Why Karna Deserves a Closer Look in the Mahabharata

Karna's Performance During the War

According to Singh, Karna refused to fight while Bhishma was alive, owing to the belief that Bhishma would obtain the credit after a victory. Singh mentions that Karna has always sworn allegiance to Duryodhana and pledged himself to conquer the Pandavas many times previously. Singh believes that it was only then when Karna grew stronger he changed his tune regarding victory and defeat, claiming that both concepts depend on fate. 

Singh also points out various instances wherein Karna was defeated during the war, naming Satyaki, Abhimanyu and Bhima as some of the warriors responsible for his defeat. This shows us the complexities of the character of Karna beyond the popular portrayal of a brave warrior.

Karna’s Words and Conduct

Singh also talks about the exaggeration by Karna about his own strengths, use of language and the insubordinate manner with which he dealt with Bhishma and Dronacharaya, citing the insult of Draupadi as one of the most heinous deeds by Karna at her disrobing. According to Singh, he supported her public humiliation and it is through his deeds that we need to look into the portrayal of Karna in popular legends.

The Question About Draupadi’s Swayamvar

Singh questions the story we have learned that Draupadi rejected Karna by saying that she would never marry a Sutaputra. According to Singh this cannot always be corroborated by the Mahabharatha manuscripts. According to Singh, of the 1259 manuscripts studied by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute for the creation of the critical edition, this is recorded in none or very few of the scripts. Moreover in most of the texts of the Mahabharatha read by Singh it was Karna’s inability to string the bow that was given importance. Singh presents this scenario to further emphasize the need to compare between a few scripts of the Mahabharatha instead of accepting the current popular rendition.

Why the Complete Text Matters

The Mahabharatha is repeated and reiterated on various occasions. According to Singh, a particular event cannot be understood only by studying a particular verse instead; all references of a certain event must be studied at different points to fully grasp it.

The characters themselves cannot answer interviewers in their response and the books of this nature have no basis in what these characters have originally intended.