Why did Karna fail ?

Karna fails to live up to his potential in the Mahabharata.
He could have been great, but, everytime he opens his mouth in the epic tale, he fails to impress. 

A lot of people feel a great deal of sympathy for Karna and excuse all his insults to Pandavas and Draupadi based on the fact that he was abandoned at birth and that Draupadi along with the Pandavas kept calling him Suta-putra.

Lets look at some facts –

Being abandoned is no excuse for being mean to others –
Lots of people in the Mahabharta were abandoned at a young age – Bhishma, Kunti, Krushna, Krupa & Krupi, Vyasa etc.

Bhishma had a murderous mother, absent father whom he didn’t see till he was a teenager, gave up his right to life, wife or family for sake of his father, ineffectual brothers, quarrelsome grand-nephews and a king who was blind – physically, mentally and spiritually. He didn’t complain.  He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.

Kunti was adopted and sent away to live away from her family.  She was asked to serve the madcap Durvasamuni who no one else could tolerate, had an accidental encounter with a divine being resulting in a child she had to abandon – as countless teenagers have done before and since.  She was married to an anaemic man, was widowed young and saddled with the twins of her co-wife, had to live as a “dependant” in the hostile environment of Kuru court, assassination attempts were made, had to suffer hardships to regain her status as a queen mother, lost it all due to a son addicted to gambling, lost all her grandsons.  She didn’t complain.  She made the best of the bad situation and carried on.

Krushna was abandoned at birth, threatened with near death experiences many times over, was saddled with quarrelsome relatives, countless wives, strong headed sons and much more. He didn’t complain.  He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.

Krupacharya and Krupi were also abandoned at birth. They didn’t complain.  They made the best of the bad situation and carried on.

Krushna-Dvaipayan-Vyasa was also abandoned at birth by his mother, reared by his forest dwelling father and went through plenty of other hardships. He didn’t complain.  He made the best of the bad situation and carried on.

Karna was abandoned at birth. So – big deal.  Lots of others were too.  They got on with it.  None of them persecuted good people in favour bad people.  None of them called a queen a whore and asked her to be stripped in public.

Lack of teachers –
Karna and his supporters often claim that Karna had no choice but to lie in order to get a good education – education worthy of his talent.  They claim that the whole system of ashrams and gurukuls was rigged against those of the lower caste.

So Parashurama and Drona were unwilling to teach Karna for their own ideological reasons.  Karna could have gone to other teachers who were not so strict and they would have taught him.  Krushna went to Sandipani rishi’s ashram where brahmins and vaishyas were taught vedas side by side. I am sure he would have accepted a suta too.  He could have asked Shiva, who was always generous with his teachings.  Why did he not ask his divine father Surya to teach him ?  Karna’s desire for learning was not learning sake.  He wanted to show off his skills and prove he was better than his peers.  Once he achieved the status of a “king”, he didn’t bother to learn any more.  He stagnated because his desire for learning was induced by pride and not wisdom. 

Suta Putra –
The main reason Karna supporters cite for his pathological hatred for Pandavas and Draupadi – especially Draupadi, is because they called him Suta-putra..

In those days, everyone – EVERYONE – was given a name that told you their jati or parentage. Krushna was called a cowherd, Vidur dasi-putra, Dharatarashtras for being sons of Dhurtarashtra, Pandavas for being sons of Pandu etc. It was not an insult, it was simply the way people addressed each other in those days.

Even now, your surname tells people where you came from, what job your ancestors may have done, what honours they may have earned etc. This is the same in the east as west – hence you have plenty of Patels, Shahs, Trivedi, Singh, Hajji, Gazi, Yamin, Khan, Smith, Knight, Huntley, MacMillan, Cohen, Levi etc. So when you call a CEO of a financial company “Mr Smith” – are you insulting him by reminding him his father was a blacksmith ?  Ofcourse not !  It is a term of reference as to who he is.  Suta-putra was a term of reference as to who Karna was brought up as.

People often say that just because Draupadi chose not to marry Karna, she was too haughty and too proud.  Why presume that ?  Draupadi first saw Karna at the svayamvar.  As a princess, at her svayamwar, she was given the chance to choose who she marries.  She chose not to become a Mrs Suta. She didn’t like that surname.  Her choice.  She was entitled to it !  As a young woman, she chose not to marry the haughty Karna who thought the world owed him for being wrongly called a suta-putra !  Maybe she didn’t like the way he looked. Maybe she didn’t like what she heard about him from others. Her friends would have given her the “bio-data - resume” of all the suitors at the svayamvar for sure. Remember – Karna was there when the Kauravas tried to conquer Panchal and were defeated and maybe she didn’t like what she heard about him from that war. 

When you were looking for a wife, if your relatives tried to arrange a “meeting” and the woman rejected you – for whatever reason – would you take it out on her years later by asking the people of your building to strip her and incite them to rape her just because she turned you down all those years ago ? Or would you take it out on a girl who refused to dance with you at a college party or refused to share a bus seat with you because she didn’t like the way you were looking at her – or whatever her reasons for rejecting your advances ?

To feel the “insult” of the svayamwar years later and to take it out on her by saying – strip her in public and ask her to sit on your naked thigh – is way below what a man of honour would do.

कुलेन प्रसुतेन हस्त पद्मम, अकुलेन प्रसुतेन ल्लारसिंगम l
यदा यदा मुच्यते वाक्यबाणं, तदा तदा जाती कुल प्रमाणं ll 

For all his generosity and valor in the battle field, Karna was rude, crude and insolent.  He was always interrupting elders and other advisers in the Kuru court.  His sense of “injured pride” stopped him from supporting the war effort while Bhishma pitamaha was heading the army as its commander.  His personal ego was so huge, he could not let anyone else take the honour of beating Pandavas !  If the elders called him Suta-putra, he certainly wasn’t taking it lying down, he called them plenty of demeaning names including impotent, eunuch, traitors and worse.  Even by today’s standards, such open insult of elders and seniors would be insolent and considered bad manners.

Bravado in battle –
Arjun baiters often claim Karna was better than Arjun.  For all his bravado, Karna ran away from the battlefield when the gandharvas defeated Duryodhan and when Arjun fought on the battlefield of Virat.  Even in the battle of Mahabharata, Karna joined the battle on the 11^th day, fresh and unhurt, when Arjun had been battling the Kaurava army and the grandsire for 10 long days.  For supposedly being better than Arjun, Karna didn’t last in the battle more than 7 days.

For being a self-confessed man of action, Karna consistently supported all of Duryodhan’s mad-cap under-handed, dishonest ideas to hurt, kill or humiliate the Pandavas.  Not a good sign for a man of honour or valour. 

Many Karna and Eklayva supporters rage and rant at society and its structures claiming it was unfair and offered no career options for those lower down the caste or class ladder.  Is it any different now?  Don't we still have private and government schools offering different quality of education to those who can afford it?  In fact, the time of Mahabharata’s was very progressive.  Sutas had just as much chance of social and financial advancement as anyone else.  Lets not forget - Sanjay – the narrator of Gita was a suta and he rose in rank to become a very well respected royal adviser.  Yadavas as vaishyas ran a prosperous republic.  Vyasa and Vidur were also mixed caste and both were at the pinnacle of their own chosen profession.  There were teachers like Sandipani in Ujjain who taught all worthy students regardless of their class or caste.  Shri Krushna and Sudama, prince and pauper, Vaishya and Brahmin studied a variety of subjects in that ashram.    

No matter how many hundreds of reasons Karna might have had for rebelling against the inequalities of the world but – and its a crucial but – he had no reason to take out his frustration on a defenceless woman. His insult to Draupadi was the lowest point in his life. Even if he felt aggrieved at being denied the chance to marry her at the svayamvar, if he was a real man of honour, he would not have asked a married woman to be stripped in public. That was the real “blow below the belt”. To hit out at a woman when he could not harm her husbands shows how low Karna could go. Rape or incitement rape is sinful. Full stop.

This – above all is unforgivable.

Life is unfair.
Deal with it.
Karna never learnt to “deal with it”.

Karna raged and ranted at all and sundry for his own failures till he lost his moral compass and hit out at a woman.  For all his other great qualities, Karna was failed by his own utter disregard for morality, especially when it came to Pandavas and Draupdi.  What a sad waste of such great potential !