Analyzing The Dilemma Of ‘Dharma’

Is loyalty more important than righteousness? Can a man’s tragic circumstances excuse his moral failings? Was Karna’s life one of unrelenting victimhood or a saga of conscious choices, some of which betrayed the very essence of ‘dharma’? The Mahabharata is replete with characters who dwell in the shades of gray, none more so than Karna—the son of Surya, the friend of Duryodhana, and the eternal rival of Arjuna. But can Karna, revered as the “Danveer” (generous giver) and tragic hero, be fully absolved of his actions?

How should we understand Karna’s character in light of his significant role in one of the most harrowing episodes in Indian mythology—the disrobing of Draupadi? Can a man who was pivotal in encouraging and supporting ‘adharma’ (unrighteousness) truly be considered a hero? Or is Karna, with all his virtues and vices, a symbol of the complexity of human nature? Let us unravel the many layers of Karna’s life, his decisions, and his moral ambiguity through a critical lens.

The Court of Dhritarashtra: Karna’s Role in the Humiliation of Draupadi

One of the darkest moments of the Mahabharata is the infamous episode of Draupadi’s disrobing in the court of Hastinapur. As Yudhishthira lost his kingdom, brothers, and eventually Draupadi in a rigged game of dice, Karna—who had long harbored a bitter rivalry against the Pandavas—played a crucial role in escalating the situation. 

It was Karna who not only fueled Duryodhana’s ego but actively instigated him to humiliate Draupadi by disrobing her in front of the royal court. His words, filled with venom and cruelty, referred to Draupadi as a veshya (prostitute), simply because she was married to five men. The derogatory term Karna used was not just an attack on Draupadi’s character, but a denigration of her dignity as a woman. By calling her a “prostitute,” Karna not only degraded Draupadi but also violated the fundamental principles of respect and honor that the Kshatriya code upheld.

What makes this episode particularly striking is Karna’s complete lack of empathy toward Draupadi’s plight. Despite knowing her to be a woman of virtue and strength, he allowed his jealousy toward Arjuna and his loyalty to Duryodhana to cloud his judgment. In this moment, Karna chose his allegiance to Duryodhana over ‘dharma,’ thereby becoming a willing participant in an act of profound ‘adharma.’ This raises the question—can loyalty to a friend justify such unrighteousness?

Karna & Duryodhana: Blind Loyalty to ‘Adharma’

Karna’s unwavering loyalty to Duryodhana is often cited as one of his defining traits. Duryodhana, recognizing Karna’s valor and warrior skills, was the first to accept him wholeheartedly, despite his unknown lineage and apparent inferiority to the royal Kshatriyas. This bond between the two is often seen as a testament to Karna’s loyalty. Yet, this loyalty also became Karna’s greatest flaw.

Karna consistently supported Duryodhana, even when the latter’s actions were undeniably unrighteous. While loyalty to one’s friend is an admirable quality, Karna’s support for Duryodhana during the game of dice and later in the Kurukshetra war was in direct violation of the principles of ‘dharma.’ He not only failed to dissuade Duryodhana from his malevolent ambitions but actively encouraged him toward war.

Throughout the Mahabharata, Karna serves as Duryodhana’s trusted lieutenant, but in doing so, he implicitly condones the unjust means by which Duryodhana seeks to claim the throne. In supporting Duryodhana’s cause, Karna’s actions contribute to the downfall of an entire dynasty. This complicity in ‘adharma’ cannot be overlooked in any analysis of Karna’s character. Could a true hero stand by and support such a malicious ambition?

Disrespect for Bhishma: Ego over Wisdom

Karna’s ego often led him to clash with the wisest and most revered figures of the Mahabharata. One such figure was Bhishma, the patriarch of the Kuru dynasty and the commander of Duryodhana’s army in the initial days of the war. Bhishma, who was bound by his vow to serve the throne of Hastinapur, refused to include Karna in his ranks until the day he fell in battle, openly expressing his disdain for Karna’s conduct and values.

Karna’s resentment toward Bhishma was evident. He insulted Bhishma, questioning his abilities and judgment, and withdrew from the battlefield in a display of wounded pride. While Bhishma represented wisdom, restraint, and adherence to ‘dharma,’ Karna’s disrespect for him demonstrated a certain arrogance that often clouded his better judgment. A true hero, one could argue, would have recognized Bhishma’s authority and wisdom, rather than allowing his personal vendetta to influence his actions.

The Death of Abhimanyu: Karna’s Complicity in ‘Adharma’

Another critical moment that casts a long shadow on Karna’s moral character is his role in the killing of Abhimanyu, the young and valiant son of Arjuna. On the thirteenth day of the Kurukshetra war, Abhimanyu was trapped in the Chakravyuha formation—a military strategy he could enter but not escape. Karna, along with other Kaurava warriors, attacked Abhimanyu from behind, breaking his bow and violating the very rules of dharma yuddha (righteous warfare).

The attack on Abhimanyu was a collective failure of morality, and Karna was deeply complicit in this treacherous act. His participation in the ambush, where Abhimanyu was overwhelmed and killed in an unfair fight, highlights a profound lapse in his moral compass. In that moment, Karna, the warrior who prided himself on valor and honor, abandoned the principles of righteous warfare for tactical gain.

Desertion & Cowardice: Karna’s Faltering Loyalty in Crisis

While Karna’s loyalty to Duryodhana has been lauded, there were instances where Karna’s actions contradicted this image. During Duryodhana’s infamous encounter with the Gandharva king Chitrasena, Karna, along with the other Kaurava warriors, abandoned Duryodhana in the battlefield, leaving him to be captured. This episode reveals Karna’s vulnerability—his inability to stand by his friend during a moment of peril.

Similarly, during the Virata war, when Arjuna single-handedly defeated the Kaurava forces disguised as a eunuch, Karna retreated from battle, unable to match Arjuna’s skill. Even in the Kurukshetra war, Karna’s battle with Bhima saw him falter. Despite his famed prowess as a warrior, Karna’s repeated retreats raise questions about his courage under pressure and the authenticity of his loyalty to Duryodhana.

A Hero or a Villain: The Dilemma of Karna’s Legacy

Karna’s life is a testament to the complexity of human nature. He was undoubtedly a figure of immense courage and generosity. His generosity was legendary—he never refused alms to anyone, not even when it cost him his life. However, his tragic loyalty to Duryodhana, his complicity in ‘adharma,’ and his repeated acts of cruelty and betrayal complicate his legacy. He was a man torn between his virtues and vices, his loyalty to his friend and his duty to ‘dharma.’

Can we consider Karna a hero simply because of his generosity and courage, or must we also take into account his transgressions? Was his loyalty to Duryodhana admirable, or did it blind him to the unrighteousness of his actions? And does his tragic life—born out of rejection, bound by promises, and mired in rivalry—excuse his moral failings?

The story of Karna leaves us with an enduring question: Is a man defined by his circumstances, or by the choices he makes? Was Karna a victim of fate or an architect of his downfall? His actions, though driven by loyalty and pride, often veered into the realm of ‘adharma,’ making it difficult to classify him purely as a hero. But can he be entirely condemned as a villain, given the complexities of his life and motivations?

The Mahabharata, with all its grandeur and moral depth, forces us to grapple with the ambiguity of human nature. And Karna, more than any other character, embodies this ambiguity. So, in the end, we are left with the question—was Karna a tragic ‘hero’ or a ‘villain’ who betrayed the very principles of righteousness?

The answer lies not in black or white, but in the endless shades of gray that define the human experience. What do ‘you’ think?