See , you keep arguing THIS was hyperbole. Perhaps.
Even if the world gives you that, nothing changes the fact Karna did plan and execute
1. poisoning on a child only AFTER WHICH Bheema called him names. What would you do if you came face to face with someone who tried to kill you? Name-calling was probably the least Bheema could do. Trust me, a normal person would be going at the wannabe killer with every weapon. Point out one spot where Bheema or Pandavas attacked Karna, verbally or otherwise, prior to the murder attempt? Bheema had his issues with Kaurava, and when Karna went as far as to try and kill a child, he got called names. THAT was based on his evil deeds, not because he was born a suta.
2. sexual assault on Panchali. He did call her a bandhaki, which doesn't mean unchaste. It means courtesan a.k.a court wh*re. He also told her to pick one of the men to have sex with after which he asked Dusshassan to take her to inner apartments. Surely, even a supporter of Karna can't imagine he meant playing dice in the inner apartment after his comment about intercourse with the other men in the court.
3. his kingdom, Anga, was the centre of sex trafficking for women and children
4. he verbally abused lower castes and women in Shalya Parva.
There is no point of view justification possible for any of this.
Moreover, I'd like you to apply some thought to this: Krishna's comments/offer is a go-to justification for Karna supporters.
1. Krishna was telling Arjuna not to underestimate the enemy which is pretty sound advice. Krishna said the same about Suyodhana. Nowhere does it say Krishna thought well of either villain.
2. Krishna promised Panchali TWICE he'd make sure Karna was dead. So if the offer were accurate, he was lying to Panchali. If the offer were inaccurate, Krishna was lying to Karna. Take a guess who Krishna was lying to. FYI. Krishna tells Arjuna it is perfectly fine to lie to an enemy.
3. if none of this convinces you... Krishna had no legal right to offer empire, let alone Panchali. He was sent as an emissary to negotiate peace, not hand over empire to Karna. As Karna himself admitted and Krishna was shrewd enough to know, Karna's connection to Suyodhana meant the empire would immediately pass to Suyodhana (the legitimacy, I mean, since Kurus already had physical possession).
4. Krishna was not Panchali's father or brother or husband or son to offer her to anyone. He had no legal standing to make that offer.
5. Vedic rules say a younger brother could marry older brother's wife, but not the reverse. Wife of a younger brother is akin to daughter. Panchali was akin to daughter FIVE TIMES OVER for Karna.
I'm sure he was intelligent enough to know all of the above and recognize Krishna's tactics for what they were: psychological warfare.
At the moment of Karna's death, Krishna ripped into him. Now, you say it was instigate Arjuna. You know what would have instigated Arjuna? Reminding him of the son who died only 3 days prior and how Karna was part of the gang which killed him. Krishna didn't mention Abhimanyu (not in CE). He mentioned Panchali twice and Yudhishtira once (there was a 4th reason which I forgot) as justifications for Karna's death sentence.
No, Krishna was nowhere neutral towards Karna. Krishna wanted Karna dead and pulled every trick in the book to make it happen.
Edited by HearMeRoar - 4 years ago
comment:
p_commentcount