Why the Shift??

Hi ji,

As I have been reading the discussions here, and the text experts, there is one distortion I don't understand. It's making mamashri the main bad guy that brought the naash of the Kuru vansh, and giving Karan the role of a mahaan guy wronged by everyone else ji. In BRC, Karan is really great, and projected as a man of his circumstances - being in debt to Duryodhan being his main reason to be on his side. In RS' Shri Krishna, Karan is taken up a few more notches to project his supreme character. Shaukni, on the other hand, is presented as this vile human being who never left Hastinapur and did everything to ruin peace. 

However, in the original, Karan is not a supreme human nor is he solely a man of his circumstances. He was a student of Drona, he was able to get a lot for being a Sutputra - the basis on where much of the sympathy is played in serials. Out of shows I have only watched BRC and RS' Shri Krishna in its' entirety. I also watched Dharmakshetra on Netflix as well, which was fun. However, rest I have watched here and there. Even with that, Shaukni and Karna are more or less characterized similarly. 

My question is that why was there such a huge shift to their characterizations in pop culture? Why is Shaukni presented as the biggest villain, when in reality he was a normal mamashri looking out for his sister's fam jam ji? Whereas Karan, who was much more darker, is given the veil of a pure soul? 

One of my favorite scenes in BRC is the Dyut Sahba. As an adult woman watching it, I do not give any single person, except Vikarna (maybe Vidur? I have a soft spot, perhaps because of BRC?), any right to form any opinion - every single person deserved hell for that moment. To bring it to this topic, when Karan says the line, "apmaan kya aur maan kya", there is no redemption. Only person who could give him any was Draupadi, and he did not apologize to her. So sorry, not sorry ji. For me, this was the final straw in any sympathy I may have had for him from the show.

So why do you think they made these deviations?

Very tangent question - has left me awake at night for years 😂 - why were the Pandavs not considered Kauravs?? Why are Dhritrashtra putras only called this, but Pandu putras not?? If Pandavs are derived from Pandu, why not Dhritravs for Dhritrashtra?? 

Thank you!!!!!!

The first question will draw other answers, so I'll refrain for now.

The 2nd and tangential question. Pandavas are referred to as Kauravas and Kauravya many times in text. Pop culture doesn't do it to keep the narrative simple.

Actually if you see BRC, Shakuni isn't that much of a villain as the later series make him.

Shakuni of BRC is most concerned about his nephew, to make sure that just as his sister had to marry a blind man, and was rejected her right to become the chief wife of the king, his nephew doesn't lose out on becoming the king.

I know Shakuni was very less than this, he actually was some how what Karna in BRC was, counseling Duryodhan against his wrongs but ending up being a part of it, yet he wasn't pure evil. All his actions were just out of love for his sister and nephew

Karna, too although shown as some one rejected, discarded despite being great, wasn't made a super good man like a saint-- He did speak against conspiracies of Shakuni and Duryodhan, but got happy when those were (seemingly) successful, he sarcastically taunted Draupadi on her rejecting a Suta Putra. His actions in Dwit hall weren't reduced either (although he is later shown feeling guilty for it)

So in the nutshell although BRC did try to change the character trait of them, they didn't make them act differently. 

The later shows however made Shakuni the one who is sworn to destroy Kuruvansh and Karna as a saint just there with Duryodhan due to his indebtedness. 

I think the reason is that people like to see the story of a hero who rises from dust and against all odds reaches the top, somehow Karna fitted that narrative. With Karna made a hero they needed someone to provoke Duryodhan everytime and Shakuni was the perfect one for this role

Pandu was a great king, he had got many territories under his reign so his sons felt proud to be called the son of that great Pandu so called themselves Pandavas, they however are referred to as Kauravas many at times but Pandavas is their more personalized collective noun

Dhritrashtra on the other hand didn't have any such qualities, so his sons couldn't add his name with pride in the introduction, so they used their mighty clan name to show their importance, hence used the term Kauravas

Aahh thank you, that totally makes sense. Simplicity does play a role. 

No, I don't see Shakuni as a villain in BRC. Though his ways, and his hand in all the conspiracies - being the main one plotting (when he was not)...I guess that was what I was alluding to ji. When I watch BRC, I don't see a totally wrong or right of the character...well except Dhritrashtra, I can see nothing good after a point. I just find it interesting why the characterization changed. Why not show how his characterization is in the epic? 

I do prefer the BRC version for these characters. I was just watching few clips of Shakuni and Karan in other versions, and the "blackwashing" and "whitewashing" respectively done is interesting; especially after reading more on their characters. So that's why this came to me, why?

I guess you're right, the rise from nothing to everything is inspiring and romanticized. I just feel it does a disservice to the characters of the epic. I feel bad for thinking Shakuni was pure evil growing up until I recently started watching this again, and reading experts 😂. 

Aahh pride to be called your father's son. That makes sense too; pride is a powerful and personal aspect of being.

Thank you!!!

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01111.htm

Here in this link it is written that shakuni  formally gave gandhari  to dhrithrashtra 

So what does here formally mean

It's just figure of speech for arranged marriage. As in she wasn't abducted like Subhadra or put through a contest like Panchali.

Formal mean dikhawa  too  

 Then did shakuni   dhikawa ke liye   dhrithrashtra ko  gandhari di  ? 

And I don't get this logic for  her love and respect to dhrithrashtra   gandhari blind fold herself  ? 

They are several ways to show love and respect  to her husband 

Why she choose to  blind fold herself? 

Btw  gandhari marriage  happen after shakuni   formally gave gandhari to dhrithrashtra 

Formal doesnt mean dikawa or fake. It means formal. Please check Sanskrit version before reaching conclusion.

I am not reaching any conclusion  . I  want to clear my doubt

There are many meanings of formal so I am asking which exact meaning of formal meaning here imples