‘Today even Krishna is challenged’: Counter discourse

Towards a new order

- R P Ulhas

Counter discourse is generally situated against discourse as a kind of resistance. In majority

case such counter discourse is obvious, explicit and direct. Resistance, at the ideological as
well as discourse level, is composed more of direct challenging, physical clashes and the
revolutionary ousting however counter discourse can work at more subtle levels. It
sometimes tries to expose and destabilize the ideological foundations of discursive
formations. It exposes the small gaps, margins, ignored reference points to focus on the
hidden strategies. Such counter discourse strategies can be seen in working against the
overarching discourse. In the present context of Andha Yug, there are no discrete, separate
discourses but there is one all-encompassing discourse of darkness exists. It is more
concerned with the mental or psychic setup of almost everyone. They are not distinguishable
classes of good and bad, dominant and dominated, powerful and powerless. Such binaries are
impossible to mark in Andha Yug as all boundaries are melted or at least blurred. Nothing is
permanent and truth is provisional. What is considered as ‘truth’ becomes ‘untruth’ the next
day. The overall situation is full of disarray. In this darkness, no one is able to stand out and
pronounce the resistance. Hence there is no clearly demarcated, well charted out counter
discourse. There are only small, individual attempt to register the protest against this chaos.
These meek voices of countering range from Gandhari to Lord Krishna. They announce the
plight of those who unfortunately survive the war to see more horrors and melancholy. They
speak against all types of orders, structures and existing ideologies in order to dislodge them.
Obviously these attempts are extremely vacillating. They are spontaneous and unorganized
hence it will be very difficult to call them as ‘strategies’. They moreover express the present
plight and looks at creating personal positions against the injustice done to them.
When it comes to speak against the changing nature of the Pandavas and the ‘adharma’ deeds
of Krishna, Gandhari leads the protest. She is extremely agitated and even dejected because
of the loss of all her sons. She is also on the verge of losing her dear Duryodhana at the end
of the war. She blindly accuses the Pandava for enforcing
the war. She is more critical of Krishna because he has forgotten every kind of dharma. When
Vidura speaks about faithful surrendering to Krishna; Gandhari contemptuously asks,
Did he
who violated
the code of honour
over and over again
say what? (AY 36)
She directly accuses Krishna for being the non-follower of moral principles. Krishna cannot
help anyone genuinely and hence he goes on committing the acts of violations. She feels that
during in the Great War and afterwards concepts like dharma, duty and honour have turned
out to be mere ‘illusions’; one can play with it but cannot live with it. Morality, honour,
selflessness and surrender to Krishna are nothing but just ‘masks’ with which one can
entertain oneself. These are all outdated things. Everyone is full of hypocrisy, probably
including Krishna. Therefore Gandhari has voluntarily accepted the blindness. She feels that
Krishna is nothing but a fraud and opportunist, who ‘changed the code of honour to suit his
own ends.’ (AY 38) Though Gandhari’s expressions owe lot to her mental status, she raises
some crucial issues regarding the Godhood, its impact and the present darkness. She seems to
be already been aware of these ‘appearances’ of goodness and morality. Gandhari’s blindness
can be perceived as a kind of counter discourse against this hypocrisy, in which even Krishna
is a party. She has the honesty to analyse the true nature of the Great War, which is devoid of
dharma. No one is victorious as there was no honour for dharma from both sides. Her
allegations against Krishna put question-marks on his role in the entire warfare. Even if she is
upset with rage, the validity of her point remains. If the God himself is ‘corrupt’ and ‘fraud’
then everything would doom to darkness. Gandhari appears to pronounce the exit of God
from this world. Contradictorily the war is referred as ‘dharmayudha’ which is full of
violations of dharma. Gandhari raises very fundamental issues regarding the morality and
unrighteous of the parties in the war and especially the role of divine agent in all this.
Gandhari’s arguments raise many doubts regarding the sanctity of the Great War and its
actual motives.
Gandhari, after her disillusionment from the Pandavas and especially of Krishna, begins to
hate them. She is obsessed with the thought of killing the Pandavas and taking revenge
against Krishna. She therefore supports Ashwatthama’s deeds. Although Ashwatthama’s acts
are illegal and immoral yet Gandhari supports it. She feels proud of him and desires to see
him once. She even asks Sanjaya to transform his body into a ‘bright diamond’. i.e. extremely
tough. She thus protects the destructive element. In this way Gandhari tries to build her own
resistance through destructing the Pandava clan by means of Ashwatthama. Gandhari creates
her small attempt to resist the victorious Pandavas. She is the only one to support
Ashwatthama openly. She probably wants the Pandavas to realize that they have mistaken in
behavior. She helps Ashwatthama to deprive the Pandavas from enjoying the victory.
Gandhari does not stop at resisting the Pandavas. She punishes Lord Krishna by giving curse.
I curse you
and I curse
all your friends and kinsmen
They shall attack and kill each other….
you will return to this forest
only to be killed. (AY 122)
Her curse is devastating as it is applicable not just to Krishna but to the entire the Yadava
clan. She justifies her curse by telling Krishna the reasons behind it. She accuses Krishna for
not stopping the war and using his ‘divine power for unjust ends’. (AY 122). She has the
courage and determination to even curse the God. By giving curse to Krishna, she probably
wants to highlight the fact that even the God can err and the humans have to suffer. It was
unjust fighting between the Kauravas and the Pandavas as Krishna was backing the Pandavas.
Thus Gandhari’s curse is a kind of attack of divine tendency to intervene in human life. In
spite of divine intervention adharma has creeped in the war. The crucial point is about the
divinity of the divine. The God seems to suffer from the lacunas. Lord Krishna is guilty of
some wrongs on the battlefields then he must suffer. That’s why Gandhari curses him to
suffer the pangs of watching his dear ones to fight and get killed. This is the beginning of
what would be known as ‘Kali Yug’ (age of demon). Gandhari’s allegations are so very true
that Krishna accepts the curse. It highlights the fact that ultimately only victory does not
mean anything, the means and the intentions while achieving it do matter. Gandhari’s curse to
Krishna is an act of not just retaliation but introspection over the role of the God in the
moment of crisis. If the very concept of Godhood suffers from the shortcomings then Andha
Yug (i.e. the age of darkness) is inevitable as it is. She also challenges the traditional idea that
the God is omnipotent and hence cannot be punished. The morally efficacious person can
penalize the erroneous God also. Generally it is the other way round. Gandhari’s curse has
reversed this belief. It tries to establish a new idea, a kind of new episteme. At the same time
it offers a strong message to the rulers like the Pandavas that they maybe victorious and
powerful but their victory is not chaste and their power is not unrestrained. Gandhari’s curse
therefore must be perceived as the highest point of counter discourse, not just against Krishna
but against everyone who contributes in creating the discourse of darkness.

-Extract Edit-
Mrutyunjaya