Had Karna's royal origins be discovered earlier on, would Drapaudi have faced the humiliation she did? After all, Karna was the one she was smitten by at her swayamvar?
Krishna knew what was to come in her life, claimed to be her friend, and yet did not act in her best interests. Even his attempt to persuade Karna to switch sides just before the Kurukshetra battle was only to help the Pandavas win.
Karna made only two mistakes, as opposed to Arjuna who was arrogant despite his talents. Firstly, the insult Karna lobbed at Draupadi during her disrobing-- " A woman who has relationships with more than 4 men is a prostitute."
And secondly, his unflinching loyalty to his friend Duryodhana.
Krishna justified Karna's murder by claiming that he was on the wrong side. To the present-day reader, whatever Duryodhana's negative qualities, he did not practice casteism. At least not when it came to Karna. Now one may claim that his hatred for the Pandavas was so profound that Duryodhana would have clutched at anyone he deemed talented to challenge them. But by all accounts, Duryodhana's friendship with Karna was deeper than the bond between the five brothers who shared a wife.
For any person who is a victim of bias, Karna is the ultimate symbol of systemic oppression. A kind, just, immensely talented, generous, and principled human being who is abandoned by his birth mother. He never achieves the glory he should have, whereas Arjuna had it made.
Should Karna have never sided with Duryodhana and chosen to fade into oblivion? I am sure there are many such Karnas the world knows not of, the ones who found no one to support them despite their talent faded into obscurity. It is only because Karna accepted Duryodhana's offer of friendship that we know of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment