Karnamania

[I have no clue if I have actually managed to convey what I wanted to convey through this piece. So please feel free to comment if some part doesn't make sense.]

I am going to deviate a little, a lot actually, from what I have been writing about and focus on something I have been pretty much obsessed with for the past few days. It's not an actual person, or well, he might have been an actual person at some point in time. But I stumbled upon a book written on his life and then yet another book and then an actual television series, all of which fed my obsession about his character which has finally culminated in me trying to put to writing my thoughts about him. Let me not keep you guys waiting any longer- the man I am talking about is 'Karna'. Yes, the famous anti-hero (hero?) from the Indian epic, Mahabharata, Karna.

Now, I am definitely not the first person who has been deeply fascinated by his character. But what is it about him that inexplicably draws people to him inspite of the epic otherwise brimming with ostensible heroes. It is only logical that the first person who comes to mind when one thinks about Karna is Arjuna, the hero (anti-hero? He was the reason, even if not intentionally and definitely not explicitly, for Eklavya losing his thumb and Karna's repeated humiliation.) of the epic-both brilliant archers, both born of the same mother and yet destined to hate each other till the hatred ultimately consumes one. Arjuna was the blessed one, even gods went out of their way to help him and Karna was the cursed one, cursed three times over for actions done in good faith- Arjuna, the ostensible egomaniac, and Karna, with the chronic low self esteem-Arjuna, on the side of virtue, and Karna, the virtuous one, for yes, there is a difference between the two. In a nutshell, with everything favouring Arjuna, why has Karna's character been the fountainhead of extensive literature, and extensive speculation? Is it because he is the eternal tragic hero-a man of noble origins and strong principles who was destined to suffer in life with death being the only liberator and the horrible romance associated with such a situation? Or is it because he, inspite of siding with the 'evil' was the only one who did not indulge in treachery and unnecessary unkindness? Detractors will immediately point at his role in Draupadi's 'vastraharan' or his participation in the brutal murder of Arjuna's 16 year old son Abhimanyu. This, I think, forms the very crux of the epic that is Mahabharata-the fact that all of it's characters are grey.

What, then, is special about Karna? I have always thought that the characters of Karna and Arjuna are both startlingly similar. It is not difficult to envisage a situation where, if, the life situations of Karna and Arjuna are reversed, they would act in the exact same way. The fact that we have a very clear image of how Karna's life would have been had he been rightfully recognized by Kunti makes the magnitude of his misfortunes even more stark. And therein, I believe, lies the draw to Karna's character as empathy for Karna is ultimately our way of dealing with our own life situations, of consoling ourselves by putting the blame of our failures on the wrongdoing of others. But wasn't that also the ultimate reason for Karna's downfall? Didn't his staunch belief that all his misfortunes were the consequences of other peoples actions ultimately prevent him from taking responsibility for his own transgressions? Questions to which there can be so many possible answers all of which serve to compound the one undeniable truth-One person's story is never only his own-and therein lies the paradox for Karna, saintly as he is, is not faultless and that is what strikes a chord with all his admirers.