Will The Real Karna Stand Up? Book 1: The Swayamvara Of Lies

sutirtho17
Jun 1, 2023
16 min read

Karna: An Introduction

Mahabharata is an epic full of characters of different kinds- heroic & evil, courageous & cowardly, divine & mortal, and sometimes even tragic characters. Perhaps, however, no character is considered any more tragic than Karna. Suryaputra Karna was born out of the maiden Kunti with the seed of the sun god, then abandoned by her, and raised by the suta Adhiratha and his wife Radha- the people he knew to be his true parents. Rightfully, he is the eldest of the Kaunteyas, thus eligible for the throne of Bharatas and his life should be of a royal. Yet, he was known as Suta his whole life and denied all such. Rejected by Draupadi because of being a suta, denied royal education under Drona, hated by all as a bastard, yet always respectful of dharma, serving the needy and being truthful. And yet so strong, that Arjun himself assisted by Vaasudeva, failed to defeat him in an 'honourable' way!!

Such a tragic yet great person...or was he? Was he truly what we think he was?

Thanks for reading Dialogue’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribed

Karna has been a character of interest for the audience of Mahabharata since its conception. So much so, his portrayal in different versions has been always been changing, from Kasidasi Mahabharat of medieval Bengal to the current TV series of Mahabharata (or Suryaputra Karn series for that matter) directed by Swastik Productions, the character has been put in a more and more sympathetic light, changing him every bit slowly but surely. Now, how much of this character is really the original Karna, the 'true' firstborn Kaunteya who is mentioned in the Vyasa's Mahabharat?

Karna's story envelopes all of Mahabharata, and no doubt his status as a tragic hero is unquestionable. But simultaneously, many of the claims of 'greatness' of him are exaggerated and downright wrong.

Then these questions will definitely arise:-

· Didn't Karna's caste play a role in Draupadi's swayamvara and in other areas of life?

· Wasn't he so invincible that even after losing his Kavach-Kundal by Indra's cunningness, he fought so hard that Arjun had to defeat him by deception?

· Wasn't him being a bastard devalue his life?

· Wasn't he always respectful of dharma?

So, in this work of mine, I'm simply gonna focus on these above topics, solely from the original sources and find the true Karna!

___________________________________________________

Note: - in Book 1: A Swayamvara Of Lies, the 1st question is the only one answered since it needed considerable explanation. I hope that if you like my work, you will await Book 2's publication!

____________________________________________________

Caste Confusion: The Dual Identities Of Karna

Sambhava Parva of Adi Parva in Mahabharat (Section CXI) tells the account of Karna's birth. Rishi Durvasa, foreseeing Kunti's future and the early death of Pandu, gave her a mantra to call the Devas for giving her an offspring. In her maiden days, out of curiosity, she used it (much before the actual time) calling forth Surya.

"...the amiable Kunti (Pritha) became curious, and in her maidenhood summoned the god Arka (Sun)..."

But now, the Deva needed to give her an offspring regardless if she's married or not.

"...Amiable one, my approach cannot be futile; it must bear fruit.

You have summoned me, and if it be for nothing,

It shall certainly be regarded as your transgression."

Thus Karna was born.

"...Thus speaking unto the daughter of Kuntibhoja, the illustrious ...gratified his wish. And of this connection there was immediately born a son known all over the world as accountred with natural armour and with face brightened by ear-rings... And the princess...with sorrow that son born of her, reflected intently upon what was then the best for her to do. And from fear of her relatives she resolved to conceal that evidence of her folly. And she cast her offspring...into the water."

After such a cruel fate of being thrown into the waters, he was eventually rescued by sutas!

"Then husband of Radha, of the Suta caste, took up the child thus cast into the water, and he and his wife brought him up as their own son. Radha and her husband bestowed on him the name of Vasusena (born with wealth) because he was born with a natural armour and ear-rings. And endued as he was born with great strength, as he grew up, he became skilled in all weapons."

Thus though born as a Kshatriya, he rose to fame as sutputra- son of the suta. Though a Kaunteya, he was known as Radheya. Both of these identities have been an integral part of the epic and come to a head when Draupadi's swayamvara is held.

"Naham Variyam Sutham"

And beholding the plight of those monarchs, Karna...went to where the bow was, and quickly raising it strung it and placed the arrows on the string. And beholding the son of Surya—Karna of the Suta tribe—like...Surya himself, resolved to shoot the mark...the sons of Pandu—regarded the mark as already shot and brought down upon the ground. But seeing Karna, Draupadi loudly said,

'I will not select a Suta for my lord.'

Then Karna, laughing in vexation and casting glance at the Sun, threw aside the bow already drawn to a circle.

-Swayamvara Parva, Adi Parva Section CLXXXIX, Mahabharata

The above passage comes from the Kishori Mohan Ganguli (KMG) translation of Mahabharata. This is not the only modern version that says so. Geetapress and Kaliprasanna Singha's Mahabharata translations also include this passage. It is thus most commonly known to the audience, and all depictions of Mahabharata depict this scene.

The first time, I read it, it was gut-wrenching. How can caste be of such importance to someone over their merit? In post-independent India, even the thought of it is blasphemous! Was ancient India such a horrid place? Wait, did we even read the right thing?

While alone this passage would make complete sense, some verses after, the meaning of this scene starts to crack.

Then Arjuna approached the bow...bending his head unto...lord Isana—and remembering Krishna also, he took it up. And that bow which Rukma, Sunitha, Vakra, Radha's son, Duryodhana, Salya, and many other kings accomplished in the science and practice of arms, could not even with great exertion, string, Arjuna, the son of Indra, that foremost of all persons endued with energy and like unto the younger brother of Indra (Vishnu) in might, strung in the twinkling of an eye.

Wait a second, Radha's son? Radheya? Wasn't it the name of Karna, since his mother was Radha, suta Adhiratha's wife?

The verse puts so many kings including Karna in the list of people who...er...failed to string the bow?

Karna...went to where the bow was, and quickly raising it strung it and placed the arrows on the string.

But the earlier verses clearly say he did string the bow??

A CONTRADICTION????

Some may refute this saying the latter verses merely meant his rejection....but I assure you that's not the case. To some this may come as surprising...even shameful that one of our most important religious text consists of such a contradiction.

Why such a thing can exist? That too in our holy texts? At first, it may seem implausible, but if we dig deeper, and understand the nature of Indian epics....we may find the answer.

The 'Strange' Nature Of Hindu Scriptures

Vedas are revelations of divine origin. Apauruseya...not composed by men. But all other texts- Smritis, Itihasa and Puranas are authored by men.

We find Manusmriti, Parasharasmriti, etc Dharmashastras dedicated to Manu or Rishi Parashar and so on. But all these texts have 'layers'-that is 'addition' to the original text at different points in history.

Why? Why 'add' your own writings to a holy text? Why not preserve them as they are...or were?

Smritis are texts on religious law. Today we have the Indian constitution and all laws fall under it. But we didn't preserve it since 1950. By 2023, 105 amendments were made it! Just within 73 years of our republic. You see, law is subject to change and should be changed as per need. The ancient Indians had a similar thought process. So all Smritis were changed as per need.

Except, they never went out of their way to mention their names!

"In every country, there are plagiarists who steal the works of others and present them under their own name. However, in the land of Bharatvarsha (India), the opposite of plagiarism is more commonly seen. They are not aspiring poets; instead, they express their gratitude by incorporating their own compositions into famous ancient texts. Such authors, alone, have thrown their contributions; be they good or bad, into the ocean of the Mahabharata with the desire to merge their individuality with that of sage Vyasa. This is how Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay, says the great epic's various layers emerged. Some, in order to show Krishna's divinity, have shown his unnecessary supernatural miracles here and there, or have engaged in deceptive or mischievous acts. Some have gained fame by singing the glory of Lord Shiva, placing him above Krishna...or the inferiority of the female gender. Some have woven fairy tales!"

- Mahabharata Introduction by Rajsekhar Bose

This peculiar practice of ascribing the works to old sages (such as Manu in the case of Manusmriti) is not limited to Smritis. All 32 Puranas were written well into the middle ages, yet are ascribed to Vyasa, who lived 5000 years ago from today.

We do know Vyasa authored a 'Puranasamhita' in his lifetime. The idea of Purana existed since the age of Vedas and simply meant 'tales of the old' referring to the past. Whether Puranasamhita brought all such 'Puranas' together is hard to say. It is a lost work.

Yet all known Puranas written thousands of years after him were selflessly ascribed to him!

Now comes Itihasa. Itihasa means history. The great epics Ramayana and Mahabharata both belong in this category along with Yog Vasistha and Harivamsa, which are historically dated to be around the said era.

This, however, again comes with a problem- the texts seem to have variations!! What could be the reason for adulterating the content of a 'historical' scripture?!

"In the Mahabharata, there is a greater abundance of imaginative elements compared to the ancient histories of other countries, and there are specific reasons for this. In historical texts, there are two reasons why unnatural or fictional events occur. Firstly, the authors relied on oral tradition and considered all of them as truth, incorporating them into the text. Secondly, after the publication of their works, subsequent authors deviated from the writings of their predecessors. Due to the first reason, the ancient histories of all countries have been contaminated with fictional elements, and the same can be observed in the Mahabharata.

However, the second reason does not apply to historical texts of other countries, as it does to the Mahabharata, which has been particularly affected. There are three reasons for this. The first reason is that when ancient historical texts are transmitted to other countries, the common practice is to write down all those texts. When a text is written, subsequent authors cannot easily deviate from the original composition, as written texts ensure the accuracy of each copy. In ancient India, texts were orally transmitted, and when writing became prevalent, the texts were propagated directly from mouth to mouth through the guru-disciple tradition. This made it particularly convenient for deviating from the original composition.

The second reason is that in Rome, Greece, or any other country, no historical text receives the same level of respect or admiration as the Mahabharata does in Indian society. Therefore, Indian authors had the advantage of adding their own compositions in the Mahabharata, which did not occur in the writings of any other foreign authors."

"The third reason is that writers from other countries eagerly published books for fame or with similar desires. Therefore, your writings were propagated under their name, and it was never the intention of those writers to undermine their name by incorporating their writings into their subsequent works. However, the Brahmins of India wrote selflessly. They did not seek personal fame or gain from their writings. The welfare of the people was not separate from their own welfare. Many books do not even have the author's name; there are many great books whose author remains unknown to this day. An anonymous writer, whose writings were widely spread among the people through the help of the epic Mahabharata, practised public welfare in a special way, and in that effort, their writings were included in all similar books."

- Krishnacharitra by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhaya

One of the main reasons was loksiksha(public teaching). At times, the study of the Vedas was limited to upper varnas. To reach the teachings of dharma, people relied on reciting the epics and Pauranik tales. And many a time, reciters would add texts of their own or even omit parts!

M. A. Mehendale notes yet another reason for such interpolations:

"The number of passages added to the Mbh. text is very large. This kind of large scale fluctuction of the text is not witnessed in any other Sanskrit text, except perhaps the Ramayana. This, in fact, is as it should be, not only because of the immense popularity of the epic poem, but also because, in my opinion, there is a specific sanction in the Mbh. for the activity of the reciters to make additions to their text. The stanza concerned has been misunderstood.

It reads as :

itihasapuranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

bibhety alpasrutad vedo mam ayam pratarisyati

(1.1.204)

The stanza is generally taken to mean that one should interpret the Veda with the help of the Itihasa and the Purana. It is true that some parts of a text like the Rgveda, especially the so-called samvada hymns of the Rgveda, are better understood with the help of the narratives found in such post-Rgvedic texts as the Brahmanas, the Nirukta, the Brhaddevata and also in the post-Vedic texts like the Mahabharata. But that has nothing to do with the stanza just cited. In the first instance the root brmh- or samupabrmh- does not mean 'to interpret'. It means 'to enlarge, to make strong'. And. secondly, the word Veda of this stanza does not refer to a text like the Rgveda. What it really refers to is made clear by the very next stanza which begins a :

karsnam vedam imam vidvan Sravayitvartham asnute

'By reciting this Veda composed by Krsna (Dvaipayana) one achieves ones purpose.'

Hence the word veda of the preceding stanza does not refer to a text like the Rgveda, but to the Veda of Krsna Dvaipayana, i.e. the Mahabharata. The stanza under discussion therefore means that one should expand the Veda, i.e. the Mbh. by adding to it the narratives from the Itihasa and the Purana (and one who is well- versed (vidvan) can easily do that). The Veda is afraid that a person with little knowledge would easily cross over it, i.e. he would complete the reading of the text soon if, owing to his little knowledge, he was not able to expand his text by means of additions .

In such a situation it would have been a matter of great surprise if a popular text like the Mbh. which was orally transmitted for many centuries was not burdened with many additions."

- INTERPOLATIONS IN THE MAHABHARATA by M. A. Mehendale

Popular author Bankim Chandra Chattapadhaya also notes in Krishnacharitra that it was easy for interpolations to enter Mahabharata since it was orally transmitted for centuries, and regardless of who contributed to it, they 'selflessly' ascribed the work to Vyasa.

These are the major causes of interpolations and contradictions in Mahabharata. Whatever the people of the past may have thought of it, whether they knew it or not, are unknown to us. But at the end of the 19th-century scholars of Mahabharata realized the absence of a critical edition of Mahabharata is a great loss to the Indian heritage! Thus, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI), which was founded in 1917, took up this herculean task in 1919 to create a Critical Edition of Mahabharata.

Their official website states:

"Had institutions had hearts, the Mahabharata would certainly be BORI's! A giant research project undertaken by the BORI since its inception was The Critical Edition of Mahabharata. Edited by the likes of V. S. Sukhtankar, S. K. Belvalkar, S. K. De, Prof. Dr. R. N. Dandekar, the Critical Edition enjoys the status of one of the most prestigious and appreciated editorial work of the world. This edition was prepared with painstaking efforts of scholars for about five decades consulting 1,259 manuscripts. A comprehensive Prolegomena (Vol. I), written by V. S. Sukhtankar, brings out the material and methodology of the project."

Returning back to the topic of Draupadi's swayamvar, we find an interesting passage from the Prolegomena of V. S. Sukhtankar on the Adi parva where the event occurs!

"More than usual interest attaches to another omission in the Bengali version, which concerns a well-known and popular scene describing the discomfiture of Karṇa at Draupadīs svayamvara, which is commonly believed to be one of the main reasons why he always entertained feelings of such deep and implacable hatred towards Kṛṣṇā (Draupadī), and lost thereafter no opportunity to hurt and humiliate her.

This passage deserves a detailed consideration. Ramesh Chandra Dutt...has made this scene the centre of his poetic account of the marriage of Draupadī, and given a vivid rendering of the passage in his Epic of the Bharatas:

"Uprose Karna‚ peerless archer, proudest of the archers he, And he went and strung the weapon, fixed the arrows gallantly, Stood like Surya in his splendour and like Agni in his flame,— Pandu's sons in terror whispered, Karna sure must hit the aim! But in proud and queenly accents Drupad's queenly daughter said: 'Monarch's daughter, born a Kshatra, Suta's son I will not wed.' Karna heard with crimsoned forehead, left the emprise almost done, Left the bow already circled, silent gazed upon the Sun!"

The situation is, undoubtedly, full of dramatic possibilities. Just at the moment when the prize was going to be snatched away from the heroes of the epic by an upstart, the brave little Draupadī comes to the rescue and snubs openly, in the presence of the assembled princes, the semidivine bastard, the understudy of the Villain of the piece, the unwanted suitor, who thereupon withdraws discomfitted; and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. A tense scene!

Unfortunately, this melodramatic interlude, to judge by the documentary evidence, appears to be the handiwork of a very late Vyāsaīd, as it is found only in...one manuscript of the K group, one Nepali manuscript, and three composite Devanāgarī manuscripts, besides the Nīlakaṇṭha version! All of these are late and inferior or conflated manuscripts. It is missing, on the other hand, not only in the Śāradā version and the Southern recension (as in the case of many of the interpolations of the Vulgate ), but for once, also in the entire Bengali version!"

- Prolegomena of V. S. Sukhtankar on the Adi parva

He goes on to make a good case study of the event and cites the following counterarguments to this scene:-

1. Karna is introduced as a Kshatriya alongside other great kings by Draupadi's brother Dhrishtadyumna himself, and no one reveals to a young Draupadi about the suta background of Karna. It seems impossible for her to even know of this very personal information about someone she just met. Moreover, while sutaputra was a name for Karna, he was popular as Anga raja- king of Anga!

"Drupada's son then addressed his sister, reciting unto her the names and lineages and achievements of those assembled lords of the earth. Dhrishtadyumna said, "Duryodhana,Durvisaha,...O sister, and many other mighty sons of Dhritarashtra—all heroes—accompanied by Karna...the illustrious Asvatthama..."

2. Although Arjuna wins the swayamvara, he wins this as a Brahmin. Draupadi never questions this. Even if swayamvara means the bride gets to choose the groom, she just can't choose anyone. Any warrior with good marksmanship and strength can win and wed her. Brahmin life will be much poorer and hard for a royal princess. Even so, Draupadi doesn't reject or interfere!

3. Love at first sight? Still doesn't explain her silence when Yudhisthira proposed her marriage to all five brothers; a proposal that shocked many including her own father and brother!!

These prove nothing but obedience on her part. The dramatic rejection just doesn't fit!

But then, why doesn't Karna get the chance to marry Draupadi? How does he FAIL? Do we have any alternative to this scene?

Victory Away By A Strand Of A Hair!

Albeit already mentioned, the southern version seems to not have this 'dramatic interlude'. What does then, it describes?

In Madhwacharya's Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, we find the following sloka:-

"Along with him, the other Kings also soon went out of contention. Then, Karna bent the bow for the sake of Duryodhana. Due to the result of the excellent education given by Sri Parashurama, he managed to bend it till the distance was only that of a strand of hair.

When Karna too failed after getting hit by the bow, Bhima and Arjuna, who were seated amidst the Brahmanas and who were shining like the Sun and Moon, got up."

- Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya

So, Karna did fail! That too only by a strand of a hair. It is also the accepted version in the BORI critical edition. This shows unlike Nilkantha's portrayal, Karna, no doubt a great warrior, wasn't superior to Arjun in any way. This portrayal is actually much more coherent with the actual and core Mahabharata!

Why Lie: Some Takes On The Interpolation

A Very Clever Interpolation?

Many will actually find this quite hard to swallow, simply cause the swayamvara fiasco seemed so centre to the plot of Mahabharata and was, at least thought to be, an important point in the rising of Karna's hate towards Draupadi alongside Pandavas.

"And Dussasana, beholding Krishna looking at her helpless lords, dragging her still more forcibly, and addressed her, 'slave, Slave' and laughed aloud. And at those words Karna became very glad and approved of them by laughing aloud."

When Vikarna stood up to protest, Karna himself, not only argued back but also said:-

"O Dussasana, this Vikarna speaking words of (apparent) wisdom is but a boy. Take off the robes of the Pandavas as also the attire of Draupadi."

Such hate towards Draupadi, many believed to have stemmed from this swayamvar. But as we concluded, that's not the case. Sad as it is, a dharmik person such as Karna enjoyed this among many other sinful acts! Can such a person really be called dharmik? Even Pitamah Bhisma said that the 'thread of dharma is very fine' when faced with the question of whether Draupadi should be insulted or not! Thus this question of how much these assumed 'dharmiks' of modern media were actually dharmik is a question for a later time.

An interpolation for Draupadi?

An interesting point could be made from the study of an article by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhaya titled 'Draupadi'. He points out that a female character like Draupadi is rare, who is as strong and prideful (not egoistic or arrogant) as she is dharmik. Sita, Shakuntala etc characters are ideal female role models per se, yet none gives the aura of power of Draupadi. He cites examples of how she defied Jayadhrath and remained strong while being harassed by Dussasana. But in her swayamvara, this pharse:-

"Naham Variyam Sutham"

"I will not select a Suta for my lord."

-itself proved to establish the outline of her brilliant and empowering character! Something that simply using certain adjectives or even writing for a hundred pages won't express!

A refutation:- This though very plausible was not added by Vyasa himself but by a later author in my view. I'm no one to argue against such a great author, but as the Prolegomena pointed out, Draupadi was much more obedient throughout the rest of the immediate text. She was just a maiden back then, and by the time such brilliance of her character comes out she has grown a lot! (Character development you see :) )

Also, I don't agree with many points in his article, it is up to the reader to decide. The article will be given in the bibliography.

Thus The Real Karna...

It is widely accepted by scholars that tales of Mahabharata are to propagate dharma. Thus, while the historical core was authored by the real Vyasa, later Authors edited the text as they saw fit. Or retold characters. How much, however, it is okay to differ from the original source is agreeable and how much is harmful is a debate for the future. But we conclude that the original Karna of Vyasa's Mahabharat wasn't rejected by Draupadi because of caste or varna, but such mentions are twisted interpolations. Even if we enjoy the latter portrayals, we mustn't forget the original text and its truth.

But does this alone deem Karna to be unworthy of the position that the modern audience of Mahabharata put him in? Wasn't he denied education by Drona? Wasn't he devalued for being a bastard, and yet remained a dharmik? Or are also those...

What the truth is...we shall see. (In the next book!)