Originally posted by: Bhavaani
There is A LOT of debate on this matter. He was a king and an ally to Hastinapur so there is no question about him not being invited. He was a great warrior - but he definitely didn't win all of his battles e.g Gandharvas in Vana Parva, Virat war.
The point is that the comment was entirely uncalled for. Karna was not a part of the Kuru family at that time and regardless had no right to pass judgement on Draupadi (even if she had called him a Suta Putra). It's no different to me saying I won't marry a Lawyer or Carpenter. Male ego has a lot to answer for in Mahabharat
I think serials and movies have glorified Karna more than he was in the epic. Karna was no doubt a great warrior and had more good qualities than the Kauravas. He was a great daan veer and for that his character should be respected. However, he did not win all his battles. He was not Lord Ram in archery. He was a normal human being, a talented one without doubt, but he was no God to never miss his target. He lost a few battles in his lifetime, but they are either never shown or distorted in serials/movies. I don't understand this generation's craze over Karna, when his character in the epic is so different from what is shown in television.
Even if Draupadi did call him Suta Putra, it is no justification for him to have her disrobed later on. The "suta putra" and "andhe ke putra" comments may or may not be an interpolation. We will never know. But even if they are not, they are no justification for what happened. How can one compare name calling to molestation? The sad part is that even today, in this so-called progressive society, some people think Karna and Duryodhan were justified for their behavior because of what Draupadi called them. 🤢 It's really sad that such thinking still exists.
Another argument I hate is how all blame is put on Pandavas. I agree they share the blame for the disrobing also. A spectator is also guilty for a crime along with the perpetrator, but just because a spectator is silent does not erase the perpetrator's crime. Just because the Pandavas stayed silent does not mean the Kauravas had any right to abuse Draupadi. Even if they considered her a servant, doesn't a servant woman also deserve respect? It's wrong to treat servants in such a manner also, so none of the Kauravas (or their fans') arguments hold any validity.
comment:
p_commentcount