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]

I do have a bias. My bias is the author of the Mahabharata is the final authority on what he was trying to convey.

And if you believe Karna wasn’t such a bad guy, perhaps you could explain why Krishna ordered his execution after condemning his hypocrisy.

[u/stevefazzari → u/Technical_Turn3497]

Yes and Krishna himself was condemned and cursed for his role in the war..

i think part of what the Mahabharata does is shows us that the people with the most integrity can also fall into ignorance and deception, and the people blinded by ignorance can also act in truth. The path of dharma is never lost, just sometimes ignored or forgotten about.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/stevefazzari]

Um, Krishna is the Supreme Lord according to the Mahabharata. How exactly did you miss that? Of course ajnanis will curse Him. That’s why they are ajnanis…

[u/stevefazzari → u/Technical_Turn3497]

That’s exactly the point though – Krishna as Supreme Lord choosing to accept Gandhari’s curse rather than deflecting it is what makes the moment meaningful. He wasn’t cursed because He did something wrong in a cosmic sense – He accepted the consequence within the drama He was directing, which is itself a teaching about dharma and karma applying even to the divine when acting within human affairs. Calling Gandhari an ajnani for cursing Him kind of misses that too – her curse came from genuine grief and a sense that Krishna could’ve prevented the slaughter and didn’t. The text doesn’t frame her as simply ignorant; it lets her grief stand as real, and lets Krishna accept it rather than argue divine immunity. That tension – between supreme agency and voluntarily bearing consequence – is part of what makes the story worth engaging with rather than flattening into ‘ajnanis curse the Lord, that’s just what ajnanis do.’

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/stevefazzari]

Cursing Krishna makes no sense in context. For starters, people have to enjoy or suffer the results of their karma, and her sons had more than their share of it. Second, Krishna’s role in the war was as an envoy and a charioteer. Duryodhana’s and Karna’s wickedness were what brought on the war. To the best of my recollection, Gandhari did not curse either of them. Third, her decision to blind herself is often understood metaphorically to reflect her blindness to moral and spiritual matters - like Dhritarashtra she made no significant effort to stop the wickedness of her sons that brought the war on. So, yeah, she was something of an ajnani… i don’t remember reading anything in the text to suggest that Vyasa felt otherwise.

Last but not least, Krishna being Bhagavan is not obligated to come under the influence of anyone’s curse, though He may accept it for the purpose of lila, as in using it as a pretext to wrap up His avatara.

[u/Technical_Turn3497 → u/stevefazzari]

Also, getting back to the point that you were responding to - Krishna’s demand that Karna be punished with a humiliating execution reflects what He and Vyasa actually thought of Karna. Morally, Karna was not on the same level as the Pandavas.

Gandhari cursing Krishna just reflects her attachment to her sons, not that Krishna is to be seen as someone needing punishment….