Who was to blame? Kunti, or others as well?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Poll

Who do you think was responsible for Karna's lifelong pain?

Frequent Posters

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 9 years ago

#11

Interesting question...

Its easy to spread the blame - probably it should start with Shantanu or Bhishma (who could have just split the kingdom between himself and his to-be-born brothers instead of taking that oath - I am personally not blaming him and respect his decisions, just saying that the consequences of his actions were quite severe).

Kunti can also take a share of the blame - it was she who foolishly tried out the mantra (she could have done that after marriage, it wouldn't have been a big deal, then) and let go of Karna. And I perfectly agree that she failed her duties as Karna's mother. Not only did she seek out Karna for the sake of the Pandavas but also revealing the truth about his birth at that juncture would have weakened Karna terribly (at least morally if not physically or mentally).

She could have told the world that she found him in the river and her father could have accepted him as a son. With the earrings and shield Karna was born with, it was clear that he was of divine origin. No one would have objected to the king raising such a son as his own.

Or she could have ordered her five sons to accept Karna as a brother or not to insult him or bring him to their side just like Duryodhan did. Her sons would never have refused her. Perhaps, they couldn't have crowned Karna as king of any country but having such brothers and a mother would have been more than enough for him. Agreed, she might have faced some trouble but its something she could have handled.

I do understand that she was scared of the society insulting her but rather than being afraid of it all, she could have taken some sort of responsibility or asked someone for guidance - some sage might have guided her or accepted her son into his hermitage. Karna being raised as a brahmin wouldn't have been bad (Parasurama's curse might have still worked in this case but if this had happened, I doubt if Karna would have been tutored by Parasurama).

Not sure if Pandu would have accepted a son born before his marriage with Kunti but he was desperate for a son and may have taken him in.

So, the society is to blame? Perhaps but the society and laws are what the people and the king make, so pointing at someone to take the blame here would be too vague.

I don't find any fault with Surya. He was bound by the mantra. He blessed the boy with his protection and even guided him (if I am not mistaken, it was Surya who had guided him to be generous and even warned Karna that Indra might come after his armour and earrings). Agreed that Surya could have declared that the boy was his son but probably chose to remain silent for Kunti's sake. People may or may not have been nosy as to who is mother was if he was declared to be Surya's son but being the son of a God was enough to secure a status. But according to the rules of Niyoga, the biological father does not claim any relationship to the child, if I am not mistaken.

As for Krishna, he just chose to remain silent till the end but I still can't find fault with him. Yes, Krishna knew and he could have instructed Kunti and Pandavas to accept Karna or befriend him. Else he could have prevented Draupadi from insulting Karna. Had Karna married Draupadi, things would have been different. I agree he had his own reasons and played a major role in leading everyone towards the war but somehow, his actions don't seem to be wrong even though there are a lots I don't understand.

To me, the major fault lies with Karna himself. Despite him being insulted and rejected due to his caste, he did have a good life. He was educated by Parashurama, had a good wife and strong, brave sons. Had he stuck to righteous ideals and not blindly become Duryodhan's sidekick, he wouldn't have been so miserable. He himself craved recognition he didn't need. All he needed to do was be patient. His divinity, skills and courage would have spoken for him someday or the other. I agree that its natural to want recognition when a person has the skills and its extremely frustrating to be rejected like he was and it does seem like I can comment easily on this but the pain would have been known only to him, but he made the choice to follow Duryodhan and be a part of all his treachery. It was his choice and he caused his own misery. He could have won over countries and kings by himself - he did not need to be the King of Anga for that. Agreed, he might have been turned down saying that he was of a low caste but any true kshathrya would have accepted his challenge as he was Parashuram's student and had a divine armour and earrings.

Therefore, I choose Karna himself as the sole reason for his misery. In my opinion, no matter what we are given or denied, our own hard work and skills would speak for itself. In wanting recognition so badly, I feel that Karna denied his own talents, rights and pride.

Edited by Vibhishna - 9 years ago

Quote

ltelidevara

@ltelidevara

Sparkler

+ 8

Posted: 9 years ago

#12

Even if all the ethical argument is dismissed, Surya had to have known the laws------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kunti did not beget Karna through Niyoga. The laws of Niyoga won't apply here. Niyoga applies when a widow seeks children through the brother of her husband who was no more. Ved Vyasa got Dhritarashtra and Pandu and Vidura by Ambika and Ambalika through Niyoga. But Suryadeva did not follow Niyoga. It is the mantra that forced him to grace Kunti a son. As for Dharma Indra Vayu and Aswins not taking the responsibility of Pandavas it is a different case . Pandu willingly got sons by Kunti with the help of that mantra. Kunti was not alone here. She had her husband's support. After Pandu's death Bheeshma took their responsibility . So Surya Deva could support Kunti by taking the responsibility of Karna. He himself can entrust him to any sage or a Kshatriya if he wants. So more than Kunti he is responsible for Karna becoming a Suta . And Draupadi never refused Karna's participation. She did not intervene. BORI and many versions including Dakshinatya version support this. As for Kunti going to Karna to save her sons it can be the other way round also. Karna was defeated by Arjuna after the Swayamvar and in Virat War.Even Bheema out powered him in Kutukshetra. So if she is worried for her five sons she is equally worried for Karna also. So either way Kunti can not be blamed at all.As for Karna even after knowing the truth he was not shown like emotionally bound or something like that. The Epic never showed that if we do not go by the wrong depiction of SIDT in Star B and SPK.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Chiillii

@Chiillii

Navigator

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

#13

@ Vrish.

Kunti giving up Karna at the time of his birth and revealing him the truth before war are two separate situations. People take them both together and paint her responsible for causing him life long misery.

Both are separate incidents

1. When Karna was born she was a young naive girl, she had no real understanding of politics of the real brutal world. When she tells Karna the truth before the war the she is an old woman who though born a princess had lived a very hard life with few fleeting years of happiness. A woman who had learned by then that survival demands sacrifices. So for the sake of her 5 children whom she loved she chose to sacrifice one she had never been a mother to.

In the first situation the decision was not hers to make. In the second she decided to do it, and she is clear on that front why, she wanted her five children to live happily and peacefully after winning the war, even if it meant psychologically manipulating Karna. She did give him an option to be with his brothers. He chose not to I repeat he chose not to.

2 like you said Karna's miseries were created by himself.

And again pls don't make what surya and Kunti did as niyog. It was not niyog. It was more like Gandharva vivah. Here the responsibility was solely surya's. He did not have to tell anyone who the mother was. No one cared in that era who the mother was they only cared about who the father was. Rishi Gautam's grandson Shardwan had kripacharya and Kripi with some apsara he did not want to raise them. So when shantanu found them on the road and took them with him, he went to shantanu acknowledged them as his children did their birth rites and left them with shantanu and went on his way.

Rishi Bhardwaj simply announced Dronacharya as pot born.

Uparichara Vasu also had twins he chose to take the son with him and made him king of Matsya, but he didn't want the daughter Satyawati so he gave him to fisherman chief dasaraj after acknowledging that he is the father.

Surya could have acknowledged Karna when Adirath found him, and did his rites as a Kshatriya and left him in adirath's care. No one would care to ask who the mother is.

Devas who fathered pandavas also acknowledged their sons as Mantra born through them for niyog to Pandu

Dhritarashtra acknowledged Yuyutsu

Niyog or Gandharwa vivah or any kind of union between man and woman Dwapar yug laws gave the responsibility of acknowledging the child to the man. The woman had no rights over the child so she had no responsibility over it either.

As for as Kunti was concerned Karna was a painful chapter and a reminder of a mistake. Surya says let him go my kavach Kundal will take care of him and she does move on with her life. And he had his own happy life.

Whatever Karna got in his life were a result of his own actions.

Acknowledgement by Kunti will not mean anything. Only if surya or Pandu acknowledged him he would be deemed a Kshatriya. She asked surya, he didn't, when she married Pandu she chose not to tell him. Karna by then had already been adopted and all his rights been done as a suta. Bheeshma explains this as well a child once adopted belongs to the man who adopted him. Others cannot claim him after that.

Edited by Adishakti - 9 years ago

Quote

amritat

@amritat

Sparkler

Posted: 9 years ago

#14

I have a few questions here...

Firstly...is there any written rule that says a God has no role to play in his boon-child's life like in some other scripture or is it just a conclusion drawn from similar other scenarios like the Pandavas?

I mean...is there any strict norm regarding this...or is it just a conclusion that is drawn by observing similar scenarios?

Secondly...are the rules different for Gods and Goddesses?

Please correct me if I am wrong but Goddess Ganga had taken away Bhishma and brought him up.

It was only after he had attained maturity that She had given him back to Shantanu.

So She did play a very important n significant role in Bhishma's life.

However...wen it comes to the Gods...like Surya...they seem to be exempted from any kind of blame or responsibilty. So my question again...are the rules different for Gods and Goddesses?

Quote

Chiillii

@Chiillii

Navigator

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

#15

No Amrita

rules were same for everyone. Like I said acknowledging Karna as Kshatriya was something only surya could do or pandu or yudhishtir as emperor and son of Pandu. Woman was a property then woman did not acknowledge anything. Ganga only raised Bheeshma. He was acknowledged as a Kshatriya once shantanu accepted him as his son.

Surya had the same four options

1. acknowledge Karna and raise him himself

2. acknowledge him and give him to another Kshatriya to raise

3. Acknowledge Karna as his son and Kunti as his wife and leave Karna with Kunti at kuntibhoja

4. abandon him on the river and when somebody found him (Adirath) acknowledge him then

All the four options would have ensure Karna was a Kshatriya and except option 3 nobody would have to be told who the mother was

But he chose to abandon Karna without his name. He deemed Karna to be a suta not Kunti. Till Adirath adopted Karna as suta responsibility was solely surya's to declare him Kshatriya as Kunti was not married. after adopted as suta it was pointless as adoption cannot be revoked.

Kunti bhoja as a king may have adopted him but before adoption he wud have to declare in the ceremony where he got the child from and who is the father. (Not who is the mother). If it's an abandoned child then it is declared as god's / nature's child and then adopted. Adoption is like a Dan. Somebody has to give it for the other person to take. And once given cannot be taken back. So surya could give him as donation to Kunti bhoj or Adirath or Mother Nature.

but as soon as Kunti tells kuntibhoja the honorable thing for kuntibhoja would be to ask surya to acknowledge him. And if he disagrees fight with him for the sake of his daughters honor. And where wud that lead to.

It was the same situation with dushyanta shakuntala and Rishi kanva. For Rishi kanva the gods intervened and told dushyanta to accept Bharat as his son. Wud they have intervened for kuntibhoja against surya.

Edited by Adishakti - 9 years ago

Quote

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 9 years ago

#16

I don't think it was Gandharva Vivah, which usually happens with mutual consent. If both the man and woman like each other and accept each other, its Gandharva Vivah, right? I don't know much about it, though...

But Surya was called there by the mantra. He didn't come over because he was in love with Kunti. I think at that moment, he had done enough by blessing Karna with his armour and earrings. Later on, seeing his son's prowess his affections could have increased, still Karna chose to side with Duryodhan. Besides, I think, Kunti (and/or her husband) had to bear the responsibility of raising the child as she is the one who chanted the mantra which was meant to be chanted when she so desired a son and was willing to raise him.

As for Dushyanta and Shakuntala, both of them were in love already and he too knew that Bharata was his son. But in Kunti's case, she wasn't going to be accepted by Surya as his wife.

In the case of Sathyavathi, Rishi Parashara took Vyasa with him and begot him of her because he wanted a son and was willing to take responsibility.

Agreed, Kunti was a child at that time and didn't know what to do, but she could have adopted him later when Karna first appeared in Hastinapur. She was scared then too.

But I still think Karna was to blame. He could have given up his own kingdom and gone against Duryodhan instead of blindly agreeing to whatever his friend said. I don't think Duryodhan would have liked him so much had he not supported his every move and did not have the skill to fight the Pandavas. I wholeheartedly accept that he was a great person, a great warrior and a very generous person but his pursuit of recognition and his blindness to Duryodhan's faults became his downfall. It may not have been his intentions but in the end it kind of gives a message that he turned a blind eye to all the dishonourable acts just for the sake of keeping his position and recognition offered by Duryodhan. He could have just sought out some king or general and proved his prowess and employed himself under a person who accepted him. If he had asked Bheeshma, he could have been accepted. Had he reached Drupad, he would have gladly done so (but again, I think its almost like employing himself under Duryodhan but I think his life would have been much better.)

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 9 years ago

#17

Kunti abandoning Karna when he was born was fine. Issue I've raised is that b/w that time, and the time she approached him like a beggar, there were a lot of opportunities (until Draupadi's humiliation) to straighten things out. For instance, she had countless number of moments w/ just her sons. Like on the night of the Rangbhoomi, she could have sent for Karna & Adiratha, told them who Karna really was, told her sons the truth as well and got them united. Karna could have returned Anga to Dury and joined the Pandavas: he didn't have to be beholden to Dury.

That was just one opportunity. As is well known, the Pandavas ruled Indraprastha for 36 years. During that time, contrary to what the current twisted serials show, Kunti did live in Indraprastha - she was there to welcome Subhadra. So Kunti could have taken Yudhi into confidence, and brought about a reconciliation b/w Karna & her other 5 sons.

Real fact is that she didn't care about him. Even at the time she decided to approach him, it was purely for selfish reasons: she assumed that she just had to reveal to him his identity and he'd feel dutybound to support her, regardless of the fact that she had done nothing for him. That's what riles Karna fans: nobody is bellyaching that Karna otherwise had a wretched life. When she could have done things for him, she didn't, and only at the 11th hour did she approach him - not asking him to spare her sons, as he granted, but to switch sides & join her sons.

I never said that Karna's miseries were created by himself. Like you or someone else said, he didn't have a miserable life. Other than being often reminded that he was a suta. But claiming that Kunti was like a Sita is absolute hogwash.

Also, Surya & Kunti didn't undergo Niyoga - but like the opportunities she missed w/ her sons above, she also missed the opportunity to tell Pandu about Karna. Particularly since she had spies shadow him from the time she floated him away to... forever. When Pandu was cursed, that was a perfect opportunity to tell him about Karna. While there is a small chance that he may have spurned her since he had Madri as well, his #1 pressing need was sons, and Kunti giving him this option may have overjoyed him.

Again, Surya couldn't have done a thing for Karna on earth, since he was not a mortal. Only Pandu could have, but for that to happen, he'd have had to know about it. Kunti didn't want to tell him, since she didn't give a you-know-what about Karna. Only reason Karna became important to her at all was when the war was impeding, and she wanted her sons to be strengthened.

The only time Kunti genuinely regretted what she had done to Karna was when she was about to leave for the forest w/ Dhritarashtra & Gandhari, and where she told her sons that had she revealed everything, Karna wouldn't have been so resentful of them. By then, it was all water under the bridge

Originally posted by: Adishakti
@ Vrish.
Kunti giving up Karna at the time of his birth and revealing him the truth before war are two separate situations. People take them both together and paint her responsible for causing him life long misery.

Both are separate incidents

1. When Karna was born she was a young naive girl, she had no real understanding of politics of the real brutal world. When she tells Karna the truth before the war the she is an old woman who though born a princess had lived a very hard life with few fleeting years of happiness. A woman who had learned by then that survival demands sacrifices. So for the sake of her 5 children whom she loved she chose to sacrifice one she had never been a mother to.

In the first situation the decision was not hers to make. In the second she decided to do it, and she is clear on that front why, she wanted her five children to live happily and peacefully after winning the war, even if it meant psychologically manipulating Karna. She did give him an option to be with his brothers. He chose not to I repeat he chose not to.

2 like you said Karna's miseries were created by himself.

And again pls don't make what surya and Kunti did as niyog. It was not niyog. It was more like Gandharva vivah. Here the responsibility was solely surya's. He did not have to tell anyone who the mother was. No one cared in that era who the mother was they only cared about who the father was. Rishi Gautam's grandson Shardwan had kripacharya and Kripi with some apsara he did not want to raise them. So when shantanu found them on the road and took them with him, he went to shantanu acknowledged them as his children did their birth rites and left them with shantanu and went on his way.

Rishi Bhardwaj simply announced Dronacharya as pot born.

Uparichara Vasu also had twins he chose to take the son with him and made him king of Matsya, but he didn't want the daughter Satyawati so he gave him to fisherman chief dasaraj after acknowledging that he is the father.

Surya could have acknowledged Karna when Adirath found him, and did his rites as a Kshatriya and left him in adirath's care. No one would care to ask who the mother is.

Devas who fathered pandavas also acknowledged their sons as Mantra born through them for niyog to Pandu

Dhritarashtra acknowledged Yuyutsu

Niyog or Gandharwa vivah or any kind of union between man and woman Dwapar yug laws gave the responsibility of acknowledging the child to the man. The woman had no rights over the child so she had no responsibility over it either.

As for as Kunti was concerned Karna was a painful chapter and a reminder of a mistake. Surya says let him go my kavach Kundal will take care of him and she does move on with her life. And he had his own happy life.
Whatever Karna got in his life were a result of his own actions.

Acknowledgement by Kunti will not mean anything. Only if surya or Pandu acknowledged him he would be deemed a Kshatriya. She asked surya, he didn't, when she married Pandu she chose not to tell him. Karna by then had already been adopted and all his rights been done as a suta. Bheeshma explains this as well a child once adopted belongs to the man who adopted him. Others cannot claim him after that.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 9 years ago

#18

Ganga in this epic was not a goddess - she was cursed to be born a human for the incident w/ Mahabhish. It was during that time that the Vasus wanted her to liberate them, and so she did that. For Devaratta, she had him taught by Parashurama (still can't get over him agreeing to teach a Kshatriya), returned him to Shantanu when he was ready, and then left for good - her human curse was over. There is nothing in the epic of her ever again having any interactions w/ Bheeshma - those were BRC inventions.

Originally posted by: amritat
I have a few questions here...
Firstly...is there any written rule that says a God has no role to play in his boon-child's life like in some other scripture or is it just a conclusion drawn from similar other scenarios like the Pandavas?
I mean...is there any strict norm regarding this...or is it just a conclusion that is drawn by observing similar scenarios?

Secondly...are the rules different for Gods and Goddesses?
Please correct me if I am wrong but Goddess Ganga had taken away Bhishma and brought him up.
It was only after he had attained maturity that She had given him back to Shantanu.
So She did play a very important n significant role in Bhishma's life.

However...wen it comes to the Gods...like Surya...they seem to be exempted from any kind of blame or responsibilty. So my question again...are the rules different for Gods and Goddesses?

No, if a god had a mortal son, his responsibility only began after the death of that son. Not only did Karna go to Surya after he was killed, but Bhima went to Pavan & Nakul/Sahadev went to the Ashwin twins. Yudisthir & Arjun - since they lived such perfect lives - got to stay w/ Vishnu - didn't have to go to Yamaraj or Indra.

While Indra & Surya did try to help their sons a bit - Indra by depriving Karna of his kavach-kundalas and Surya warning Karna of the same thing, they didn't go beyond that.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 9 years ago

#19

No, Surya dev was not a mortal. In devalok, everyone knew that Karna was his son: on earth, only a handful of people did. Nobody knew that the Pandavas were sons of the devas either. Only difference - while Pandu authorized the birth of the Pandavas, Kunti never told him of Karna, or else, Karna would have been a Kanina son of Pandu. But Pandu would have had to know of it i.e. Kunti would have had to tell him.

Also, Kunti had an elaborate spy network to track Karna. She could just as easily have arranged for him to be given to the king of any friendly kingdom to be adopted, and he would have had all the rights of a Kshatriya, just like the Pandavas did.

Bottom line - she didn't care!!!

Originally posted by: Adishakti
No Amrita
rules were same for everyone. Like I said acknowledging Karna as Kshatriya was something only surya could do or pandu or yudhishtir as emperor and son of Pandu. Woman was a property then woman did not acknowledge anything. Ganga only raised Bheeshma. He was acknowledged as a Kshatriya once shantanu accepted him as his son.

Surya had the same four options
1. acknowledge Karna and raise him himself
2. acknowledge him and give him to another Kshatriya to raise
3. Acknowledge Karna as his son and Kunti as his wife and leave Karna with Kunti at kuntibhoja
4. abandon him on the river and when somebody found him (Adirath) acknowledge him then

All the four options would have ensure Karna was a Kshatriya and except option 3 nobody would have to be told who the mother was

But he chose to abandon Karna without his name. He deemed Karna to be a suta not Kunti. Till Adirath adopted Karna as suta responsibility was solely surya's to declare him Kshatriya as Kunti was not married. after adopted as suta it was pointless as adoption cannot be revoked.

Kunti bhoja as a king may have adopted him but before adoption he wud have to declare in the ceremony where he got the child from and who is the father. (Not who is the mother). If it's an abandoned child then it is declared as god's / nature's child and then adopted. Adoption is like a Dan. Somebody has to give it for the other person to take. And once given cannot be taken back. So surya could give him as donation to Kunti bhoj or Adirath or Mother Nature.

but as soon as Kunti tells kuntibhoja the honorable thing for kuntibhoja would be to ask surya to acknowledge him. And if he disagrees fight with him for the sake of his daughters honor. And where wud that lead to.

It was the same situation with dushyanta shakuntala and Rishi kanva. For Rishi kanva the gods intervened and told dushyanta to accept Bharat as his son. Wud they have intervened for kuntibhoja against surya.

Quote

ltelidevara

@ltelidevara

Sparkler

+ 8

Posted: 9 years ago

#20

No, Surya dev was not a mortal. In devalok, everyone knew that Karna was his son: on earth, only a handful of people did. Nobody knew that the Pandavas were sons of the devas either. Only difference - while Pandu authorized the birth of the Pandavas--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Every one knew the origin of Pandavas. The Rishis brought them to Hastinapur and immediately revealed their birth stories before Dhritarashtra Bheeshma and the citizens. And Ganga never took birth as a human. She is cursed to spend sometime on the earth thats all and Vasus requested her to liberate them.

Quote

1 2 3 4

Who was to blame? Kunti, or others as well? - Page 2

Poll

Related Topics

Explore Topics