The Mahabharata: In the Mahabharata Kunti is considered the epitome of all goodness, an honorable and respectable queen mother to her children the Pancha Pandavas. Yet we fail to see the fact that she is responsible for the birth of her first son Karna, and the pressures of having come from a royal background does not allow her to acknowledge him as her son. How good a mother was she?
She didn’t bring him up, she denied him his experience of having a mother, and to top it all she asked him to use his “Divyastra” just once, hoping that it would miss Arjuna and therefore not take his life. Is discrimination towards children right to the point of taking a life? How do we expect to see Kunti as a good mother through Karna’s eye and yet he held no grudge against her.
Karna is known to be a very noble person in the Mahabharata, and everyone except Dhuryodhana, the so-called most evil person in the story, wronged him. Karna was a great human being and the one and only known threat to Arjuna when it came to archery or when it came to winning the hand of Draupadi. The insult bestowed upon him by Draupadi was one he would never forget. Was it right on her part to publicly insult Karna in a court with full audience during her Swayamwara, on the grounds of his birth? How do we expect to see Draupadi as a noble woman through Karna’s eye?
Now lets take Dhuryodhana, the proclaimed villain in the Mahabharata. He had to fight for the throne since it was not even his fault that his father was a blind king and that questioned his eligibility to the throne. Would you in his position not take objection if such power were denied to you, should you have been the possible heir to the throne of Hasthinapura? Of course you would hate your cousins no matter how noble they were.
In all this chaos, the Pandavas have been the worst sadists when it came to Karna, for they kept referring to his caste, as a charioteer’s son, and that he is not of noble blood. Are Yudhishtira and Arjuna the epitomes of Dharma, when their noble birth only fills them with contempt and fear towards Karna because he is just as good despite being born in a lower caste? (Of course they didn’t know he was their brother but putting down someone on the grounds of birth is just a clear indicator of what pride they had!) And at this moment Dhuryodhana was a good man to make Karna his friend, to acknowledge his presence and respect him as a man of valor. Then why do we consider Dhuryodhana an evil being? There was goodness in him and at no cost was it going to display itself towards the Pandavas. Through all these insults that Karna had to live through, Kunti maintains absolute silence.
Therefore how do we judge goodness? Do we say Karna was wrong because he joined the Kauravas because at that moment between Yudhistira (the epitome of goodness and Dharma) and Dhuryodhana (the most evil), it was Dhuryodhana who stretched out a friendly hand? Now is that not goodness, irrespective of Karna's background?
Or do we say Krishna was good when all the political manipulation took place thanks to his ardent bias towards the Pandavas. He didn’t do things as a mark of goodness; he did politically correct things, which need not be defined as good. And what did Karna do to deserve the fate he finally got! Maybe it is seriously time to start thinking. Karna was the best son of them all!
Disowned by his own mother
Insulted by his own brothers
Respected by so called villains
Wronged by the Lord Himself
A good-natured man sees such fate
When the Lord himself chose not to protect him
Who will believe in Goodness?
When goodness itself is being ignored.
By the very Incarnation of Lord
Who tried to spread goodness in this world.
Karna was indeed the most noble of them all
Such was the ocean of goodness within him
That he gifted it away to the world before he died.
A symbol of perfection
That beats the very Lord Krishna Himself.