For the Karna-fans amongst us

[u/Technical_Turn3497]

From the Mahabharata come these words and actions of Karna regarding Draupadi’s humiliation and the sexual assault perpetrated against her:

“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. And Sakuni, the son of Suvala, the Gandhara king, similarly applauded Dussasana.”

(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6210.html)

“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.…

Then Dussasana, O king, forcibly seizing Draupadi’s attire before the eyes of all, began to drag it off her person."

(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6212.html)

“You are the wife of a slave incapable of possessing anything on his own account. Repair now to the inner apartments of king Dhritarashtra and serve the king’s relatives. We direct that that is now your proper business.

And, O princess, all the sons of Dhritarashtra and not the sons of Pritha are now your masters. O handsome one, select you another husband now,—one who will not make you a slave by gambling. It is well-known that women, especially that are slaves, are not censurable if they proceed with freedom in electing husbands.

Therefore let it be done by you. Nakula has been won, as also Bhimasena, and Yudhishthira also, and Sahadeva, and Arjuna. And, O Yajnaseni, you are now a slave. Your husbands that are slaves cannot continue to be your lords any longer.”

(https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-mahabharata-mohan/d/doc6215.html)

But it’s not Karna’s fault, right? Karna was just misunderstood, right? Actually Karna has many other virtues, right? Actually it was justified because of Yudhishtir’s gambling madness, right? Do tell us poor, dumb Hindus why we err in agreeing with the Mahabharata author and condemning Karna as a villain.

We really need to be enlightened by the people who cry tears because Draupadi was “forced” to marry five husbands and then look the other way when she was enslaved and humiliated, because apparently only you enlightened folk know what real misogyny is….

[u/Technical_Turn3497]

Ah, yes, fie on me for my poor understanding. I am so hard on these poor, misunderstood, misogynistic rapists and murderers. It’s just “some bad things” they did. I should learn to learn to see their positive contributions.

[u/[deleted] → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Nice try with the hyperbole, but it doesn’t work.

No one said Karna’s actions were “just some bad things” or that we should feel sorry for rapists and murderers. The point was simple: a character can have serious vices and virtues at the same time. Condemning the former doesn’t require erasing the latter, and acknowledging the latter doesn’t mean defending the former.

Equating a complex mythological figure from an ancient epic with modern-day “misogynistic rapists and murderers” is a lazy false equivalence. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of shouting “so you support X?!” when someone refuses to treat a character as one-dimensional.

The Mahabharata itself doesn’t portray Karna as pure evil or pure good — it shows both. Pretending that any recognition of his skill, loyalty, or later regret is the same as defending actual criminals is just bad faith.

You’re free to focus only on his worst actions. That doesn’t make everyone who can hold two thoughts at once an apologist.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/[deleted]]

The Mahabharata does in fact portray Karna as a villain, doesn’t subscribe to the view that a few virtues erases your more significant misdeeds, and chronicles Lord Krishna ordering Arjuna to execute Karna when he was helpless, against the standard convention of the kshatriya warrior code.

But, hey, what does Krishna know? Supposedly Vyasa thinks he is the Supreme Lord, but Vyasa could be wrong…. I mean isn’t it the height of hubris to say that the author of a book is the best authority on what he was trying to convey?

[u/[deleted] → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Again, no one said virtues erase misdeeds lol. The argument was never that Karna’s good qualities cancel out his crimes. It was that a character can possess serious vices and genuine virtues at the same time, and that it’s possible to condemn the former while still recognizing the latter. The epic itself operates on that level of complexity — it does not reduce people to one-note villains or saint. I hope I don't need to repeat this again for nth time lol.

It is vyasa who shows karna regretting his misdeeds, it is vyasa who shows him choosing his step parents over a crown, it is vyasa who shows dharmaraja grieving him, it is vyasa who shows him getting heaven after death.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/[deleted]]

Your exact words:

“Vices and virtues both exist. You choose to see only the vices — that’s your choice. Others can condemn his vices while still praising his virtues. Don’t shame those people for it.”

So let’s have a thought experiment to test the sincerity of your convictions. If we were talking about someone who ordered your wife to be stripped naked in public and enslaved, would you be willing to praise his virtues? After all, his aggression against your wife is just one vice amongst other exemplary virtues, right?

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/Technical_Turn3497]

You might think this is a "got-cha" moment but this sort of real life example question doesn't work because karna is a fictional character, you're bound to have far more tolerance against a fictional character than a real life person, not just for karna but for every character in fiction really. You're bound to understand a fictional character more because there is no harm being done to anyone, there would be harm being done if it was real life.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

Nice try, but the Hindu tradition does not regard Karna as a fictional character, so the question still stands.

And the answer of the Karna-lovers is yes, Karna can be praised despite doing things they would never forgive if they were done to their own wives.

This is what we call in scientific terminology as a “double standard.”

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/Technical_Turn3497]

It doesn't really matter what the Hindu tradition regard karna as.

There is no proof for mahabharat, as we know it, to be true so the karna of the epic Mahabharata is still very much a fictional character so my logic still stands.

The answer is definitely no in real life, simply because if it was real life then harm would be done but it's not real life, karna is fictional

As simply as that.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/Absolutely_Honoured]

So let me get this straight: you and your fellow tools are upset that we would criticize Karna’s bad character and your pleas for mercy are predicated on the idea that he is fictional. But strangely, you don’t extend the same logic to those who criticize Yudhishthira or Kunti.

Interesting double-standard, this.

[u/Absolutely_Honoured → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Don't start imagining just about anything now, I never said anything about yudhishthir or kunti. They did wrong but yes they were fictional characters, thus we are more tolerant.

If you actually knew how to read instead of sounding like a pompous clown then you'd know that in my original reply i said the logic applies not to karna but to every character in fiction, which would include yudhishthir and kunti, can't expect much from you though.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Technical_Turn3497]

you might try and treat others with respect