He was alone. He was helpless. He was denied opportunities. He had everything taken from him. Yet he made his way to the top. Yet he stood by his friends in their times of need. An example of great hardwork. Dāna Vīra Sūrya Putra Karṇa.

What a load of bullshit lmao.

Karṇa is a good representation of selective attention and denial while reading, or more likely the non-reading of Mahābhārata. In modern day narratives, Karṇa has been elevated to the status of a “tragic-hero”, a prevelant Greek theme that people now look for in the itihāsa-s and purāṇa-s for whatever reason. I am not going discuss that psychological condition here, but anyone who has actually read the Mahābhārata, and I should emphasize, read it in its entirety, knows that Karṇa was little more than a celā of Duryodhana. One of the primary antagonists for sure, but not a serious threat. Karṇa was mostly relevant because of his birth, his relation to Kuntī and consequently the Pāṇḍava-s, but nothing more than a thorn that can be flung away. But “expert” opinions from the Wikipedia article on him, which mind you quotes not one traditional thinker, would have you believe otherwise.

Let me assert this: Karṇa is not a tragic hero. Karṇa is not down trodden. Karṇa is an adharma pātra, a bringer of discord. That unadulterated stupidity on Wikipedia article can be applied better to people like Bhīṣma or Yudhiṣṭhira but not Karṇa. We shall see what the Mahābhārata actually says about him.

Let me make something else clear, and I feel stupid that I have to clarify this: Mahābhārata is the source of Karṇa’s story. You would not know about Karṇa if Mahābhārata did not mention him. You have no other source to peddle your fan-fiction of Karṇa. You will hence accept what the Mahābhārata has to say about him. If the Mahābhārata has been composed by evil, cunning brāhmaṇa-s then they also put in the stories of his “struggles”. Because I intend to use this phrase a few times in the blog, I am going to label it as “niyama”.

Now we will take a look at Karṇa and how he is portrayed in the epic. While I am going to rely primarily on the Critical Edition by BORI, I will use regional versions whenever necessary. The kathā of Karṇa’s birth is well know so we will not dwell on it too much. He was adopted by a sūta named Adhiratha and his wife, Rādhā (CE/3/15/10). Now, Adhiratha was Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s friend. At this point in the story, Dhṛtarāṣṭra is the king of an unrivalled kingdom, mostly due to Bhīṣma. So one should consider the status of Adhiratha and consequently Karṇa himself after adoption while lamenting about Karṇa’s childhood. Karṇa is named Vasuṣeṇa by the brāhmaṇa-s and he studied under Droṇa, Kṛpā and Bhārgava Rāma, popularly known as Parshu Rāma. Before we go ahead, that Karṇa studied dhanurvidyā under Droṇa and Kṛpā, along with the other Kaurava-s should readily shatter any narrative that he was denied education because of his jāti. But this is never the point of focus, it is always the one concerning Rāma.

Karṇa wanted to study the daivīya astra-s under Rāma. While the Mahābhārata does not directly mention why, there is an agreement generally that Rāma would not teach any non-brāhmaṇa-s, due to his wrath against the kṣatriya-s. This includes Karṇa, in both the cases of him being a sūta or a kṣatriya. So what do you do when you are not allowed in an educational institute for whatever reason. That’s right, you disguise yourself and fool the teacher. And that is exactly what Karṇa does. He disguises himself as a brāhmaṇa and studies under Rāma for some time. This deceit of his is spurred when Indra takes the form an insect, pierces Karṇa on his thighs, and Karṇa being able to bear the pain of the bite, showed Rāma that he was infact not a brāhmaṇa, who curses him for the same reason. And the curse was that he would forget this vidyā. So let this be clear, Karṇa was not cursed for being a sūta, he was cursed for his attempted deception. How is this not justified? The only thing in this story that seems strange to me is how low of a pain tolerance do brāhmaṇa-s have to not be able to bear a small insect bite. But ok, we take those. Nevertheless, Rāma does properly teach Karṇa and even gives him the divine bow Vijaya. It was made by Vishvakarma himself and given to Rāma by Indra (CE/8/1/22). This bow is “superior to Gāṇḍīva” according to Karṇa himself. So now with all of this in mind, when was Karṇa exactly “denied” any education?

Do not worry, we shall touch on Rāma not teaching non-brāhmaṇa-s too, if that was indeed the case. This is justified along the same lines as Karṇa ‘deserving’ anything, it was Rāma’s right. Why exactly should he not have a preference when he is imparting extremely divine knowledge? Rāma does not have to teach anyone who he does not want to, much less should one use deception to cross boundaries set by Rāma for himself. Rāma did teach Bhīṣma, but he is exceptional in pretty much every category. In fact, not everyone is worthy of learning the divine astra-s anyway. Droṇa initially refused to give his own son Ashvatthāmā the brahmashīrāstra (CE/10/2/3) and let Arjuna learn it before him. If you want knowledge, you do it the right way. When an ācārya refuses to teach something or someone, you respect that and move on, not brute force yourself against their wishes. Whatever Karṇa suffered here is hundred-percent justified. No casteism, no discrimination. Only the phala of his karma-s.

Let us dwell on the kind of person Karṇa was, and whether he is a “tragic-hero” in any capacity. Now tragic hero as an idea, mainly highlighted in Greek works, though conceptually can be found in literature around the world, is a character or a person who makes morally ambiguous, if not outright repulsive choices, for the “greater good”. Exceptions exist to everything and a “tragedy” and “hero” might have differing meanings in the context of a story itself, regardless the point is Karṇa is shown to be a victim of the circumstances and that he was still righteous, hence a tragic hero.

Ok, “victim of the circumstances”.

सन्धाय धार्तराष्ट्रेण पार्थानां विप्रिये स्थितः। योद्धुमाशंसते नित्यं फल्गुनेन महात्मना॥ (CE/3/15/10)

धृतराष्ट्रस्य तद्वाक्यं निशम्य सहसौबलः। दुर्योधनमिदं काले कर्णो वचनमब्रवीत्॥ (CE/3/11/2)

ये स्म ते नाद्रियन्तेऽऽज्ञा नोद्विजन्ते कदा च न। पश्यामस्ताञ्श्रिया हीनान्पाण्डवान्वनवासिनः॥ श्रूयन्ते हि महाराज सरो द्वैतवनं प्रति। वसन्तः पाण्डवाः सार्धं ब्राह्मणैर्वनवासिभिः॥ स प्रयाहि महाराज श्रिया परमया युतः। प्रतपन्पाण्डुपुत्रांस्त्वं रश्मिवानिव तेजसा॥ स्थितो राज्ये च्युतान्राज्याच्छ्रिया हीनाञ्श्रिया वृतः। असमृद्धान्समृद्धार्थः पश्य पाण्डुसुतान्नृप॥ महाभिजनसम्पन्नं भद्रे महति संस्थितम्। पाण्डवास्त्वाभिवीक्षन्तां ययातिमिव नाहुषम्॥

मद्विधस्यायशस्यं हि न युक्तं प्राणरक्षणम्। युक्तं हि यशसा युक्तं मरणं लोकसंमतम्॥ सोऽहमिन्द्राय दास्यामि कुण्डले सह वर्मणा। यदि मां बलवृत्रघ्नो भिक्षार्थमुपयास्यति॥ (CE/3/15/1)

Let me give you a gist of these shloka-s, and you can verify them using the various translations that are available online. In the first shloka, Karṇa is explicitly said to have allied (sandhāya) with the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and that he always wanted to rival Arjuna. In the second set of shloka-s, Dhṛtarāṣṭra laments the condition of Pāṇḍava-s when they are residing in the forest and Karṇa, along with Shakuni, “advises” Duryodhana that they must go to them and show-off Duryodhana’s wealth and prosperity. In the third shloka, Karṇa is boasting to Sūrya, who has come to warn him about Indra, that how him donating his kuṇḍala-s and kavaca, even at the detriment of his powers, would bring him fame. So, considering these with some other shloka-s in Ādi Parva which tell how Duryodhana, Karṇa and Shakuni tried to kill Bhīma, how do you make a case for him being the “victim” of any “circumstance” here? He is the one creating the circumstances. He is doing this on his own. No one is forcing him into this stupidity. If these are the result of niyama then again remember that very niyama tells Karṇa was abandoned and this and that. The only tragedy here is the incurable idiocy of illiterates who misintepret such explicit shloka-s.

While these should suffice to depict that Karṇa was selfish, there are two more instances that solidfy that aspect of this personality: He has disrupted two svayamvara-s. One is of course the Draupadī svayamvara and other is one organized by the king of Kaliṅga named Citrāṇgada (CE/12/1/4). Another instance, which is ironically used to show the “complexity” of Karṇa, is when he calls Draupadī courtesean (CE/2/8/19). It is mind numbing that people use this just to say that this adds some “complexity” to Karṇa rather than pairing it with his other attempts to humiliate and kill the Pāṇḍava-s and demonstrate his hatred for the latter. This is exactly what I called it earlier, selective attention. In the larger picture, all the “complex” actions that Karṇa takes are motivated purely by his hatred of Pāṇḍava-s and Arjuna specifically.

Speaking of svayamvara-s and his rivalry with Arjuna, why do we not take a look at how good a ratha our golden boy was? Indeed, learning from Droṇa, Kṛpā and Bhārgava Rāma should make him one of the greatest ratha-s of his time. These are the following major mentions of Karṇa fighting:

1. Karṇa’s entrance in the main story is quite grand and is filled with literally everything that is popularly peddled in his name. He makes is way among the royal Kuru-s, challenges Arjuna, is questioned by Kṛpā about his birth, upon being unaswerable is made a king by Duryodhana to honor their friendship, gets called out on his jāti by Bhīma, is defended by Duryodhana all the same. But do not let “first impression is the best impression” get the better of you this time, this is just the beginning of Mahābhārata. (CE/1/8/3)

2. Next we see him fight during Draupadī svayamvara against Arjuna (CE/1/12/8). Let us address this “controversy” of Draupadī turning Karṇa away because of him being a sūta. Yes, in some versions of Mahābhārata, this indeed happens. This is completely justified in a varṇāshrama based society, but I do not think any such justification of it being a svayamvara, Draupadī’s choice yada yada matters in any way. So now I ask you, why exactly should we use this specific version of Mahābhārata to begin with? Because in the Kumbakonam version, Karṇa does actually participate and fails to string the bow by a hair’s margin (KK/1/202):

   ततो वैकर्तनः कर्णो वृषा वै सूतनन्दनः। धनुरभ्याशमागम्य तोलयामास तद्धनुः॥ तं चाप्यारोप्यमाणं तद्रोममात्रेऽभ्यताडयत्। त्रैलोक्यविजयी कर्णः सत्वे त्रैलोक्यविश्रुतः॥

   Ok, you have one versions saying he was subjected to “casteism” and other saying he failed to do it. So tell me, on which grounds would you take the word of the former to the word of latter? For instance, I can discard the manuscripts that say Karṇa was not allowed to participate and use only Kumbakonam and my arguments will stand entirely. Arthāt, I can easily switch between versions without any holes in my assertions but clearly those who prefer the non-participation version of the kathā do not have any solid justifications for their preference. It is not even clear if these people realize there are two versions of the story to begin with. We’ll talk about Draupadī’s “casteism” when people who only talk of this version explain theirs.

   Anyway, when Arjuna wins Draupadī, other kings are pissed and they start rampaging. Arjuna and Karṇa face-off. Guess who wins? Well, it is more of a stalemate, but can be considered a victory for Arjuna still. You see, in their current conditions, Arjuna and Karṇa could not have been more apart. Arjuna was on the run along with his brothers and mother because Duryodhana had just a few weeks ago tried to burn them alive and were living in secrecy, roaming village to village, in simple cotton clothes. Arjuna did not even have his Gāṇḍīva yet (he would only get it after a dozen or more years since now). On the other hand, Karṇa arrived with the Kaurava-s, as the king of Aṅga, with his own retinue, this golden kavaca still on him and the rampaging kings supporting him. He presumably also had his bow, Vijaya, which is mentioned earlier. Karṇa has no reason or disadvantage to not win this outright. Yet Arjuna with all his disadvantages manages to fend off Karṇa.

3. His third mentioned battle is during the Pāṇḍava digvijaya against Bhīma himself. He loses and is subjugated (CE/2/5/3).

4. His fourth endeavor is against the Gandharva-s, when he advised Duryodhana to show-off his wealth to the miserable Pāṇḍava-s mentioned earlier (CE/3/11/9-10). He runs away from the overwhelming force of Gandharva-s and returns after quite a while, probably when he thinks the situation has cooled off.

5. He helps in the seige of Matsya, after Bhīma kills Kīcaka, resulting in Kaurava-s and Trigarta-s attacking the now commander-less kingdom. He is the first to attack Arjuna among the Kurushreṣṭha-s along with some tributary kings and loses immediately (CE/4/3/26).

6. He, along with Duryodhana, tries to tie down the creator of everything vyakta and avyakta, Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa, only to get vishvarūpa’d (CE/5/6/58-59).

7. He fights in the Kurukṣetra war from the eleventh day, after Bhīṣma falls. There are many, many battles that all the ratha-s engage in and it is unecessary to list them all, so I will mention the important ones:

   • On the thirteenth day, he took part in the subjugation of Abhimanyu, cutting his bow down (CE/7/3/16)
   • On the fourteenth day, a long battle took place between Bhīma and Karṇa (CE/7/5, the exact chapter numbers can not be provided because the battle lasts for the entire upaparva). Initially Bhīma fends off Karṇa, primarily because the target for the day was Jayadrata, but Karṇa comes back and they continue their fight. Each time Karṇa is at a disadvantage, Duryodhana sends more and more waves of tributary kings to help him against an unconquerable Bhīma. But Bhīma’s ceiling is pushed to its maximum and he falls. Karṇa does not kill him because of the promise he makes to Kuntī earlier.
   • As fourteenth day of war continues into the night, Karṇa is forced to use the shakti astra he gets from Indra after he gives up his kavaca on Ghaṭotkaca.
   • Karṇa is made the senāpati on the sixteenth day. He proceeds to wreck havoc on the Pāṇḍava armies.
   • On the seventeenth day, he fights Arjuna for the first and the last time in Kurukṣetra and is killed.

As should be clear from these mentions, Karṇa was never on the same level as Arjuna, and would lose to ratha-s who are equal to the latter or maybe even lesser. He was indeed a strong warrior in general, but the differnce between his and his rival’s strength was night and day. Arjuna never lost to anyone in any of his battles, except against Mahādeva himself. Bhīma has a similar record, but his defeat at the hand of Karṇa in Kurukṣetra is the result of nothing but the smaller Pāṇḍava armies focusing all their strength on killing Jayadrata and the larger Kaurava armies focusing on defending him at any cost. Bhīṣma’s worst result was a stalemate against his guru Bhārgava Rāma and in his encounters against Arjuna, he held back and never tried to cause actual damage to any of the Pāṇḍava-s, only the allied Pāṇḍava armies. There are smaller incidents here and there but this list should suffice for now. If these are also results of niyama, then why mention Karṇa having any strength at all?

Finally, let us discuss his celebrated “friendship” with Duryodhana. For completely deranged reasons, Duryodhana and Karṇa are icons of great friends but not Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. Karṇa’s loyalty to Duryodhana is the same as a gambler’s “loyalty” to poker and an alcoholic’s “loyalty” to drinks. It was destructive and should not be celebrated. Karṇa was the one actively encouraging Duryodhana to pick fights with Pāṇḍava-s and this has been brought up multiple times in this blog. There is no doubt that he was indeed loyal to Duryodhana and his family, but in the wake of a destructive war it is entirely misplaced. Additionally, some of these qualities of (misplaced) loyalty along with the “donating to brāhmaṇa-s” and the giving away of his kavaca to Indra are at the forefront of Karṇa praise. But I would seriously doubt an individual’s mental capabilities if considering the entirety of this blog they somehow think these few attributes bring any balance to Karṇa’s morality. They do not. Karṇa is still 7 parts adhārmika if he is 3 parts dhārmika at all.

Ultimately, his speech in Karṇa Upanivāda Parva in response to Kṛṣṇa’s attemp to convince him to join Pāṇḍava-s is very sober and mature. He is concious of the choices he has made and he is at peace with his identity. He never cries that life or anyone treated him unfairly. He in fact regrets “the harsh words [he] used against the Pāṇḍava-s to please Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s son” (CE/5/7/2), admitting his faults entirely. Reading this speech, one cannot help but make way for some respect for the golden boy. But this complexity is never discussed. It is everything around it, unfortunately.

This blog is too large already for me to cover other, smaller discussions. Completely fictious depictions of Karṇa have become part of the pop-culture, like in the movie Raajneeti or the award winning poem by Shivaji Sawant, Mrutyunjay and other plethora of such works. It is exhausting to even try and watch/read these because of how blatantly false they are. So on an ending note, Karṇa is not a person worthy of any praise. Any dhārmika act he does, is not only cancelled out by his other deplorable acts, but they are too small when compared to other people from his times. It is in fact not Karṇa who is pitiable here, is it his brothers the Pāṇḍava-s. I hope people respect the Mahābhārata and read it properly, and see the things and people as they are.