 |
| (image courtesy dollsofindia.com) |
Movies like Mani Ratnam's Dalapathi (Rajnikanth, Mammooty) also mirror such interpretations where Rajni is depicted as the cast-away child by an unwed young girl, is a victim of circumstances, becomes a part of Mammooty's group (a criminal ring leader cum do-gooder).
Looking at Karna strictly through the prism of Dharma (or good/bad), I must conclude that he was bad. He sure does some heroic things, so there is definitely the urge to paint him in the grey, as someone who was the victim of circumstances, etc. However, one must resist that since in the Mahabharata, all the characters (neglecting minor transgressions) are either plain good or bad. If nothing else, my general rule of thumb is "if you took the side of Krishna in the war, you were good", "if you took the side of Duryodhana, you were bad" (Balarama who did not participate is a different story, more on him later). Lets us for now, of course, ignore the aspect of avatar or amsha, and focus just on the particular character in the Mahabharata. i.e., when I classify Karna as "bad", I don't necessarily extend that to Surya, whose avatar/amsha is Karna (likewise for Ashwatthama, etc).
Karna joins the side of Duryodhana at a time when the latter's evil ways may not necessarily have been apparent. So, while one may excuse that, especially since Karna's ego is boosted (he is made king of Agna), Karna sticks on as a friend for gratitude, and actively aids him in his evil deeds.
(image courtesy hinduyuva.org)
There are several occasions when Karna is reminded of Dharma, including by Krishna. However, he is so blinded by his misplaced loyalty to Duryodhana that he is unable to listen to wise counsel.
As far as Draupadi's disrobing goes, I believe she created enemies for herself with her taunts. She taunts Karna during her swayamvara and refuses to let him participate and she taunts Duryodhana in the palace of illusions.
ReplyDeleteI will not say She was asking for it, but she did make enemies who took advantage of the weak position the pandavas were in and paid her back by trying to perform the ULTIMATE insult for a woman!
And as far as karna goes, the very line from the song in movie karna -
Senjottru kadan theerka
seradha idam serndhu
vanjathil veezhndai adaa
Sums it all up!
Draupadi refuses to let Karna participate in the swayamvara because Krishna tells her to do so.
ReplyDeleteI've heard Draupadi taunting Duryodhana in their palace of illusions being mentioned as why Duryodhana wanted to humiliate her later. The Mahabharata itself does not hint at this causality, because Duryodhana being evil incarnate, there was no need for any reason to humiliate the Pandavas other than being good and devotees of God. Even if it were the reason, Duryodhana takes it too far with his own cousins' wife, calling her a prostitute, etc.
When you are good and pious, the evil don't need an event or action to make an enemy out of you; you are already an enemy to them.
Acephalist - your comment about Karna sums it up for supporters of Duryodhana.
ReplyDeleteKarna takes his gratitude too far. The moment you accept something from a bad man (or for that matter a good man - except you don't fall into their trap), you become very indebted to them.
Likewise with Bhishma, who fights against the Pandavas, and watches in silence when the Draupadi disrobe attempt is made. In
Both Karna and Bhishma do acknowledge their wrong path in some places..
Well in this arguement, there is no end.
ReplyDeleteIf talking about Karna; when he entered the ring, pandavas insulted him & even his mother Kunti dont stopped pandavas. She didnt want to accept karna as her son was different thing.
If any body is bad, then it is kunti
Swapnil: There is an end. Krishna shows the right end to every character in the Mahabharata - good or bad.
ReplyDelete'Insults' by the Pandavas or even Draupadi are all related to his caste being ineligible to participate in Draupadi's swayamvara, or prior to that at the archery contest.
Krishna is the one that urges Draupadi, by the way, to stop him from participating in the swayamvara.
Karna had parents that raised him. That Kunti was his biological mother only comes into the picture when Kunti is urged to go talk to Karna to try stop the war. You can doubt her intentions in this episode, but what's evil about her otherwise?
When talking evil, the Mahabharata clearly lays it out. And.. there's degrees of comparison too that we must apply, when in doubt.
I completely disagree with you. Mahabharata does NOT lay people out as either completely black or white. It says that there are shades of grey, just like in today's world. Pick any character in the Mahabharata and they have at one point or another has done something bad.
ReplyDeleteEven so, Karna has to be the least (as you dubbed) 'evil' character in the Mahabharata. The only flaw of his was that he was loyal and generous to a fault. He knew that Duryodhana's actions were mainly due to jealousy, greed and pride. But he was his friend and though he advised him against his actions, he stuck with his friend through thick and thin, till the very end- which is what a friend does.
Yes, he embarrassed and humiliated Draupadi with his words at the court. But so did she at her Suayamwara. Karna didn't know that Krishna was the one who asked Draupadi to stop him at the Swayamwara. She pleaded with everyone in the court for help, everyone except Karna, if she had, he would've helped but she was too proud to ask him after he shamed her with his words.
Side note: Karna had all the five qualities that Draupadi was looking for in a husband. If she had married him, then the Kurushetra war wouldn't have happened.
Karna was lying hurt and lying in the battlefield and to 'test' him, Krishna disguised as a Brahman asked him for 'dakshan' - since he didn't have any money with him, he broke his gold teeth and gave him that. Then, Krishna asked for his 'Kavasa kundala' and he without a second thought handed it to him. Everyone else's karma for their bad actions was the cause for their downfall, but Karna's generosity and loyalty was the cause of his.
That, is a great man. You can't say that everyone in Duryodhana's side were 'evil' or everyone in the Pandava's side was 'good'. Anyone's words or actions that were intended to or did hurt another individual- is a bad action. By this definition, every character in Mahabharata has done something bad-!
Even the actions done under 'dharma' fail to be comprised purely of good.
Trying but failing to capture the dichotomy of good and evil comprises the story of 'Mahabharata'.
Karn dint give kavach and kundal without any thought .. he gave it he wanted a very powerful weapon to kill all his enemies including krisha ... This is what transaltion says in mahabhart book translated into English ..
DeletePrathi, thanks for the studied comment.
ReplyDeleteA good yardstick to use in the Mahabharata for good vs evil is which side of the war someone yet. However, there are some instances where otherwise good devathas (such as Karna [Surya] or Bhishma [ a Vasu]) are in the wrong camp.
I don't disagree with most characters having shades of grey, but when calling two people imperfect, one needs to look at the degree to which one or the other is imperfect.
Yudhishtira did gamble away his own wife, and that is clearly incorrect (but he was gambling his own wife away, if that's any defense).
Karna, on the other hand, was insulting the wife of a royal guest. He calls her a prostitute in court, among other taunts. That Draupadi did not let Karna participate in her swayamvara is completely per swayamvara rules. If this hurt Karna's ego, that's not Draupadi's 'fault'.
Sure, Draupadi choosing and marrying Karna could have avoided the war. But, the following incorrect arguments can also be made:
1) Had Bhima not thrashed the Kauravas as a kid, Duryodhana may not have become anti-Pandava and the war could have been avoided.
2) Had Yudhishtira given away his entire kingdom to Duryodhana, the war could have been avoided.
In the Kaurava court where Draupadi was insulted, Karna and Dusshashana were among those who insulted her verbally and physically. Why would the lady beg Karna again to help her, when Bhishma and Dhritarashtra were silent? Of course there is pride, why should there not be. Dharma is not realpolitik. Dharma is doing what is right, whether it is advantageous to one or not.
I really don't know what to make of your suggestion..
Krishna deals with several situations in the whole Mahabharata (not just in the war) the way he dealt with Karna on the battlefield. He hides the sun for a moment to create the illusion of sunset so that the enemy would drop their weapons and Arjuna could attack his target. These are all incorrect if you blindly applied rules. But context is important for application of Dharma rules. Truth is a virtue in general, but it is not when a murderer asks whether the innocent man he is chasing is hiding in your house.
Karna had excellent qualities - generosity being one. However, his bad qualities, which put him clearly in the evil camp, included his friendship with Duryodhana. Someone who is steadfast as a friend is a wonderful human being, but not when the person is clearly perpetraring evil. This is what Krishna advises in his Gita. - forget about what relation you have to the person; stick to Dharma to make a decision on killing/not.
Well the writer of the blog you should first read the Mahabharata completely.while draupadi was being taken off her clothes all the pandavas were silent,and bhishma and drona couldn't act upon as that was the king's order.so unable to see this adharma karna encouraged it there by making pandavas angrier and make them to fight rather than sitting like ducks so that they can stop it.this was explained to draupadi by lord Krishna before the war.so finally the teal intention of karna was to stop it
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/karnavsarjun.official/
ReplyDeletevisit it. you will find who is good and who is bad first all of morons who say that pandavas as good and duryodhana as bad it is not only a slap but a slipper slap
We don't need slipper slaps here or other such language. That Facebook page doesn't seem to have the right agenda for my purpose, which is understanding the Mahabharata, its characters, and its purpose better (among others). Viewing the Mahabharats with a 20th-century lens isn't going to cut it, by the way. Thanks for visiting!
ReplyDelete