I also did some research, thanks to the web, and discovered that he was also instrumental in the vastraharan of Draupadi. When Draupadi questioned the court how she could be used as a 'bet' when Yudhishtra himself had already lost. Karna in his explanation said that since Yudhishtra himself had lost, it was immaterial what happened later, every of his belongings, now was lost to Dhuryodhana. He further added insult with these commands, "O Duhsasana, seize the garments of the Pandavas and the robes of Draupadi and hand them over to Sakuni".
Why did Karna do this ? Why did he, a supposedly noble person, insult a woman in the court? Was it because she had refused to acknowledge his skills during her swayamvara? Was it because his hatred for the Pandavas was such that he didnt mind this path?
People who talk about his childhood and the injustice, should also not forget the injustice he served unto others. He, tho' noble in several deeds, is surely not the epitome of all that is noble. He was haughty as any other character in the great epic. And was filled with just as much pride. In the end, he was killed because he too was part of wrong.
Krishna had no qualms in killing him. I say Krishna killed him, because Arjuna was just an instrument. Through his Gita, he clearly explained this to Arjuna and us. People can question if the lord can take the law into his hands or if the lord can adopt not so straight forward means. Krishna himself says 'no'. Everyone will pay for his or her actions.
In the entire Mahabharata, Krishna gave ample oppurtunities to either side to exercise prudence and to correct their ways. He even approached Karna to change his ways, and the truth about his brothers. Karna, rightfully stood behind his friend. But he never tried to reason with Dhuryodhana, about his wrongs. Why ? Is it because he knew he was usefull to Dhuryodhana only if he spewed hatred against the Pandavas. What Krishna also highlights with these characters is that, it doesnt matter what the arms, protection, skills, knowledge, friends and family you have to support you? What matters, most, is that Krishna is on your side ?
40 comments:
intresting take on karna. i agree with you CK, people do fail to see the injustice he served on otehrs - but why i admire him is not ocz he is fault less or he is right - but coz he had teh spirit to fight, to back his friend when he knew that he will never succeed - who on his right mind will think that he have got a chance againist krishna? but then. was karnan is in his right mind? hm....
While you have highlighted the negative side of Karna, which is acceptable becuase he insulted Draupadi. This and the slaying of Abhimanyu were two mistakes which were unpardonable. However every Pandav and Krishna used unethical means during the war and used every chance at all times to remind Karna of his low caste. Even Yudhistra never stopped his brothers from insulting Karan when he was supposed to be dharmaraj. Karna epitomized loyalty and generosity. No sane person would hand over a shield that can protect his life on the eve of war to his biggest enemy 's father (Indra). He also never endorsed Duryodhan's and Shakuni's treachery and preffered combat as a means to trounce his counterpart. Arjun always got what he wanted and also what he did not need, however Karna always gave everything he had but never earned the respect he deserved.
Pranav - there is a lot of truth to what you've said.
However, when you conclude that Karna epitomized loyalty and generosity, i think that is going overboard. Or rather that is my argument entirely.
Karna was loyal to Dhuryodhan, even when he knew that he was doing things wrong and indulged in cheating. I quote the passage from Mahabarath only to prove that Karna's hatred for the Pandavas was so huge that it clouded his every judgement.
Krishna showed clearly that he too is capable of deceit, to achieve the ultimate goal. This does not sit well with many.
Anoop - i see that too. Like Pranav pointed out, Karna was ready give everything away.
You must read the 'Mrutyunjay', then you will know why Karna did so?
@ prathamesh
Are you referring to the original post - Why he insulted Draupadi ?
Or about why he was loyal to Dhuryodhana ?
Hi Buddy .. Great post .. Especially that part where you focussed on his negative side ...
kindly allow me to fill in a few pointers here .....
As to why Karna humiliated Draupadi in Vastraharan issue .... I dont think that was a humiliation .. Now before you think that I am one of those male chauvinistic pig who would support Karna blindly , let me assure that I am at best , a measured observer , nothing more or nothing less ...
Draupadi was already humilated to begin with at the following stages ----- >
1. When Drupada performed the Yagna to kill Drona ,he wanted a son (Drishtadyumna)... but kind of recieved Draupadi as a bonus ..... and always considered her so ... This is evident in the next para ....
Drona, who was the guru of the princes requests them as a GuruDakshina , the throne of Drupada ( due to an ancient rivalry ) .. and Arjuna , proudly captures Drupada .. Seeing Arjuna's skill ...Drupada builds an elaborate plan involving handing over Draupadi to Arjuna so that he can use Arjuna as a leverage against Drona . For this , he arranged the famous Swayamvara scene , where he was confident that only Arjuna would suceed .. Too bad , Arh=juna skipped the Swayamvar as Arjuna the king , but attended as a Brhamin ..... So you see, Draupadi was considered as nothing but a pawn by someone who ought to have been her father .
2. Second Instance : During the Sywayamvar , all the kings tryout but ( obviously) even fail to lift the bow .... and so does Duryodhana .. Now Comes Karna .. Note : Karna was considered the most handsome men to be around and it is said that his bath times at the Ganges attracts a lot more than peeping Janes ) ... Draupadi , though having heard of Arjuna's prowess but not seen him , sees Karna and is naturally spell bound and hopes for an encore ...
Karna eneters the arena .. and without a starin lifts the bow and ties the strings .. but before he could lift the bow , Draupadi's brother stops his hands and says that only "Kings worthy of being Kings" can have my sister's hand " .... Now, Drishtadhyumna knows in his hearts of hearts that he absolutely has no chance before Karna ( an athiratha ) .. and so does Draupadi ... In order to avoid a matchless confrontation, she confronts Karna (confident that a man of Karna's stature would never so anything to a woman ) .. and says that she would not marry a Suta Putra even if he would become the king of the Heaven ..A silent but dignified Karna merely looks at her , puts the bow back in place & look skywards at the sun.. as if seeking an answer as to what he did to recieve it ..... .. Now most of the sane minded among us would consider this as humiliation .. but more importantly, it was Draupadi's brother who actually played a bigger but inadverent part in Draupadi's ( and I repeat Draupadi's Humiliation )......
3. Third Instance :::
No sight of Arjuna or anyone who can lift the bow , suddeny some Brahmins come ( obviously Arjuna ) and tries to enter the Swayamvar .. to which Duryodhana reports that 'Drishtadyumna himslef proclaimed that only Kings of Kings can marry his sister .. So what on earth are these Brahmins doing here ) .... At this time , the wise Krishna somehow justifies the rationale and gives a lecture about things that only he can give .. and in short buys the argument in favour of Arjuna .. and he won .. That said , where was ethics & moral rights practiced here especially when the basic condition which Karna satifies was hardly the case with Arjuna .. Note , he was indisguise at that time & hence could not even reveal his kingship ...
4. Fourth Instance : I dont need to crap about Kunti's " Share your Bhikshaa among you 5 brothers" .. and guess what they shared the Bhikshaa ... and guess who the Bhikshaa was !!??... What sort of guys would label their / his wife as a Bhiksha .. I know anyone can justify this ..saying that it was the prevalent norms and so on .. But guys, what was right then is supposed to be right now and will remain so after thousand years .. and what they did can never be classified as right .. I guess the term ' Bhikshaa' was a complement to Draupadi ..!!! compared to Karna's factual statement...
5. Fifth Instance ... Okay .. The Vastraharan Scene.. .. This is where Karna gives back to Draupadi what she had once given to him ... He says " Oh!!! Only the kings of Kings could marry you .... So where are they !!! I only see a whore of the lowest category sharing her bed with 5 slaves ." This was the comment that he passed .. and yes, do note that he opposed the Vastraharan scene considering it beneath his stature .... Now, you all blame Karna for telling the god-awful truth , but none of you guys actually point a finger at the Pandava ( Yudhisthira ) who had never won Draupadi as a rightful wife but still deemed to put her as a baazee in the game . So much for respect and humiiation dude .. Compared to what the Pandavas did ( which was akin to rape of Draupadi ), Karna'a act paled in comparison ( it was akin to ogling at Draupadi ).. I know, let's have the swords drawn out against me !!
You see, history if often written by those who screwed heroes ... .. And oh ! The killing of Abhimanyu was trecaherous !! Good Joke ... If Abhimanyu's death was trecherous , I fail to guess how you would classify Bhishma's , Drona's, Jayadratha's, Duryodhana's & Karna's death !! There are a few scenes of Abhimanyu that might question the veracity of the treachourousness .. but more of that some other time
Sorrry for such a long post .... I have intruded a lot on your generosity and thnak you for that .. [:)] ...
Let me assure you that , I havent written this in view of a confrontation , merely putting doen my thoughts .. Thanks & do comment in case you see any discrepancy
These are just my understanding and I could be wrong. If you've read about Vaishnaism or even Gita what Vishnu implies is that every Human is just a Human, as men throw away their desire and bonding to material things, we are one step closer to reaching gods. We tend to look at things from people's view, who cheated who and who did what, etc. In my opinion, it could have been two things:
1) Karna's life was a test. Krishna was testing how much can Karna sacrifice and how much is he taken up by greed. And Karna during all instances even until the end had never thought about himself. Thus he had been released from his human form being blessed by Vishnu at the end.
2) Karna was born indestructible, we all know that without Krishna's trickery, nothing could've killed Karna. Krishna (Vishnu) is a protector, while Siva being the destroyer and Brahma the creator. Not just Mahabharata, if we have read Vishnu's other tales, Vishnu always protects the worlds and ensures the balance of the world. I have read many tales of indestructible forms of humans eventually falls at the hands of Vishnu. So Vishnu just protects and balances off the world, thus ensuring the destruction of Karna who was supposed to be indestructible.
These are just my opinions... God is far too great for us to understand...
p.s. Any arguments could be directed to: junesh1983@hotmail.com
In a very tangential sense, I agree with The Chronicler. Just to add to his arguments - when Yudhishtra laments at Krishna was blinding him to the fact that Karna was indeed his brother and used him to kill Karna, Krishna laughs it off and says - "why do you keep blaming yourself as if you killed Karna? Karna was already killed 5 times before; you just finished off an already dying prey".
1) When Indra asked for his armour
2) When Kunti asked for the wish of Karna not killing anyone else but Arjuna
3) When Parasuram cursed karna that he will forget the mantras to invoke astras
4) When a sage cursed him that his chariot will be stuck in mud and his charioteer abandoned him at that juncture.
5)When Krishna disguised as a brahmana asks for Karna's punyas (good deeds) as a gift - this is because Karna will not die on the battlefield because Lady Dharma will be protecting him from all harm/that mortal shot from Arjuna's bow - karna becomes impenetrable at that point and therefore unconquerable - Krishna takes away that from him and then Karna is killed.
Now the interesting point to note here is:
When Karna is almost dead/dying - Krishna is so pleased with Karna because even at that point, he did not refuse to donate - as far as Karna was concerned nothing belonged to him - Austerity - that is the foremost principle which a brahman should adhere to.
So when Krishna asked Karna for his wishes, Karna's wishes were:
1) When he dies on the battlefield, his real mother (kunti) should be informed and she should cry for his death for the whole world to hear his true heritage/lineage - he was denied this opportunity in life, at least let it be granted in death.
2)If because of his orientation on the battle (alignment with the Kauravas), he is to suffer the process of rebirth - he wanted to be born as a brahman in a worthy family - the reasoning was, that the one thing that he could not do when he was Karna was provide Anna Dhaana - giving away food to the poor - because people did not want to eat the food fed by a person of questionable lineage.
The most impressive part in this is, that when people are dying - they usually wish for either a protraction of life or for easing of suffering and the irony is that Karna asked for those just as any other person would do: He wanted to ease his suffering (not from wounds) but from shame he had to go through all his life of being a son of a charioteer and he wanted a continuation in life so that he can do the one thing that was denied to him in his previous birth - The ability to donate food.
Karna was the only person to whom Krishna revealed one of his many forms - the form where he sits on Garuda!
Karna was indestructible - and therefore had to be "put down" in an indirect way - if not for all other stories in Mahabharatha - one of them should suffice:
Arjuna and Karna were engaged in a mon-a-mono combat and Arjuna hit Karna's chariot with an arrow, which dislodged karna's chariot by a hundred paces. Karna angered by this retaliated in sort and Arjuna's chariot bared moved a few inches and to this Krishna shouted "Baley Karna!" - Arjuna was angered at this compliment and lamented to Krishna in anger and said "You have never complimented to any of my heroid deeds but here you're complimenting an enemy who is out here to kill me??" To which Krishna replies: "Arjuna, you have Hanuman - who has the strength to hold the entire world if he so wishes on your chariot and you have me, who burdens the entire Universe and if Karna can dislodge both of us combined by a few inches, imagine what would have happened to you, had we not been here!" - This is not only to show Karna's true strength, it is also a lesson to Arjuna in the art of appreciating true strength's of the opponent. In early days (Mahabharatha time) it was not uncommon to praise the opponent for a move well done - but hatred blinds your judgment and once that happens, you are blinded to the basics of etiquette. Etiquettes - those are what form the protocols of warfare.
In my opinion, as Pranav indicated in a prior post, the single biggest mistake Karna made was when he took part in killing Abhimanyu while disregarding all the rules of war. This is what Krishna points out when Karna gets down on the ground to relieve the wheels of his chariot that gets stuck in the mud. When Karna asks Arjuna to follow the rules of war and wait till he gets the wheels out of the ground, Krishna counsels Arjuna to ignore it and deliver the death blow because Karna himself never followed those rules when Abhimanyu was killed (who just conveniently happens to be Arjuna's son).
One thing everyone forgets is, in the entire history of epics, Mahabharata is the only instance where divinity bows to humanity (Krishna literally asks Karna for forgiveness for all the travails he caused him). In Tamil there is a movie called Karnan acted by the indomitable Shivaji Ganesan. There is a song in that "Ullathil nalla ullam" sung by Krishna disguised as a old man when Karna lies dying against his chariot's wheels. In it he very sincerely asks Karna to forgive him for all the things he had to go through in his life. Its a very very instructive song.
To me the most fascinating and attractive part about Karna as a character is that in spite of having such tremendous qualities he is still a human. There's no point in the epic where he tries to be god; he tries to be good (and succeeds often) and yet he has his fair share of fallacies just like all of us have. That, he was able to be that good in spite of such difficult circumstances, is what I feel makes him the most admired character in Mahabharata.
Its not that Arjun wasn't a mighty warrior himself, but then he was always assisted by Lord Krishna and in some sense that takes away the sheen from this otherwise marvelous character.
For me, when it comes to choosing my favorite character in Mahabharata, it comes down to either Lord Krishna or Karna, and its not very difficult to make a choice, for Gods are bound to be great but one seldom comes across great humans.
Well in all of the people there, only Karna was the one who stood up to help Draupadi, but she couldnt say a word to him and he misinterpreted this. what he said then was his downfall and a word of frustration of really angry man. He regretted the moment he said it...at the moment..karna was a much bigger victim than draupadi herself. Still he was about to help draupadi....if krishna was even a moment late, karna would've killed Dushashan.
I dont compare Karna and Krishna, they both understood why the other did what he did...they both respected each other immensely and so do I. Even when Arjuna killed Karna's sarthi...karna not even by mistake shot an arrow that might hurt Arjuna's saarthi
after his truth was revealed...Krishna compared how small pandav were to Karna
Krishna, Karna and Bheesma were noblest of all people. They all did what they had to do. However Krishna was Lord....no one can ever be compared to him.
Well..I can go on forever about Lord Krishna and Kaunteya Karna...but I guess you get my point XD
and yeah...duryodhan kept karna out of the yagya where he invited pandavas....He knew Karna would never approve. When he learned the truth about Arjuna, he didnt hate him..but a true warrior never goes back on his words. He even admired Arjuna's abilities...was proud of his little brother, but he swore to kill arjuna...that is the only reason he let other 4 pandavs live and not all five.
Karna's story is not just about his greatness and story of how was he wronged....but its also a really sad story of how such a great man fell.
Even Ashwatthama was an awesome man...fate just had them on the wrong side in battle field
OK guys...so much debate has been made on this. Don't make only debate, take lessons from the Great epic Mahabharata.
Karna's character teaches us about loyalty, donation,perfection. He proved that a person can not recognized by his birth (Janma), a person is recognized by his work (Karma). He had qualities of 'Kshatriyas' though he was 'Suta putra' His qualities made him the king of Anga.
But we should also learn that despite get insulted, we must keep our mind calm. Karna was the great person but because of his words about Panchali made him evil from the Pandavas view.
He preferred Durodhanas side was not his falt. Duryodhana used him against the Pandavas and made him the king of Anga though he knew that he was a Suta putra. Under this 'Upkar' of Duryodhana he remained loyal to him.
So take a lesson and try to not happen it with ourselves.
Thank you.....
I'm female.. and i would insult Draupati as well. Sorry, but it's true.. she's conniving, mean, and she had 4 men.
tell me honestly, would you respect a woman who consistently bitches and argues.. who seeks revenge on everyone.. who makes fun of blind people.. who thinks she is all that? on top of that.. she marries 4 brothers.. tell me HONESTLY... can you respect a woman like that?
what makes u think that arjuna is a hero he always have krishna on his back somehow or the other he helps arjuna.If u see in mahabharath there are very few situations where arjuna never fights alone in the case of karna he always fight alone
U say karna insulted a draupathi in the first place pandavas insulted there own wife what kind of moron bets his own wife u call them heros
i dont think so
1. karna is man of his word
2.he never afraid of his death even though he knew he is going to die
3.If he wants he can be the king but he decided to be a friend
U honestly belief that draupathi is pativratha where in the hell or in heaven or anywhere did u see a women marries his husbands 4 brothers well i havent except here
In mahabharath arjuna had the support of krishna,lord hanuman,during the war but karna fought alone with all three and he was still killed unfarely
what makes u think that arjuna is greater than karna
I like your reply and agree with it. Even as a child, when I first heard the vastraharan episode, could not believe how a husband can bet his wife. Were they really warriors?
There are many such instances where pandavas n kurus both were at fault. For me the only lesson I get is that mahabharat had to happen because of social decadence and increase of evil among kingdoms. Pandavas n kurus are sides of the same coin. Somewhere I read that this was necessary and part of leela by Krishna. Remember no one really won the war in the end.
Also read that few of them still are alive even today.
Google Mahaavatar babaji kripacharya . PDF articles by pilot baba throws more light.
Who is the HERO of the Mahabharata ? Is it Krishna , or , Arjuna , or Bheeshma ? No . It is none of them . It is Karna who stands out the entire episode .
Arjun spared Karnas life in two
battles.
1.When karna, and Duryodhanas army stole king Viraats cow.Arjuna defeated all of them alone without krishna.
2.When Durodhana Karna were defeated and captured by Gandharav Chitrarath. Arjuna rescued them. Karna was a noble soul who became victim of circumstances. we have sympathy for him. He never proved that he is Superior warrior as compared to Arjuna. In Gita Lord Krishna himself said that among Pandavs Arjuna is best.Karna was danveer.
Hello dear friends,
i would also like to add what i have understood from what all i have read about Mahabharata. Lets not debate about who was right and who was wrong. i agree to some gentleman who said vishnu did the balancing act.. i mean he made sure the universe had a balance of good and evil. and its very true. We all know that 'KRISHNA' was the reincarnation of vishnu... and like all reincarnations this one too had a purpose.. what we all know is that he was born to kill his uncle 'KANSA'.. but thats not totally true.. Krishna was born to reduce the no of SHATRIYAS.. as most of them were immortal and hence there was no balance.. lot of them were unjust. If krishna wanted he could have stopped the mahabharata, but he didnt.
1. He could have easily disclosed the identity of Karna..
2. He knew draupadi had wished for 5 qualities in her husband, which were seen one in each of the pandavas... thats why she had to marry 5 men.. But the fact is Karna possessed all 5 of those qualities.. then why didnt krishna allow draupadi to marry him.. Infact it was Krishna who reminded her of her rights to chose whom she would like to marry.
As far as the Viraat war is concerned Karna didnt run away.. Duryodhana got injured while fighting with Arjuna, so karna like a true friend took him to safety.
i do accept the pranav had said.its truth.insulting such noble person what punishment should get them. karna was such a person he had saved pandavas and kept dharma.stayed on words which has given to duryodhana.
you all say that abimanyu was killed by unrighteous means ... but the truth is during the war .when chakravuha was formed by kauravas arjuna was not present to penetrate it.. so pandavas ask abhimanyu to do the job .. he says that he knows only how to get in .. he does not know how to come out .. so the pandavas assure him that when he penetrates the vuha they will cover him.... relying on them abhimanyu penetrates the vuha and the pandavas fail to protect him.. so he was naturally surrounded by enemies .. at this point he was alone present between the kauravas .. having being outnumbered he was killed....... there is no adharma done by karna or guru dhrone in killing abhimanyu ,it was pandavas carelessness which got him killed
i think karna was best during the virat yudh he fight without dijaya dhanush n also he was undefeatable tht time coz he have cawaz instead arjun used the sambohan astras which make all unconscious regarding gandharva capturing the duryodhana karna was weapons less tht time n also they r in full entertainment ragarding who is best karna wid a solo power has got digbijaya but whisch is possible only wid combination of whole pandavas simply karna is best
Chronicler..i love your post! and exactly my thoughts!
krishna 17 times ran away from jarasandha who is defeated by karna after 21days of battle.how should u r saying krishna can kill karna.
bro u told about the insult of Draupati but what about the insult which Karna faced in the Swyamvar of Draupati..She insulted him in front of everyone there...the thing which Karna did was wrong too...but it was the result of what Drauati did...n wht abt the insult which Karna faced by Arjun,Bheem,Drona,Bhishma,etc but only Duroydhan was there wid him (i know that he was like dat becoz Karnaa's friendship would be beneficial for him..but he was there wid him)...n Karna never cheated anyone..always kept his promise.
Draupadi was born to be humiliated in her life....so whatever actions she performed in Mahabharata was just to be get humiliated by other characters!
No. Lord Krishna praised Karna even during the battle between Arjuna and Karna. Arjuna was a puppet made by Dronacharya by sacrificing in the process EKALAVYA and KARNA.
Why compare?! Lord Krishna is beyond any comparison. He is the avatar of Lord Vishnu. Moreover he liked Karna.
Karna is praised many times by Lord Krishna. Karna is one of the most wonderful characters of this epic according to Lord Krishna. As far as Draupadi's vastraharan is concerned, she insulted Karna in her swayamwar(no mere rejection as most people say), Karna even lost his son on that day due to the chaos. Karna's revenge cannot be justified but he had already payed for his sins during his lifetime. It is not easy to leave the throne but he did so out of guilt and out of loyalty towards his friend. Duryodhana as bad as he is portrayed, was the only one who gave Karna the respect he deserved, unlike Bheem and Draupadi eho insulted Karna because he was a sut-putra. Arjuna on the other hand was made by Dronacharya to take revenge from King Drupad. Dronacharya was so drunk in pride of Arjuna that he sacrificed Eklavya, he ignored his own son, and he is indirectly the cause of the miseries of Karna.
She didn't make fun of blind people in the original story.
She was asked to marry the five brothers by Narada and Veda Vyasa. When such great men have accepted it, who are we to insult her?
Wouldn't you want revenge on someone who strips you naked in a public assembly?
She was an epitome of forgiveness. She forgave Jayadratha after he abducted her. She forgave Ashwathama for killing all her sons and brothers because she didnt want Kripi to lose both husband and son.
Please do not disrespect this great woman.
Oh please!
Did you know that in the original story she doesn't say anything? Even in sources where she calls him a Sutaputra, in the next verse they say that great warriors like Karna and Shalya could not lift the bow!
And even if she said that why is it an insult? Cant she choose who she wants to marry? Its like saying that I can throw acid on a girl for rejecting me publicly!
You are talking about karna insulted draupadhi then why draupadhi insulted karna in swayamwar by calling him sutaputra if she want to marry arjuna then he had to arange the swayamwar according to her choice by wish, why they aranged the competition
And karna did not call her as whore, the draupadhi asked with bishma how a kulavadhu become the bet in dice karna interfere and said you are not kulavadhu (kulavadhu means women married and live truly with one man) by married more than four men you violate the principle so you are not kulavadhu karna said
If she want to choose her husband in swayamwar she had to making swayamwar as choosing husband by her choice . like amba,ambika,ambalika why they arrange competition in swayamwar this is like I keeping conpetition and give you the kohinoor diamond if you win that,when you in the chance of nearly win I stoped the competition in afraid and say your clothes is not good so I will not allow you to win the kohinoor what a justice
Golden words about karna.
Well all those heros in Mahabharat were humans like us. We take revenge if someone humiliate us. Draupadi insuled Karna during her swayamvara. Just put yourself in Karnas position. You wanted to win the swayamvara but received insult as Draupadi didn't wanted to Mary Suta putra ( though you had all the qualities of Kshatiyas). Latter you came to know that woman who rejected you became the wife of five husbands... How you will feel. What Karna did was right. What Krishna did was right and what Arjuna did was right in the given circumstances. People called dharma to what pandavas did because pandavas are their heroes. People will justify why kaurava humiliated Pandavas and Draupadi because in their view Kauravas are heros. It's just the matter of who is your favorite. In Mahabharat, even Suyodhan was a good person. He gave milk to Ashwasthama as his parents were giving flour mix water as a milk to him due to their poor financial conditions, only he recognised true qualities of Karna and made him king despite his low birth.
On the other hand Pandavas were also good human beings and followed path of righteousness. But they also did some wrong thing which were against the Kshatiya law of that time.
Mahabharat is the story of rivalry of brothers and how Krishna help Pandavas to win their rightful Kingdom. It contains all kinds of sheds.
There was no such kind of Dharma and Adharma. History praises those who win. The living example is all says Bhisma, Drona and Karna were on Adharma side because they had lost and killed. We say Pandavas are on dharma side because they won the battle. In these situation, even deceitful killing of Maharathis can be justified.
So let's take some lessons and stop this debate of who was right and who was wrong. Each and every character in this epic has some good qualities and some flaws.
I am not so happy with the outcome of Mahabharat. May be my mind is filled with doubts.
For starters, they said Dhritarashtra was ambitious. But I thought it should have been Pandu who should have opted to behave like Bharat and say, let my brother wear the crown, and let me be his eyes, ears, and strength. Now, when a crown prince was treated as such throughout, and suddenly demoted, resentment is natural in the mind of Dhritrashtra.
Then Pandu did another selfish thing. He left the kingdom for personal grief, knowing fully well, that Dhritarashtra was blind, and as per Vidur, unable to manage the kingdom.
Pandu should have returned when Yudhistir was born. But he chose not to. Not even when five children were born. Why do you think it to be so? Possibly, he knew that once throne is abdicated, he has no right to it nor his sons who were not his sons anyway. But Kunti wanted comforts of palace, so is the ambition of that widow responsible for Mahabarata?
Back in Hastinapur, it is natural for Duryodhan to resent these cousins who had no claims suddenly coming up for claims. Note that Pandu did not give similar share to his blind brother before.
There are no reports of Dhritarashtra having been bad administrator or his sons being bad either prior to arrival of Pandavas, are there?
Imagine being respected and obeyed by 99 brothers! Duryodhan commanded that respect.
Kunti abandoned her child, and still did not have guts to accept him back. She did not chide her other sons when they humiliated him.
If Karna had extreme loyalty towards Duryodhan it is understandable because at the other end, he sees no rights and claims to throne, nor decent behavior.
Draupadi's humiliation was wrong. But when Jayadratt humiliated her, Yudhishter had left him. Obviously, they didn't give a damn about her. Right thing should have been accepting her as wife, and then doing "tyag/renunciation" for Arjun so that she remained respected in the society. But they shared her and lost respect for her. Where is Yudhistir's wisdom visible in that? If husbands themselves disrespect then Karna disrespecting her should not have any value, especially since he did not use the word "vaishya". He used the word unchaste, meaning not pure.
Abhimanyu's death is the only thing that goes against Karna. But Karna's son was the first to die in the war. We do not know how badly hurt he was and who was responsible. Anger is natural under circumstances. Though I would think a person of Karna's nature and stature should definitely not have joined in killing of Abhimanyu.
I would say he still achieved nirvana because of his generous nature, and loyalty. Ultimately do you remember Nakul? Sahadev? Bheem? Yudhistir? Even Arjun? Nope. Two characters that stand out in Mahabharat are those of Karna and Bheeshma. And both were in side of what you call wrong.
Even Krishna fades out because eventually, his son was a drunkard.
I also agree with you sir.but in mahabharat it is shown that there are no perfect heroes or perfect villans. Even son of yamadharmaraj (yudhishtir) was also not perfect.this why even people like duruodhana have good times and yudhishtir also has bad times. But karna is a character for whom nothing went right but he always was right. The 4 important relations in the life of anyone are maata pita guru bhagwan. But all the 4 forsake him. People do charity to gain back anything in return. It can be for material pleasure or name or can be for enjoying a higher seat after death. But karna was the one who did not do charity for either of these reasons, not even for a higher seat after death. This clearly evident when he donates the fruits of all his good deeds including this one. Karna indeed will be remembered as a tragic hero.
I agree
I truly agree,even kunti knew karn was her son, she never convinced pandav not to insult saying sutputra.though karn was alleged to involve in saying draupadi a VAISHYA but non of the pandav were disagree on the saying of draupadi a suputra to karn..How karn left the compony of duryodhan who had given a respect and honor in the adverse aura..Karn never joined duryodhan intentionally,, when all rejected him even he was meant to deserve all equivalent to Arjuna..
Why did Krishna did not interfere saying once strengths, capabilities should not collide with their caste, when Karn was rejected as sooth putra by psndavas and drinocharya etc
Post a Comment