Posted:
Before blaming Kunti who was 13 year old adopted child why doesn't anyone blame surya. What was surya doing. If without telling anyone Parashara can raise vyasa why not surya raise his son. Does any one know drona's mother name.
What do u expect Surya to do? Surya was bound by boon. Kunti invoked him. He didnt go to her. Parasar forced himself on Satyavati. Dron was born from pot due to Bharadwaj's desire for some apsara. The situation with Surya was entirely different
He was god he had every resource and ability to take the child and give it to any surya worshipping Kshatriya who would have happily adopted the child as surya' blessings if he didn't want to raise Karna himself. Do you think a 13 year old girl will have the option of selecting suitable foster parents for her child.
Durvasa's boon was for Kunti. She had responsibility. Surya was an instrument. He had no responsibility. She could have given him to some childless Kshatriya couple too.
You are asking what Kunti did or did not do in later life. What did surya do. Ganga managed to convince Parshuram to train Bheeshma. Could surya do that for his son. Given a kavach and kundal and responsibility over. In his whole life he just gave a piece of advice to Karna to not give his KK to Indra and if he must then ask Shakti in return. But he is God so he has no responsibilities
Again, Surya's situation was different. He was not traditional father. He did what he could.
And as soon as Pandavas arrived in HP after Pandu's death, duryodhan openly decried the paternity of her children that Pandavas are not sons of gods. And what would have happened if she said she had a child before marriage. All her 5 children would have been thrown out of HP. Pandu was not alive to defend her. Ambika ambalika niyog happened in the palace under bheeshma's blessing. Whereas Kunti and Madri went through it in a forest. How will citizens of Hastinapur accept . A child who had already fend for himself and had a reasonably good life. Just to give him a Kshatriya status she should jeopardize her other son's life.
Are you sure you are referring to mahabharat and not some fan fiction? The sages who took kunti to hastinapur told that these are sons of Pandu and no one questioned. She could have accepted Karn when Pandu was still alive and wished to have children. May be her five children would not have been born if she had told Pandu.
He had a happy life, loving parents , wife and children, kingdom wealth and yes he had all got it by himself without any help from Kunti. But he had it. Her other children did not have it yet so she did not.
Happy life? How do you define happy life? He was a King but other than Duryodhan, no one accepted him as equal. Dhtitrahtr, Gandhari and Shakuni were secretly contemptuous and Vidur and Bheeshm openly insulting. So what was this happiness you are touting? Pandavs too had loving mother, wives and children. So how can you say Karn had all that and Pandavs did not.
Same thing after Rajasuya also. Being a powerful emperor is no protection if question is raised on your paternity. Kansa was also powerful, he had Jarasandha support, but he always let himself known as ugrasen's son, though he was born when a rakshasa raped his mother. Pandavas earned their empire on their own merit but they were known as Pandavas. Pandu's children. Acknowledging Karna would put a question mark on their mother's charachter and therefore on their paternity.
As per sastras, he too would have been accepted as Pandu's son and Krishn himself tells him so. So no question mark on Kunti's character or Pandav's paternity would have been there.
And for this reason she did not tell her own sons, because they would happily throw away their life for their brother. But she did not want her sons to suffer for her mistake. She did not want Karna to die or any of her son's.
Pandavs would not have thrown away anything for Karn. After learning truth, Yudishtir laments that if Karn and Arjun were both with me, I would have been lord of all worlds. So even if he knew the truth he would not have given up anything.
I am not being a feminist but this is fact of life. Ram and Sita both lived alone for a year but it was Sita who was asked to prove her chastity. No man has ever been questioned for having multiple wives, but Karna called Draupadi bandhaki for marrying five men.
No. I agree you are not being feminist since you dont understand anything about women. Ram lived alone and Sita lived in Lanka with Ravan and Rakshas and that is why she was asked to take agnipariksha to prove. If Ram was ordinary man, he could have accepted her without it but he was king and he had to prove her good name to the world. Karn called her that because it was the written rule of the day. Even Kunti tells Pandu of this when he wants to have more sons after Arjun.
And has any man ever been asked to prove his virginity. But a woman not virgin before marriage is immediately charachterised as unchaste and Why satyawati could acknowledge vyasa because parashara had not abandoned his son like surya. And Ved vyas had gained the respectability in society to protect his mother's honor. Karna had not earned that respectability for Kunti to acknowledge him openly without any consequences
Satyavati told of her relationship to Vyas only in an emergency situation. If Vichithraviry had sons or if Bheeshm had agreed to Niyog she would have kept it secret. Vyas's divinity is what saved her respectability and not Parasar's bringing him up. Karn too was divine with Kavach and Kundal and people would have accepted him and Kunti too. But she simply did not care for him, only for her other five sons.
