Mbh 7.182.1

“Dhritarashtra said, ‘When the Suta’s son had such a dart as was sure to slay one person, why did he not hurl it at Partha, to the exclusion of all others? Upon Partha’s slaughter by means of that dart, all the Srinjayas and the Pandavas would have been slain. Indeed, upon Phalguna’s death, why should not the victory have been ours? Arjuna has made a vow to the effect that summoned to battle he would never refuse to accept the challenge. The Suta’s son should have, therefore, summoned Phalguna to battle. Tell me, O Sanjaya, why did not Vrisha then engaging Phalguna in single combat, slay the latter with that dart given him by Sakra? Without doubt, my son is destitute of both intelligence and counsellors. That sinful wretch is constantly baffled by the foe. How should he then succeed in vanquishing his enemies? Indeed, that dart which was such a mighty weapon and upon which rested his victory, alas, that dart, hath, by Vasudeva, been made fruitless through Ghatotkacha. Indeed, it hath been snatched from Karna, like a fruit from the hand of a cripple, with a withered arm, by a strong person. Even so hath that fatal dart been rendered fruitless through Ghatotkacha. As in a fight between a boar and a dog, upon the death of either, the hunter is the party profited. I think, O learned one, that even so was Vasudeva the party to profit by the battle between Karna and Hidimva’s son. If Ghatotkacha had slain Karna in battle, that would have been a great gain for the Pandavas. If, on the other hand, Karna had slain Ghatotkacha, that too would have been a great gain to them in consequence of the loss of Karna’s dart. Endued with great wisdom, that lion among men, viz., Vasudeva, reflecting in this way, and for doing what was agreeable to and good for the Pandavas, caused Ghatotkacha to be slain by Karna in battle.’