The myths of Karna

In the Indian traditional knowledge system, Valmiki’s Ramayana and Ved Vyasa’s Mahabharata are referred to as Itihasa. The etymology of the term Itihasa as given by Panini is “as indeed, it was” (iti-ha-asa). The study of history as a discipline has a rich tradition in India. Its importance is reflected in a shloka from the first chapter of the epic Mahabharata itself, where it says, “Itihasapradeepenamohavaranaghatina. Lokagarbhagrihamkritasnamyathavatsamaprakashitam, which means “By the light of history, the veil of ignorance is destroyed and the sanctum sanctorum of all men is illuminated with wisdom”.

Many modern literatures and different art forms, such as cinema, theatre, etc., have been created based on the stories and characters of the Mahabharata and Ramayana. One of the serious challenges posed by the modern retelling of these two epics is that it sometimes corrupts the central message of the original text. Valmiki’s Ramayana and Ved Vyasa’s Mahabharata are not ordinary texts but the bedrock of Indian values and education; both of these texts are part of the traditional Indian curriculum. Distortion of facts leads to falsification of history; those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it, but the distortion of facts itself defeats the purpose of reading history.

One of the important characters of the Mahabharata is Karna, and sadly, most of the stories and general views on Karna are not from the original text but are from later creations. Each character and every event of the Mahabharata is a lesson for humanity, and only an unbiased, careful reading of this epic can give us the wisdom that it is intended to. Ved Vyasa’s Mahabharata is the only original source, and as such, any event or story that is contradictory to Ved Vyasa cannot be true. It is observed that modern creations have presented Karna as an outcast, ostracised, and deprived hero, but a simple reading of the Ved Vyasa’s text will present us with an entirely different story. Some allege that Karna was denied education by Dronacharya because of his lower caste, which is an entirely false allegation. In Adi-Parva, the relationship of Guru-Sihshya between Karna and Drona is given in great detail. After the completion of their education, Drona asked for the Panchal state as his fee from the students. The first chance to pay the Guru-dakshina was taken up by the Kauravas, and Karna was also part of that Kaurava army. After their failure, the Pandavas completed that task by defeating King Drupad. Karna, being a friend of Duryodhana, was also taught by the royal Guru Kripacharya right from the early days. This is mentioned by Karna himself in the Kundala-haran chapter of Vana-parva.

The false impression of Karna’s victimhood is because of the misperception of his ‘suta’ caste as a lower caste. As perceived today, Suta was not of any deprived caste; they were the children of a Kshatriya father and a Brahmin mother. Queen of the Virat state Maharani Sudeshna, Mahaveer Kichchak, narrator Ugrasrava, and others are some other ‘suta’ people from the Mahabharata. Adirath and Radha found Karna on the bank of the Ganges while doing their morning prayer. Issueless Radha was too happy to get a child with divine features, and because of the natural armour and earrings, the child was named Vasusena. He famously came to be known as Karna after Indra took away his armour and earrings. Karna’s father, Adirath, was a friend of Dhritarashtra and also the leader of the republic of Agna under Hastinapura, and when Karna was made the king of this republic, even then nobody objected to it. Unlike any other child, Karna was born with the natural protection of divine armour and earrings, and just after finishing his education, he was made the King of Anga. There is no incident of any financial hardship or deprivation faced by Karna, as mentioned in the Mahabharata.

According to the present-day narrative, Karna never wanted to be a part of Duryodhana’s evil plans, but it was his obligation to pay Duryodhana’s debts that made Karna take part in the crimes against the Pandavas. Again, this perception is not based on actual facts and events. In fact, it was Karna who played a more significant role than Shakuni in conspiring against the Pandavas. As mentioned in the Aryanaka chapter of the Vana-parva, Karna was the first person to give the idea of killing the Pandavas in their exile in the forest itself. Even Shakuni was more lenient than Karna towards the Pandavas. In an incident mentioned in the Ghosayatra chapter of Vana-parva, it is seen that Shakuni advised Duryodhana to forget the past and reconcile his relationship with the Pandavas after Arjuna helped and freed his Kaurava cousins from the Gandharvas. Karna immediately opposed Shakuni and started instigating Duryodhana against the Pandavas.

The general understanding of Karna as danveer is also misunderstood to a great extent. Motivated by his only desire in life, which is to defeat Arjuna, Karna made a self-imposed vow to donate anything to the first brahmin he met after his morning rituals. Karna’s act of giving away his natural body armour and earrings to Lord Indra is generally quoted as presenting Karna as the best donor. However, in the main text, we find that Karna tried to dissuade Indra with other bribes, and in the end, he asked for the Ashokastra in return for the armour and the earrings. Unlike generally held, it was not Indra who first proposed to give the Ashokastra to Karna; it was Karna who asked for it as a best-suited deal. This whole episode is mentioned in the Kundalaharan chapter of Vana-Parva.

Today, many view Karna as the most ethical and undefeated warrior of the Mahabharata, which is quite opposite to the main source. In reality, many times Karna had to run for his life after being defeated on the battlefield. His defeat at the hands of Gandharvas is well mentioned in the Ghosayatra chapter of Vana-parva. He met the same fate once at the hands of King Drupada and once at the hands of Arjuna in the Viratrajya war. Even before the Kurushetra war, Bhima also defeated Karna at Anga state in the event of Yudhishthira’s rajasuyayagna. In the great war, Karna was defeated by others as well, including Abhimanyu, Satyaki, and Bhima. When Bheesma had to rank all the warriors in the Ratha-atiratha chapter of the Udyog-parva, he ranked Karna as a warrior inferior to Rathi. He justified his ranking for Karna because of his history of previous defeats and arrogance. Dronacharya, too, approved the ranking made by Bheesma.

According to Ved Vyasa himself, Karna and Duryodhana complemented each other and represented the tamasic nature of humans. We see that although Parshuram taught only to Brahmins, he made certain exceptions. Ksatriya Bheesma, through reasoning and intellect, was able to convince Parshuram to admit him to the gurukul, but on the other hand, Karna chose to deceive the teacher to get admission.

In the Mahabharata, there are all the teachings of the Vedas, the way for Purusartha, viz., Artha, Kama, Dharma, and Moksha. Due to its immense importance, the Mahabharata is considered the fifth Veda, but incorrect reading will not give us the desired result from the text.