositions are reversed by Arjuna – showing that there are the The oppositions above are the interdependences between the conflicting main conflict that becomes the focus of inside the text. Mahabharata. The author tries to a raise

3. Introducing a new idea that the reader's sympathy for these cannot put in the old oppositional. characters.

In forming the sympathy of the

4. DISCUSSION readers, the author first describes the

The first analytical step of the work of kindness of the main characters in order deconstruction is to find opposition pairs to create a sense of concern that leads in the literary texts. In literature we will the readers on a single interpretation, so find the difference and contradiction which that the readers is positioned as the is the nature of the text. We can describe as supporters of the main character. Then

115

the author leads the readers so that they were born from the same ancestor called believe that the main characters of the Kuru and . story are the heroes who have all Pandavas were the sons of , goodness to be praised. Positive King of Hastinapura. They were five imagery can make the readers believe brothers. In this story the five Pandavas that the protagonist as the main were described as the heroes that had a characters always win against the very positive character because they were antagonists. With that structure the the descendants of the gods. They were the author hides the possibility of the strong and handsome heroes. Each one of presence of other meanings contained in them had a privilege by grace of gods who literary texts which can be opposed begot them through two Pandu's wives, meanings that are created by the author. Kunti and Madri. Everyone knew that the

To find other meanings of the Pandavas were a great warrior and had all text, the writer will analyze one by one of good things in their life. the oppositions above in this chapter. “The celebrated Pandu, tempted by the desire of having more children wished A. Pandavas vs Kauravas to speak again unto his wedded wife (for invoking some other god). But Kunti 1. The Heroism of Pandavas in addressed him, saying, 'The wise do not sanction a fourth delivery even in a season the Story of distress. The woman having intercourse with four different men...... '" (Ganguli, The first role that can be 1896:390) “……. this his eldest son, analyzed using deconstruction theory is , was born there, begotten by Dharma himself. Then that illustrious king Pandavas and Kauravas themselves. As obtained from this other son-the foremost of all mighty men-called Bhima. it is known that the Mahabharata told This other son, begotten upon Kunti by , is Dhananjaya whose achievements about these cousins that had a very will humble all bowmen in the world. Look here again at these tigers among men, contradictory character although they mighty in the use of the bow, the twin children begotten upon Madri by the twin Aswins." (Ganguli, 1896:396)

116

In the previous chapter, the writer her womb with great violence without her found that heroes were the offspring of husband‟s knowing. After that a hard mass god. Because all Pandavas were of flesh like an iron ball came out from her descendants of gods, we could say that womb. Then by Vyasa's help, they were heroes. They also had a magically had a hundred children. superpower that was different with Bad signs accompanied their birth. ordinary humans since they were sons of in the palace felt that there god. From their appearance and family would be a worst disaster and asked King background, the readers would easily Dhristarashtra to dispose them. describe that Pandavas were heroes. “O King, O bull among men, when these frightful omens are noticeable at the It was different how people birth of thy eldest son, it is evident that he shall be the exterminator of thy race. The described the Kauravas through the story prosperity of all dependeth on his abandonment. Calamity there must be in of Mahabharata. They were so evil and keeping him.” (Ganguli, 1896:369) represent the darkness. The author Their story was so contrast with the described Kauravas as the negative figures Pandavas. Although they were Pandavas‟ even since they were born. cousins, their appearance was very

The story began from Gandhari, different with Pandavas. If the Pandavas

Kauravas‟ mother, conceived and bore the were described as the heroes, the Kauravas burden in her womb for two long years were described as the villains. Pandavas without being delivered. She was greatly were often told as a white side and afflicted at this. Then she heard that Kunti Kauravas were the black side. had given birth to three children and They were not the sons of god like became so jealous. Impatient of the period Pandavas. They were only the ordinary of gestation which had prolonged so long, humans who got their strength from the and deprived of reason by grief, she struck trainings like other people did. So we could

117

not say that Kauravas were heroes, because need of altercation which is the exercise of the weak?” (Ganguli, 1896:424). they were ordinary people. The text above shows that Arjuna 2. Heroism Deconstruction of was also an ordinary person. If we compare Pandavas vs Kauravas with the explanation about the People believed that Pandavas were heroes characteristic of hero, that is humble and because they were sons of god, caring for other people, in fact Arjuna had represented the goodness and the white the opposite manner. He looked down to side. They also had super power. But if Karna just because he was a lower class we look at the text carefully, we will see person. that Pandavas also had a dark side that This happened when they were in made them were unworthy to be called as the arena to compete who would success heroes. to lift the bow. Before Karna succeed A hero is someone who cares for to lift the bow, nobody complained about other people above their self-interest. He is who he was. Arjuna himself also did not also a humble person. We find another fact asked anything about him because he of Pandavas‟ heroism if we see it from this thought that he was the one who could lift point of view. They were the arrogant the bow. When he saw Karna also did it, person and they never admitted the other his pride broke. He began to complain and strength but theirs, especially Arjuna. said that Karna was unwelcome intruder. “'Arjuna, after this, deeming himself disgraced, said unto Karna In the previous chapter, we know that hero stationed amidst the brothers like unto a cliff, 'That path which the unwelcome is someone who lives in justice and he is intruder and the uninvited talker cometh to, shall be thine, O Karna, for thou shall be truthful. It means that a hero will never do slain by me.' Karna replied, 'This arena is meant for all, not for thee alone, O something unworthy to achieve his goal. If Phalguna! They are kings who are superior in energy; and verily the we look at Pandavas deeds in regardeth might and might alone. What Bharatayudha war, we will find the 118

untruthful Pandavas. They won the war foes who were dying and could not fight with the wrong way. them when they were not holding their

“„Beholding Bhimasena of sword, but Bhima did it because of his immeasurable energy filled with rage and rushing towards him, thy highsouled son, grudge. From this view, the Pandavas were O bull of Bharata‟s race, desiring to baffle his blow, set his heart on the manoeuvre not the heroes as people believed. They called Avasthana. He, therefore, desired to jump upwards, O monarch, for beguiling won the victory through the untruthful Vrikodara. Bhimasena fully understood the intentions of his adversary. Rushing, way. therefore, at him, with a loud leonine roar, he fiercely hurled his mace at the thighs of On the other side, Kauravas who the Kuru king as the latter had jumped up for baffling the first aim. That mace, were believed as the antagonists and had endued with the force of the thunder and hurled by Bhima of terrible feats, fractured no kindness in their life, actually they the two handsome thighs of . That tiger among men, thy son, after his were a good man. Not all Pandavas were thighs had been broken by Bhimasena, fell down, causing the earth to echo with his cruel. Some of them were good friends of fall…………….. Beholding Duryodhana felled upon the earth like a gigantic Sala Pandavas. uprooted (by the tempest) the Pandavas became filled with joy. The Somakas also “But , moved by his beheld, with hair standing on end, the Kuru friendship for the Pandavas, informed king felled upon the earth like an infuriated them of this. Vrikodara, however, elephant felled by a lion. Having struck swallowed it without any hesitation, and Duryodhana down, the valiant Bhimasena, digested it completely.” (Ganguli, approaching the Kuru chief, addressed 1896:403) him, saying, "O wretch, formerly laughing at the disrobed in the midst of the The text above showed us that assembly, thou hadst, O fool, addressed us as „Cow, Cow!‟ Bear now the fruit of that Kauravas also had a good side. Yuyutsu insult!" Having said these words, he touched the head of his fallen foe with his was the one of a hundred Kauravas, but his left foot. Indeed, he struck the head of that lion among kings with his foot.” (Ganguli, appearances in the story was never be 1896:3521-3523) important in the readers‟ view. Actually by In this case, Bhima did the worst his presence, he showed the different side thing that made Pandavas lost their of Kauravas who were cruel. heroism aspect. He did not follow the rule If people said that Kauravas were of the war. The knight could not hit the not hero, according to the previous chapter 119

about the characteristic of a hero we also fight unfairly‟ so that be able to slay could say that Kauravas were hero because Duryodhana. It shows us the other the fact they had a strength that was equal with that Bhima was not as hero as we think.

Pandavas. The text below shows us about We knew the story of burning the

Kauravas Duryodhana. who was lac house that was planned by Kauravas. In the incarnation of god said that the first time Kauravas planned it to kill

Bhima of the Pandavas would never win Pandavas, but they did not do something the war if he fought fairly with Durodhana. that harmed Pandavas because Pandavas

“„Vasudeva said, “The instruction themselves were fulfilled that planning. A received by them hath been equal. Bhima, however, is possessed of greater might, burning of lac house was done by Bhima while the son of is possessed of greater skill and hath more. If he were himself. But Bhima indirectly made to fight fairly, Bhimasena will never succeed in winning the victory. If, Duryodhana and his brothers however, he fights unfairly he will be surely able to slay Duryodhana.” (Ganguli, became the suspects over burning 1896:3520) the house of lac. All the villagers that saw Krishna himself admitted that the house burning began to curse Duryodhana had greater skill than Bhima Duryodhana and his minions, when Bhima so they had to fight him unfairly. The hero himself who actually did it. This proved was someone with the great power or that Bhima was not innocent, but he was a strength. Duryodhana had it. We could call cunning person. Because of his deeds him as a hero from that point of view. Kauravas were hated by the people. This text also shows us the verbal “Bhima then set fire to the house irony that the great hero like Bhima should just where Purochana was sleeping. Then the son of Pandu set fire to the door of that fight unfairly. Krishna said that Bhima „is house of lac. Then he set fire to the mansion in several parts all around. Then possessed of greater might‟ but in the same when the sons of Pandu were satisfied that the house had caught fire in several parts time he said that Bhima „will never those chastisers of foes with their mother, entered the subterranean passage without succeed in winning the victory‟ so „he losing any time. Then the heat and the roar 120

of the fire became intense and awakened Bhima was a protagonist and Doryudhana the townspeople. Beholding the house in flames, the citizens with sorrowful faces was an antagonist. If Bhima was the began to say, „The wretch (Purochana) of wicked soul had under the instruction of strongest among the Pandavas, then Duryodhana built his house for the destruction of his employer‟s relatives. He Doryudhana was the strongest among the indeed hath set fire to it. O, fie on Dhritarashtra‟s heart which is so partial. Kauravas. He hath burnt to death, as if he were their foe, the sinless heirs of Pandu! O, the sinful As we knew before that all of and wicked-souled (Purochana) who hath burnt those best of men, the innocent and Pandavas were the sons of god, Bhima, the unsuspicious princes, hath himself been burnt to death as fate would have it.‟” second was the son of Vayu, the (Ganguli, 1896:454) mighty god of wind. When his mortal If we read carefully the text above, father, Pandu could not have a descendant, we would see that Kauravas were not the he asked his wives to invoke the gods so suspect of the lac house incident. It was that they could have one. From his first true that they planned the bad for wife, he got three sons and from his second Pandavas, but the real suspect was Bhima wife he got twins children. who lit the fire. Bhima made as if it was “The god of wind thereupon begat done by Duryodhana and his brothers. As upon her the child afterwards known as Bhima of mighty arms and fierce prowess. a hero, he must be true to life. Because of And upon the birth of that child endued with extraordinary strength, an incorporeal his deed, Kauravas should be the suspect. voice, O Bharata, as before, said, „This child shall be the foremost of all endued Bhima did not think about Kauravas‟ side. with strength.‟” (Ganguli, 1896:388)

Because of the reason, we could not call Bhima as the he was him as a hero. strong since he was born. He was born with

B. Bhima vs Doryudhana the natural strength that was given by god

1. Heroism of Bhima in himself. By those reasons, Bhima was born Mahabharata as a hero since he had all of heroism Bhima and Doryudhana were criteria. He was mighty, prowess and cousins that had so different characters. godlike. The author told us that Bhima‟s 121

skill and power were over his brothers and exterminator of thy race. The prosperity of all dependeth on his abandonment. his cousins, Kauravas. Calamity there must be in keeping him. O king, if thou abandonest him, there remain “In fact, those princes were no yet thy nine and ninety sons. If thou match for Bhima in pugilistic encounters, desirest the good of thy race, abandon him, in speed, or in skill.” (Ganguli, 1896:399- O Bharata! O king, do good to the world 400) and thy own race by casting off this one child of thine. It hath been said that an On the other side, Doryudhana the eldest individual should be cast off for the sake of the family; that a family should be cast off of Kauravas was decribed as a haughty for the sake of a village; that a village may be abandoned for the sake of the whole person. He had the same birthday with country; and that the earth itself may be abandoned for the sake of the soul.” Bhima, but the author told us that there was (Ganguli, 1896:369) the bad things happened in the day when From the beginning the author

Duryodhana was born. Everyone was scare described that Duryodhana was the with the bad signs that accomplished distractor that was shown implicitly in the

Duryodhna‟s birthday. Even the text. It made him known as a crook in the brahmans in the palace advised Mahabharata.

King Dristharatra (Kauravas‟ Father) to 2. Heroism Deconstruction of Bhima vs Duryodhana abandon him so that the palace would be in The readers easily believe that Bhima was peace. a great hero because the text said so.

“As soon as Duryodhana was born, Through his self-appearance, people know he began to cry and bray like an ass. And hearing that sound, the asses, vultures, that Bhima was born as a hero. If we jackals and crows uttered their respective cries responsively. Violent winds began to looked at his character from another view, blow, and there were fires in various directions…...... As soon as these we would find that he was not a hero like words were spoken, O Bharata, jackals and other carnivorous animals began to howl people thought. ominously and marking those frightful omens all around.” (Ganguli, 1896:369) The other text of this story said that

“The assembled Brahmanas and Bhima looked down to other people, in this the wise replied, 'O king, O bull among men, when these frightful omens case was Karna. When Arjuna complained are noticeable at the birth of thy eldest son, it is evident that he shall be the about Karna‟s identity in the arena, 122

Bhima provoked others by his words did. After he looked down to Karna, he after seeing Karna‟s charioteer. said the crude words to mock him. If we

“Seeing the charioteer, the Pandava considered this reason to see another side Bhimasena took Karna for a charioteer‟s son, and said by way of ridicule, „O son of of Bhima, we would find Bhima was a a charioteer, thou dost not deserve death in fight at the hands of Partha. As befits thy cruel person who could not respect other race take thou anon the whip. And, O worst of mortals, surely thou art not worthy to people. We could say that Bhima was also sway the kingdom of , even as a dog doth not deserve the butter placed before jealous with Karna because Karna had an the sacrificial fire.‟” (Ganguli, 1896:427) equal power like Pandavas. Bhima did not want his pride The text also said that Bhima dropped by the lower class person like slayed Duryodhana unfairly when they Karna who was only a son of charioteer. were in the war. He broke the rule of the He used the crude words that insulted war and he did not hear other people advice Karna. From this text, we could see that to stop the war because he just broke the Bhima was also an ordinary person that law. was away from the definition of hero. “Beholding Bhimasena of In the previous chapter, the writer immeasurable energy filled with rage and rushing towards him, thy highsouled son, found that a hero was someone who was O bull of Bharata‟s race, desiring to baffle his blow, set his heart on the manoeuvre not arrogant. A hero would never look called Avasthana. He, therefore, desired to jump upwards, O monarch, for beguiling down to other people, but he would respect Vrikodara. Bhimasena fully understood the intentions of his adversary. Rushing, people who were stronger than him. Bhima therefore, at him, with a loud leonine roar, he fiercely hurled his mace at the thighs of did not do it. He mocked Karna because the Kuru king as the latter had jumped up for baffling the first aim. That mace, they had different caste in society. endued with the force of the thunder and hurled by Bhima of terrible feats, fractured Another characteristic of hero the two handsome thighs of Duryodhana. That tiger among men, thy son, after his according to the previous chapter, he must thighs had been broken by Bhimasena, fell down, causing the earth to echo with his be good and manifest moral purpose in his fall………………..„Beholding Duryodhana felled upon the earth like a speech. It was contrast with what Bhima gigantic Sala uprooted (by the tempest) the 123

Pandavas became filled with joy. The himself was not a good figure of hero Somakas also beheld, with hair standing on end, the Kuru king felled upon the earth through his deed that slayed Duryodhana like an infuriated elephant felled by a lion. Having struck Duryodhana down, the unfairly. No one was happy with his valiant Bhimasena, approaching the Kuru chief, addressed him, saying, "O wretch, untruthful victory. formerly laughing at the disrobed Draupadi in the midst of the assembly, In the text above, king Yudhistira thou hadst, O fool, addressed us as „Cow, Cow!‟ Bear now the fruit of that insult!" talked about his complain to Bhima with Having said these words, he touched the head of his fallen foe with his left foot. verbal irony when he said, ”This conduct Indeed, he struck the head of that lion among kings with his foot...... of thine, O sinless one, is not proper.” He While Vrikodara, after having struck down thy son, was thus bragging and dancing called Bhima as the sinless one, but in the madly, king Yudhishthira addressed him, saying, "Thou hast paid off thy hostility same time he also said to Bhima that his (towards Duryodhana) and accomplished thy vow by a fair or an unfair act! Cease action was not proper. It seemed that now, O Bhima! Do not crush his head with thy foot! Do not act sinfully! Duryodhana Yudhistira said it to Bhima to make Bhima is a king! He is, again, thy kinsman! He is fallen! This conduct of thine, O sinless remembered how people saw him as a hero one, is not proper. Duryodhana was the lord of eleven Akshauhinis of troops. He or a sinless person, so he could not did the was the king of the Kurus. Do not, O Bhima, touch a king and a kinsman with wrong way to defeat Duryodhana. It shows thy foot. His kinsmen are slain. His friends and counsellors are gone. His troops have us that what Bhima did was not a heroic been exterminated. He has been struck down in battle. He is to be pitied in every action. respect. He deserves not to be insulted, for remember that he is a king. He is ruined. The other text was said by His friends and kinsmen have been slain. His brothers have been killed. His sons too Duryodhana who did not admit the victory have been slain. His funeral cake hath been taken away. He is our brother. This that of Pandavas because Bhima defeated him thou doest unto him is not proper. „Bhimasena is a man of righteous unfairly. behaviour‟: people used to say this before of thee! Why then, O Bhimasena, dost thou “O mighty-armed one, no one can rise insult the king in this way?" (Ganguli, superior to Time! Those of my side that 1896:5321-5323) have escaped with life from this battle should be informed, how I have been A hero would always fight fairly no struck down by Bhimasena in contravention of the rules of fair fight! matter what happened. Bhima proved Many have been the very unfair and sinful acts that have been perpetrated towards 124

Bhurishrava, and , and of and what Bhima did to defeat his rival. great prosperity! This is another very infamous act that the cruel Pandavas have Those words gave us an image of the cruel perpetrated, for which, I am certain, they will incur the condemnation of all Bhima who was actually not a hero. righteous men! What pleasure can a righteously disposed person enjoy at Duryodhana, on the other side who having gained a victory by unfair acts? What wise man, again, is there that would considered as a coward and untruthful accord his approbation to a person contravening the rules of fairness? What person, he understood that what Bhima did learned man is there that would rejoice after having won victory by was wrong but he could do nothing. He unrighteousness as that sinful wretch, Vrikodara the son of Pandu, rejoices? respected victory that was done in a fair What can be more amazing than this, that Bhimasena in wrath should with his foot way. touch the head of one like me while lying with my thighs broken? Is that person, O From this side, Duryodhana , worthy of honour who behaveth thus towards a man possessed of glory seemed to be more heroic than Bhima endued with prosperity, living in the midst of friends?” (Ganguli, 1896:3537) himself. Yudhistira. In the text above,

He also noted the verbal irony to said,”He is to be pitied in every respect.” express his suffering because of Bhima. He used verbal irony to describe the

“What can be more amazing than this, that situation that was faced by Duryodhana.

Bhimasena in wrath should with his foot Actually Duryodhana was respected by touch the head of one like me while lying other people since he was a king. Because with my thighs broken?” He shouted a his situation and condition was defeated by word „amazing‟ to Bhima, but he added Bhima, he became someone that should be

„that Bhimasena in wrath should with his pitied although he was a king, someone foot touch the head of one like me while who was a leader and should be respected lying with my thighs broken?‟ It was by people. sarcasm that he used to describe what Yudhistira also admitted that

Bhima did to him. From his word we also Duryodhana is the right person in the war. could see what happened to Duryodhana Actually he did not agree with Bhima‟s

125

deed because that was not a heroic way to “Upon the conclusion of these words of the intelligent king of the Kurus, defeat someone unfairly. a thick shower of fragrant flowers fell from the sky. The played upon “How will Gandhari endure such many charming musical instruments. The poignant grief, after she hears her son, who Apsaras in a chorus sang the glory of king always fought fairly, slain unfairly by us?” Duryodhana. The Siddhas uttered loud (Ganguli, 1896:3534) sound to the effect, "Praise be to king Duryodhana!" Fragrant and delicious In the text above Yudhistira breezes mildly blew on every side. All the quarters became clear and the firmament showed his anxiousness how he would looked blue as the lapis lazuli. Beholding these exceedingly wonderful things and face Gandhari, the Kauravas‟ mother. this worship offered to Duryodhana, the Pandavas headed by Vasudeva became He himself said that Duryodhana ashamed. Hearing (invisible beings cry out) that Bhishma and Drona and Karna „always fought fairly‟. It meant that and Bhurishrava were slain unrighteously, they became afflicted with grief and wept Yudhistira knew who the right person was in sorrow.” (Ganguli, 1896:3530) during the Bharathayudha war. He did not When a hero died, there would be directly say that he did not agree with so many people felt loss their figure. There

Pandavas‟ victor, but we could see it from would be tears when a good person died. the words he said „who always fought When Duryodhana died, not only the earth fairly, slain unfairly by us‟. He hated what who felt sad, but also the heaven felt the

Bhima did but he could not restrain him to same. Maybe the text above did not mean fight unfairly in the war. something about how the hero should die,

When he died in the hands of but from that text we would understand

Bhima, the heroism of Duryodhana was that Duryodhana was also a great man. For shown. A hero is also someone who is some people he was probably a hero. There admired by many because of his courage. was no text that noted Duryodhana was a

The hero also someone who stands until good man, but the text itself showed that the last breathe of his life. Duryodhana Duryodhana received a great condolence proved it by the situation when he died. from heaven. He was greater than the

126

heroes who joined the war of pronounced upon Pandu for his unrighteous act of slaying a deer while Bharatayudha. serving its mate) imparted to her a formula of invocation for summoning any of the C. Arjuna vs Karna celestials she liked to give her children. And the Rishi said, 'Those celestials that 1. Heroism of Arjuna vs. Karna in thou shall summon by this shall certainly approach thee and give thee the Story children.' 'Thus addressed by the Brahmana, the amiable Kunti (Pritha) Arjuna and Karna was the son became curious, and in her maidenhood summoned the god Arka (Sun). And as of Kunti from different immortal fathers. soon as he pronounced the Mantra, she beheld that effulgent --that beholder Arjuna was descendant of god Indra and of everything in the world--approaching her. And beholding that extraordinary Karna was descendant of go . Both of sight, the maiden of faultless features was overcome with surprise. But the god them were hero in tha Mahabharatha epic Vivaswat (Sun) approaching her, said, 'Here I am, O black-eyed girl! Tell me story. Although they were hero and son of what I am to do for thee.' "Hearing this, Kunti said, 'O slayer of foes, a certain god, but they had the different fate. Brahamana gave me this formula of invocation as a boon, and, O lord, I have Karna was actually the first son of summoned thee only to test its efficacy. For this offence I bow to thee. A woman, Kunti, but he was abandoned by Kunti whatever be her offence, always deserveth pardon.' Surya (Sun) replied, 'I know that since he was a baby. Because Kunti was so hath granted this boon. But cast off thy fears, timid maiden, and grant me young and could not receive the fact that thy embraces. Amiable one, my approach cannot be futile; it must bear fruit. Thou she was pregnant cause of her own fault. hast summoned me, and if it be for nothing, it shall certainly be regarded as thy Kunti was imparted a formula of transgression.' " continued, 'Vivaswat thus spoke unto her many things incarnation for summoning any of the with a view to allay her fears, but, O Bharata, the amiable maiden, from celestials she liked to give her children. modesty and fear of her relatives, consented not to grant his request. And, O She became curious and tried to use that bull of Bharata's race, Arka addressed her again and said, 'O princess, for my sake, it formula without knowing the risk of her shall not be sinful for thee to grant my wish.' Thus speaking unto the daughter of action. Kuntibhoja, the illustrious Tapana--the illuminator of the universe--gratified his “Gratified with her respectful wish. And of this connection there was attentions, the sage, anticipating by his immediately born a son known all over the spiritual power the future (season of) world as Karna accountred with natural distress (consequent upon the curse to be armour and with face brightened by ear- 127

rings. And the heroic Karna was the first of king of the gods) who thereupon came unto all wielders of weapons, blessed with good her and begat him that was afterwards fortune, and endued with the beauty of a called Arjuna. And as soon as this child celestial child. And after the birth of this was born, an incorporeal voice, loud and child, the illustrious Tapana granted unto deep as that of the clouds and filling the Pritha her maidenhood and ascended to whole distinctly said, addressing Kunti in heaven. And the princess of the Vrishni the hearing of every creature dwelling in race beholding with sorrow that son born that asylum, 'This child of thine, O Kunti, of her, reflected intently upon what was will be equal unto Kartavirya in energy and then the best for her to do. And from fear Siva in prowess. Invincible like Sakra of her relatives she resolved to conceal that himself he will spread thy fame far and evidence of her folly. And she cast her wide. As Vishnu (the youngest of Aditi's offspring endued with great physical sons) had enhanced Aditi's joy, so shall strength into the water. (Ganguli, this child enhance thy joy." (Ganguli, 1896:361-362) 1896:388)

After Kunti abandoned him, Karna “…….But Arjuna, however, outdistanced everyone in every respect— was cared by Radha, from the lowest class in intelligence, resourcefulness, strength and perseverance. Accomplished in all person. Although he was son of god, he weapons, Arjuna became the foremost of even the foremost of car-warriors; and his became the lower class person because of fame spread all over the earth to the verge of the sea. And although the instruction his mother‟s fault. According to the hero‟s was the same, the mighty Arjuna excelled all (the princes in lightness of hand). characteristics, Karna was a hero indeed. Indeed, in weapons as in devotion to his preceptor, he became the foremost of them He was son of god, had a superpower all. And amongst all the princes, Arjuna alone became an Atiratha (a car-warrior because he was half god, he endured trials, capable of fighting at one time with sixty thousand foes).” (Ganguli, 1896:416-417) and he confronted the unknown. Both of them were known as a hero Arjuna, the second Pandava was that had a different fate since they were also a hero just like his other brothers. born. They also had a different view about Different from Karna, Arjuna received all life, the good and the bad. The writer said the happiness since he was born. He was it because Karna was a hero who stood in son of god, he was born as a Prince of the the Kauravas‟ side. We all knew that court, he had all the beauty as a human, and Kauravas were the antagonist that he had superpower as a half god-human. represented the evil in the story, but Karna “'The celebrated Kunti, thus addressed by her lord, invoked Sakra (the chose to stand before Kauravas. 128

2. Heroism Deconstruction of helped him to shoot the arrow. Arjuna was

Arjuna vs Karna not happy because of him.

They were actually the great person who “The Pandavas soon found out the object of their search ceaselessly discharging only stood in different way. If Arjuna was arrows from the bow. And beholding that man of grim visage, who was totally a believed as a protagonist because he stranger to them, they asked, 'Who art thou and whose son?' Thus questioned, the man was born with all of kindness, then Karna replied, 'Ye heroes, I am the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the Nishadas. was believed as the antagonist because the Know me also for a pupil of Drona, labouring for the mastery of the art of position that he had as a good friend of arms.' "Vaisampayana continued, 'The Pandavas then, having made themselves Kauravas. The writer tried to see from the acquainted with everything connected with him, returned (to the city), and going unto heroism aspect to know the real character Drona, told him of that wonderful feat of archery which they had witnessed in the of Arjuna and Karna that made them woods. Arjuna, in particular, thinking all the while, O king, , saw Drona in worthy to be called as a hero. private and relying upon his preceptor's affection for him, said, 'Thou hadst The story of Mahabharata lovingly told me, clasping me, to thy bosom, that no pupil of thine should be mostly talked about the kindness of equal to me. Why then is there a pupil of thine, the mighty son of the Nishada king, Pandavas, but we could still find the superior to me?" 'On hearing these words, Drona reflected for a moment, and Pandavas‟ errors. In this case was Arjuna resolving upon the course of action he should follow, took Arjuna with him and who became the opposite of Karna in the went unto the Nishada prince. And he beheld Ekalavya with body besmeared war of Bharatayudha. We knew before that with filth, matted locks (on head), clad in rags, bearing a bow in hand and ceaselessly Arjuna was jealous with Karna and looked shooting arrows therefrom. And when Ekalavya saw Drona approaching towards down to him because Karna had an equal him, he went a few steps forward, and touched his feet and prostrated himself on power like him. He did the same to his the ground. And the son of the Nishada king worshipping Drona, duly represented fellow, Ekalavya who was also the pupil of himself as his pupil, and clasping his hands in reverence stood before him (awaiting his their teacher, Drona. Ekalavya was a good commands). Then Drona, O king, addressed Ekalavya, saying, 'If, O hero, archer who was almost as great as Arjuna. thou art really my pupil, give me then my fees.' On hearing these words, Ekalavya He was good because he had a ring that was very much gratified, and said in reply, 'O illustrious preceptor, what shall I give? 129

Command me; for there is nothing, O Before he met Karna, his „father‟, god foremost of all persons conversant with the , that I may not give unto my Indra had known that Karna would be the preceptor.' Drona answered, 'O Ekalavya, if thou art really intent on making me a gift, opponent of Arjuna in the Bharatayudha I should like then to have the thumb of thy right hand.'Hearing these cruel words of war. So Indra came to Karna first and Drona, who had asked of him his thumb as tuition-fee, Ekalavya, ever devoted to truth asked his natural armor. Indra knew that and desirous also of keeping his promise, with a cheerful face and an unafflicted without that natural armor, Karna would heart cut off without ado his thumb, and gave it unto Drona. After this, when the lose when he fought Arjuna. Nishada prince began once more to shoot with the help of his remaining fingers, he “There was nothing on earth that the heroic found, O king, that he had lost his former and intelligent Vasusena would not give lightness of hand. And at this Arjuna unto the Brahmanas. And Indra desirous of became happy, the fever (of jealousy) benefiting his own son Phalguni (Arjuna), having left him.” (Ganguli, 1896:416) assuming the form of a Brahmana, approached Vasusena on one occasion and He was jealous when other people were begged of him his natural armour. Thus asked Karna took off his natural armour, more superior to him. A hero should and joining his hands in reverence gave it unto Indra in the guise of a Brahmana. And sacrifice his happiness to the chief of the celestials accepted the gift and was exceedingly gratified with Karna's help other people, but Arjuna was liberality. He therefore, gave unto him a fine dart, saying, 'That one (and one only) contradictory with that statement. He was among the celestials, the , men, the Gandharvas, the Nagas, and the happier if other people sacrificed their , whom thou desirest to conquer, shall be certainly slain with this dart.' "The happiness for him. The last sentence of the son of Surya was before this known by the name of Vasusena. But since he cut off his paragraph above showed that Arjuna was natural armour, he came to be called Karna (the cutter or peeler of his own cover).'" not a hero as people thought. Arjuna was (Ganguli, 1896:362) not as great as people believed. He was From the fact above, Arjuna was not as good in everything because he did not strong as Karna because without helping work alone by himself. Beside he was son from his celestial father, he would never of god; he also helped by god so that was win against Karna. The hero was the one why he won every heroic competition. who used the fair way to fight his

opponents. If he did not fight fairly, so he

130

was not a hero. The text said that he was goodness just because of his moral duties superior to Karna because his father helped to Duryodhana. If we saw him from this him. It meant that actually Arjuna was not view, he was not a hero. Because he did not a hero. have courage to reject the Kauravas to not

The text also shows about dramatically join with the war although he knew that he irony,” Thus asked Karna took off his would fight his own brothers, Pandavas. natural armour, and joining his hands in "Karna said, 'Without doubt, O Kesava, thou hast said these words from thy love, reverence gave it unto Indra in the guise of affection, and friendship for me, as also in consequence of thy desire of doing me a Brahmana. And the chief of the celestials good, O thou of Vrishni's race. I know all that thou hast said unto me. Morally, I am accepted the gift and was exceedingly the son of Pandu, as also in consequence of the injunctions of the scriptures, as thou, O gratified with Karna's liberality. He Krishna, thinkest. My mother, while a maiden, bore me in her womb, O therefore, gave unto him a fine dart……” Janardana, through her connection with Surya. And at the command of Surya Karna did not know that a person he met himself, she abandoned me as soon as I was born. Even thus, O Krishna, I came was a god who was actually the father of into the world. Morally, therefore, I am the son of Pandu. Kunti, however, abandoned Arjuna. He gave his natural armor to me without thinking of my welfare. The Suta, Adhiratha, as soon as he beheld me, someone who his child would kill him in took me to his home, and from her affection for me, Radha's breasts were the future. This is the bad side of Karna filled with milk that very day, and she, O Madhava, cleansed my urine and who always believes to someone although evacuations. How can one like us, conversant with duties and ever engaged in he would be harmed by that person. listening to scriptures deprive her of her Pinda? So also Adhiratha of the Suta class During the Bharatayudha, Karna was in regardeth me as a son, and I too, from affection, always regard him as (my) Kauravas‟ side and fought Arjuna. It was father…….. My heart also, O Krishna, and all the bonds of affection and love, are because he was loyal with his freind, fixed on them. From joy or fear. O Govinda. I cannot venture to destroy those Duryodhana and his brothers. He was not bonds even for the sake of the whole earth or heaps of gold. In consequence also of an evil person, but he could not choose the my connection with Duryodhana of Dhritarashtra's race, I have, O Krishna, enjoyed sovereignty for thirteen years,

131

without a thorn on my side.” (Ganguli, Pandavas. “My heart also, O Krishna, and 1896:2050) all the bonds of affection and love, are This text shows the verbal irony of fixed on them. From joy or fear. O Karna when he talked about his past. Govinda. I cannot venture to destroy those "Karna said, 'Without doubt, O Kesava, bonds even for the sake of the whole earth thou hast said these words from thy love, or heaps of gold. In consequence also of affection, and friendship for me, as also in my connection with Duryodhana of consequence of thy desire of doing me Dhritarashtra's race, I have, O Krishna, good, O thou of Vrishni's race……… . enjoyed sovereignty for thirteen years, Kunti, however, abandoned me without without a thorn on my side.” How pity thinking of my welfare.” He said to Karna when he could not see which one is sincere that he got the love, affection and all to him. good things but from the beginning he In the battlefield Kurusetra, was rejected or abandoned by his own Arjuna fought with Karna and he Mother, Kunti. Through his word we saw succeeded to kill him. And once more he the contradiction between the expectation did it because of the unfair way. He of his life and the fact that he should defeated his brother, Karna, when he was endure. Through this text, we saw that not ready to fight him because his wheel Karna kept a grudge for his mother entered the ground and he did not bring although he did not show it clearly. It made any weapons. It was forbidden when him lost the point to be a hero. someone fought his rival when he did He was also innocent person who easily not bring any weapons. He also rejected believed to other people who warmth his his mother desire to take him back to life. The text show dramatically irony Pandavas and became her son again. when he did not know that Duryodhana “For the sake of Dhritarashtra's son, I shall only used him as a weapon to fight the fight against thy sons to the best of my 132

strength and might. I must not, however, If we compared those two abandon kindness and the conduct that becometh the good. Thy words, therefore, men, we saw the different of however beneficial cannot be obeyed by me now. This thy solicitation to me will their characters. Arjuna was more not yet be fruitless. Except Arjuna, thy other sons, Yudhishthira, Bhima, and the powerful than Karna because he was twins, though capable of being withstood by me in tight and capable also of being helped by god, while Karna did it by slain, shall not yet be slain by me. It is with Arjuna alone, among all the combatants of himself. No wonder if Karna was defeated Yudhishthira, that I will fight.” (Ganguli, 1896:2061-2062) by Arjuna. That was not because he was

He did it because the situation that weaker than Arjuna. It was just because forced him to do it. It was situational god helped Arjuna from the beginning of irony because he had to make a decision the story began although he did not realize and both of those decisions were hard to it. do. In the end he chose to fight Pandavas The epic of Mahabharata by Vyasa told because his long friendship with Kauravas. the story about Pandavas and Kauravas

“The earth has become impassable with that represent the virtue and the evil. heaps of slain men and steeds and elephants, and with cars broken with the People believe that Pandavas as the shafts of Dhananjaya and Adhiratha‟s son and with the numberless shafts themselves protagonists are the heroes, while the shot by them. Strewn with well-equipped cars crushed by means of mighty shafts Kauravas as the protagonists are the along with the warriors and the weapons and the standards upon them, cars, that is, villain. Through deconstruction theory, the with their traces broken, their joints separated, their axles and yokes and writer finds another view of the main Trivenus reduced to fragments, their wheels loosened, their Upaskaras characters. destroyed, their Anukarsanas cut in pieces, the fastenings of their quivers cut off, and First, the writer makes the explanation their niches (for the accommodation of drivers) broken, strewn with those vehicles about the contradiction of Pandavas and adorned with gems and gold, the earth looks like the firmament overspread with Kauravas who became the main characters autumnal clouds.” (Ganguli. 1896:3358- 3359) of the story. They were cousins who had

very different characters. People believe

133

that Pandavas were heroes because they actually is more powerful than Arjuna. He are the offspring of gods. They are brave fights by himself, but Arjuna is helped by and they have a super power. Kauravas, on god. the other side they were the ordinary 5. References human that full of wickedness. But if we Carter, David. 2006. Literary Theory. look at the story carefully, we will find the Great Britain: Pocket Essentials. errors of Pandavas. They are not as heroic as people think because they did the Faruk. 2012. Metode Penelitian Sastra: untruthful deeds and they were not just and Sebuah Penjelajahan Awal. Yogyakarta:

The Kauravas who are believed as the Pustaka Pelajar. villain, they seem to be more heroic that

Pandavas because they do the right way Ganguli, Kisari Mohan. 1883-1896. The when they fight in the war. Mahabharata of Vyasa. Produced by

Second, the writer also deconstructed Sacret-Texts with Distributed Proofing. about the heroism of Bhima and the cowardice of Duryodhana. As people Gibbon, Petter H. and Peter J. Gomes. know that Bhima the second Pandava is a 2002. A Call to Heroism: Renewing hero because of his self-appearance, he is America's Vision of Greatness. New York: powerful; he is a son of god and so on. But Grove Press. actually Duryodhana is more heroic than

Bhima, because he fights in the fair way. Hornby, A. S.. 1995. Oxford Advanced

Third, the writer makes a binary Learner’s Dictionry. Oxford: Oxford opposition between Arjuna and Karna. University Press.

They were the hero who had the different fate. Karna who describes as an antagonist

134

Klarer, Mario. 1990. An Introduction to

Literary Studies. London: Routledge. Royle, Nicholas. 2003. Jacques Derrida.

London: Routledge.

Lucy, Niall. 2004. A Derrida Dictionary.

UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Sayuti, A. Suminto. 2000.

Berkenalan Dengan Prosa Fiksi.

Margareth, Yuwita. 2012. Dekonstruksi Yogyakarta: Gramedia.

Derrida Terhadap Oposisi Biner dan

Munculnya Pluralitas Makna. Skripsi. Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson and

Depok: Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Peter Brooker. 2005. A Reader's Guide to

Budaya Universitas Indonesia. Contemporary Literary Theory. Harlow:

Pearson Education Limited.

Norris, Christopher. 2008.

Deconstruction Theory and Practice. Semi, M. Atar. 1993. Metode Penelitian

London: Routledge. Sastra. Bandung: PT Angkasa.

------. 2002. Setiawan, Agung. 2012. Metafora Sebagai

Deconstruction. London: Routledge. Pembacaan Dekonstruktif Terhadap

Nurgiyantoro, Burhan. 1995. Teori Dekonstruksi Derrida. Skripsi. Depok:

Pengkajian Fiksi. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya

Mada University Press Universitas Indonesia.

Potter, James L. 1970. Element of Surakhmad, Winarno. 1990. Pengantar

Literature. New York: The Odyssey Pres, Penelitian Ilmiah: Dasar, Metode dan

Inc. Teknik. Bandung: Tarsito.

135

http://literarydevices.net/irony/ http://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his38

9/differences_struct_postsruct.pdf. http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Maharshi_

Vyasa.

136