Was Karna good or bad?

[Jaykay767]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

JR –

The worship of Vishnu existed earlier, however it was under the umbrella of Shaivism or Polytheism. Only later, Vishnu-ism became a separate religion & that happened during the times of Ramanujam !!

For eg, Rama worships Shiva for success before going to war with Lanka ack. the primacy of Shaivism during the times of Ramayana. Only later, it branches out as a separate religion.

for eg, if Lord Murugan worshippers tomorrow form a separate religion, would you say the texts written are by their ancestors ?

Cheers,

 

[sangom]

Smt. Jayashree,

I tender my unconditional apology for all the posts I made in this thread. It was an oversight ; I somehow took it that this is under "General Discussions". Only now I realize that this is the Religion section and there is a specific condition, "Please do not use this forum to engage in discussions against any particular religion or caste." I am prepared to delete all my posts if possible or Shri Praveen may do so.

Sorry for giving you so much trouble and grief. I shall be more careful henceforth.

Wishing you a very peaceful and happy Deepavali!

 

[JR]

Smt. Jayashree,

I tender my unconditional apology for all the posts I made in this thread. It was an oversight ; I somehow took it that this is under "General Discussions". Only now I realize that this is the Religion section and there is a specific condition, "Please do not use this forum to engage in discussions against any particular religion or caste." I am prepared to delete all my posts if possible or Shri Praveen may do so.

Sorry for giving you so much trouble and grief. I shall be more careful henceforth.

Wishing you a very peaceful and happy Deepavali!

Dear Sangom ji,

No problem, Sir. You may choose to have the posts left as such or you may delete them, if you wish. I am sure it won't come back to haunt you in any way, atleast I can assure that on my part!

Wish you a wonderful Deepavali too!

Warm regards,

 

[JR]

JR –

The worship ofVishnu existed earlier, however it was under the umbrella of Shaivism orPolytheism. Only later, Vishnu-ism became a separate religion & thathappened during the times of Ramanujam !!

For eg, Ramaworships Shiva for success before going to war with Lanka ack. the primacy of Shaivismduring the times of Ramayana. Only later, it branches out as a separatereligion.

for eg, if Lord Murugan worshippers tomorrowform a separate religion, would you say the texts written are by theirancestors ?

Cheers,

Oh, I see! I don't know about that -- Nammazhwar exclusively sang about Sri Vishnu in his 4 main works and not about any other deities in the Nalayira-divya-prabandham! And so were his followers...

but I have no knowledge of how many people followed them as a sect in those times. Maybe it is only with Ramanujacharya and his advent of 'Vishishtadvaita' did individual practitioners join together as a sect, it is possible!

 

[biswa]

JR ji, In response to your and Sangomji's post, I think Karna is not a religious figure, and in reality this thread should likely be in GD section.

 

[KRN]

Dear all

God gives us intelligence to discriminate between right and wrong and pursue the right path. Karna despite blessed with such discrimination￾0È3 deliberarely chose the wrong path.

He was blind in his attachment to Duryodhana. For his sake￾0È3 Karna was ready to even fall upon and kill the helpless Pandavas in the forest. The Pandavas never harmed Karna￾0È3 yet that does not deter him.

Aswatthama is much reviled￾0È3 but in the MBH we find him many times offering sane advice to Duryodhana. Likewise Drona￾0È3 Kripacharya￾0È3 even Sakuni though rarely￾0È3 advises Duryodhana properly￾0È3 fully knowing that the advice will not be palatable. Karna￾0È3 though knowing what is right￾0È3 (as he reveals to Krishna just before the war begins) is never seen to advise Duryodhana.

Karna also wilfully disobeys his father￾0È3 gurus etc on several occasions. Such a person comes to no good￾0È3 though he be talented in many other ways.

 

[Vaagmi]

JR –

The worship of Vishnu existed earlier, however it was under the umbrella of Shaivism or Polytheism. Only later, Vishnu-ism became a separate religion & that happened during the times of Ramanujam !!

For eg, Rama worships Shiva for success before going to war with Lanka ack. the primacy of Shaivism during the times of Ramayana. Only later, it branches out as a separate religion.

for eg, if Lord Murugan worshippers tomorrow form a separate religion, would you say the texts written are by their ancestors ?

Cheers,

this is not true. Please quote where is it mentioned that Rama worshipped Siva. There is no reference to this in Valmiki Ramayana or Kambaramayana. This is a lie built up by interested parties about the Rameswaram temple. Nonsense repeated a few hundred times does not become glorious truth. LOL

 

[JR]

this is not true. Please quote where is it mentioned that Rama worshipped Siva. There is no reference to this in Valmiki Ramayana or Kambaramayana. This is a lie built up by interested parties about the Rameswaram temple. Nonsense repeated a few hundred times does not become glorious truth. LOL

Vaagmi ji is quite correct. Sometime back in a different place, I was referring to the Atmalingam at Rameshwaram to have been worshiped by Rama, and a friend who knows the entire Valmiki Ramayana inside out retorted immediately to show him the verse that said so!

Sri Vishnu is a vedic deity and thus worship for Sri Vishnu must have existed since vedic times, just as Shiva worship.

For Sri Rama, Ranganatha was the Kula devata, he worshiped the Ranganatha idol given to his forefathers through Brahma himself. And this Ranganatha is fully capable of getting rid of Brahmahatya dosha. Even to this day, at Thirunangur divyadesa, ekadasa Vishnu utsava takes place to celebrate the 11 forms in which Sri Vishnu gave darshan to Lord Shiva following Shiva's penance to Vishnu to get rid of his Brahma hatya after plucking out Brahma's 5th head. This shows Sri Ranganatha is fully capable of nullifying the effects of Brahma-hatya so that Sri Rama need not look elsewhere at all.

 

[P.J.]

Dear all

God gives us intelligence to discriminate between right and wrong and pursue the right path. Karna despite blessed with such discrimination￾0È3 deliberarely chose the wrong path.

He was blind in his attachment to Duryodhana. For his sake￾0È3 Karna was ready to even fall upon and kill the helpless Pandavas in the forest. The Pandavas never harmed Karna￾0È3 yet that does not deter him.

Aswatthama is much reviled￾0È3 but in the MBH we find him many times offering sane advice to Duryodhana. Likewise Drona￾0È3 Kripacharya￾0È3 even Sakuni though rarely￾0È3 advises Duryodhana properly￾0È3 fully knowing that the advice will not be palatable. Karna￾0È3 though knowing what is right￾0È3 (as he reveals to Krishna just before the war begins) is never seen to advise Duryodhana.

Karna also wilfully disobeys his father￾0È3 gurus etc on several occasions. Such a person comes to no good￾0È3 though he be talented in many other ways.

sir,

Please edit your post to remove unwanted letters appearing in between.

 

[KRN]

Dear all
God gives us intelligence to discriminate
between right and wrong and pursue the right
path. Karna despite blessed with such
discrimination deliberately chose the
wrong path.

He was blind in his attachment to
Duryodhana . For Duryodhanas sake Karna was
ready to even fall upon and kill the helpless
Pandavas in the forest. The Pandavas never
harmed Karna - that does not deter
him.

Aswatthama is much reviled but in the
MBH we find him many times offering sane
advice to Duryodhana . Likewise Drona
Kripacharya - even Sakuni albeit rarely - advises Duryodhana
properly - fully knowing that the advice
will not be palatable. Karna though
knowing what is right (as he reveals to
Krishna just before the war begins) is never
seen to advise Duryodhana.

Karna also wilfully disobeys his father
gurus etc on several occasions. Such a person
comes to no good though he be talented
in many other ways .

 

[KRN]

Dear All

A peculiar chararacteristic of Indian culture is the tremendous importance attributed to the Guru in a persons life. While other cultures might say Mata Pita Deivam.... we say Mata Pita Guru Deivam. In the Gita 1st Chapter Arjuna was horrifed at the prospect of killing his Gurus *Gurunahatvaa hi mahaanubhavaan....*
while he always had hatred for Dhartarashtras whom he called *Atatayinah* ie worst criminals whom it is anyones first and foremost duty to kill. So the Gurus made all the difference for Arjuna until Lord Krishna steps in with his advice.

Karnas story needs to be understood in this light. In Sanatana dharma it is a huge crime to tell lies to a Guru in order to earn the right of learning under him. One must always tell the truth to the Guru. This is precisely why Satyakama of the Upanishads is so much praised - that he was ready to tell the damning truth about his origins in order to uphold the sanctity of the occasion of meeting his Guru. It is said *if Siva is angered - Guru will help you - if Guru is angered - whom will you go to? (ie there will be noone to support you) *

Just before the start of the war Yudhishtira goes over the over side and asks permission of his Gurus to fight against them. While giving their blessings Bhishma Drona etc tell him - if you hadnt come we would have cursed you!

In the Srimad Bhagavatham also we see Mahabalis downfall as soon as he disregarded his Gurus advice.

Everything Karna learnt by artifice - ultimately came to nought at the critical moment.

 

[P.J.]

Before blaming Karna for telling a lie about his caste, let us examine Parasurama who was the Sixth Avatar of Sri Vishnu;



KARNA coming to learn Vidya wearing KAVACHA AND KUNDALA, saying he is a Brahmin, how could Parssurama being an Avatar , believe him and later on curse him?

Even an ordinary folk would have recognized Karna as a superior human being, but Parasurama, being an avatar failed to do so!!!


Vishnu is supposed to be omniscient. One would expect his incarnations to be omniscient too. If so, why could not Parshuram ‘know’ that Karna was a ‘sooryputra’ (son of Sun) and not a ‘sootaputra’ (son of a charioteer)? And the way he found out that Karna was not a Kshatriya was also disgusting.

The story of Karna has to do a lot with how a girl’s curiosity for a “gift” led her to a miserable life which became a curse not only for her but also for her great son whose life was plagued with injustice. It can aptly be said that it is a story of a tragic hero who had royal blood in him but was never considered royal; leave aside the respect and honour he deserved. It is a story in which a warrior gave his life for friendship, even though it meant being on the opposite side of his brothers the Pandavas.


More notably it is a story of a great soul who was a great philanthropist and in one instance gave away his very protective body armor (‘Kavacha’) and a pair of earrings (‘Kundala’), which he was born with.( which the sun god, his father had given to him so that he could not be killed by anyone.)


One would never forgive Kunti for what she did to Karna,even though many feminist can go gaga over her problem. The point however would remain that she never owned up her responsibility and her fault till the end. So even though she was karna’s mother, from my view point she was the reason that karna had to suffer so much in life and one would rarely sympathies with such a character, her “pain” was nothing compared to the pain endured by karna throughout his life.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT][SIZE=-1]
[/FONT][/SIZE]
http://sheokhanda.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/karna-son-of-sun-god/

 

[sarang]

The point however would remain that she never owned up her responsibility and her fault till the end. So even though she was karna’s mother,

Kunti requests yudhishtra to do antimakriyas for karna as he is their eldest brother and appeared with surya bhagawan's grace. Yudhistra then did the kriyas weeping and blames kunti for keeping this secret from them. (Stri parva, chap 27.)

In our system, no event stands alone, and all are all related to previous births and good/bad deeds in previous births.

 

[KRN]

Before blaming Karna for telling a lie about his caste, let us examine Parasurama who was the Sixth Avatar of Sri Vishnu;



KARNA coming to learn Vidya wearing KAVACHA AND KUNDALA, saying he is a Brahmin, how could Parssurama being an Avatar , believe him and later on curse him?

Even an ordinary folk would have recognized Karna as a superior human being, but Parasurama, being an avatar failed to do so!!!

These stories are remarkable for the subtle messages they sometimes give. That said͵ MBH indeed shows Parasurama telling Karna that he knew about Karnas identity all along - however due to his other sterling qualities P chose to ignore the lie. Another reason is that a certain Asura needed to be released from his worm-birth.

Vishnu is supposed to be omniscient. One would expect his incarnations to be omniscient too. If so, why could not Parshuram ‘know’ that Karna was a ‘sooryputra’ (son of Sun) and not a ‘sootaputra’ (son of a charioteer)? And the way he found out that Karna was not a Kshatriya was also disgusting.

P was not a poorna Avatara. In Tretayuga itself his Siddhis were extinguished in an encounter with Dasharathi Rama. He was later worsted by Bhishma too. Ps grouse against K was -- blood - an impure thing - tainting his body - which a Brahmana perhaps would not have allowed but a Kshatriya like Karna had overlooked the impurity.

The story of Karna has to do a lot with how a girl’s curiosity for a “gift” led her to a miserable life which became a curse not only for her but also for her great son whose life was plagued with injustice. It can aptly be said that it is a story of a tragic hero who had royal blood in him but was never considered royal; leave aside the respect and honour he deserved. It is a story in which a warrior gave his life for friendship, even though it meant being on the opposite side of his brothers the Pandavas.

Karna as a tragic hero is not quite apt. Suta is a respectable profession. See how Romaharsana was venerated by rishis. We know of Bhagavad Gita due to the Suta Sanjaya. What is all this BS about royal blood? Chaturvarnyam maya srishtam guna karma vibhagashah says the lord. Suta is a job chosen by the Lord himself in the war. Even before in the Khandava fire Krishna chose that job. Enough said on respect honour etc.

More notably it is a story of a great soul who was a great philanthropist and in one instance gave away his very protective body armor (‘Kavacha’) and a pair of earrings (‘Kundala’), which he was born with.( which the sun god, his father had given to him so that he could not be killed by anyone.)

His father Sun god warned him - DONT gift away the Kavacha etc. Did he listen. Gita clearly teaches *moderation in everything*. Name and fame is not everything.

One would never forgive Kunti for what she did to Karna,even though many feminist can go gaga over her problem. The point however would remain that she never owned up her responsibility and her fault till the end. So even though she was karna’s mother, from my view point she was the reason that karna had to suffer so much in life and one would rarely sympathies with such a character, her “pain” was nothing compared to the pain endured by karna throughout his life.

It is not clear what karna had to suffer so much in life if we discount his death. I read MBH many times. He got to rule a kingdom for over 25 + 13 yrs. Had many sons. Friends at the highest echelons. Did digvijayam. Got to die in battle than in the bed.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT][SIZE=-1]
[/FONT][/SIZE]
http://sheokhanda.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/karna-son-of-sun-god/

 

[KRN]

To add - K had doting parents. Many brothers. Not that he lacked parental affection. I have not seen Sivaji Ganesans movie so I cant say how faithful it is to the original.

 

[P.J.]

My Answer is not based on Tamil Movie Karna or TV Shows

It is indisputable that Karna is one of the most fascinating characters in Mahabharata.He had sterling character and was a victim of circumstances. His fighting skills were unmatched and loyalty to his friend, unflinching. But a combination of fate, personal traits and shrewed battle strategy of Krishna ensured that he would not deliver the result which his best friend Duryodhana was hoping for.


Karna the tragic hero of Mahabharat | 3726389 | Mahabharat Forum

 

[KRN]

Sir

Your message above pours scorn upon Parashurama an avatara of Vishnu - without fact or reason. As I had some free time I thought of responding as per scriptures.

Now with regard to Karna - the question is - why despite his superior skills learning large heartedness- he is considered an evil. The answer is - his driving obsession in life - which ruined his gifts - was **Anti-Arjuna** more than anything else.

Flash back to his dramatic appearance in the story. He appears blazing in the sports arena and shows his skills as better than Arjuna. Any brilliant kid would want to try competing with the reigning Champ nothing wrong with that. But he doesnt stop there. He calls Arjuna to a battle-to-death then and there. The friendship with D came later - an inevitable consequence.

The issue is not so much with his choosing to a different profession from that of his father. He was not true to his profession either. Kshatriyas job is * kshathat kila trayata ityudagra kshatrasya shabde bhuvaneshu roodhah* - using his skills to protect the weak and helpless from Kshatham. Gita describes 3 kinds of daanam - Sattvika Rajasa and Tamasa. Gifting away his Kavacha and Kundala to a Brahmana (Indra in disguise) who has no use of them in his kriyas - was a Tamasic / Rajasic one. Getting a Shakti in return only shows his obsession with killing Arjuna - whereas with the Kavacha and Kundala intact he would have been much better placed in defending the weak / innocent in his kingdom from robbers / wars etc. He was even doing a disservice to his friend Duryodhana - as later events showed. He tells Kuntidevi - it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to be on the same side with Arjuna - but again does a disservice to friend Duryodhana by offering not to kill Bhima et al. Right in Karnas face Bhima kills many brothers of D. Yet when he got a chance to kill Bhima he doesnt. Karna led his life with the sole aim/purpose of killing Arjuna in battle. How can such negativity in life purpose be praiseworthy?

 

[P.J.]

Here the OP is about whether Karna can be termed as Good or Bad ; By any stretch of imagination Karna can not be termed as Evil;Pandavas especially Arjuna lacked simple common sense to identify him when they met in Guru Drona's camp !!
Even Guru Kripacharya did not.

The Puffin Mahabharat - Namita Gokhale - Google Books

Karna is the best archer (next to Eklavya) and Arjuna is no match for him. Dronacharya knew that Karna is far superior than Arjuna, hence he denies to teach him archery lessons. Bhisma knew that Karna is superior to Arjuna and thus prevents him from entering the war during initial days. I agree Arjuna was skilled but note that he had guidance of Bheesma and Drona while Karna had none. He rose to equal levels of Arjuna on his own (having received a short stint of guidance from Parashurama, Bheesma's guru).

Its fate or destiny which parted Draupadi and Karna. He would have been a better 'only' husband for her than the five she got as he was as good as any of the pandavas when it came to virtues and valour.

But from the political and "Dharma's" point of view, she has to be married with Pandavas. Thats the plan. Karna negates Arjuna, which creates a balance.

Draupadi herself prevented Karna from participating in the Swyamvar, calling him a Suta Putra (This insult by Draupadi was one of the reasons for her downfall in the court room where she was disrobed in public, leading to humiliation of Pandavas, reaping the seeds of war)

Many years later, she learned from Krishna that Karna is not a suta putra but the eldest son of Kunti. To this, Draupadi regrets saying,

If I had married him, I would not have been gambled away, publicly humiliated and called a whore. For he has all the qualities possessed by my 5 husbands.

There is another legend which says that its Karna who prevented the rape of Draupadi by Vasuki could only be pacified by the eldest Kunti-putra (Karna).

KARNA was not bad, but his joining Duruyodana due to fate and circumstances made him to suffer most.


Karna fought against his misfortunes throughout his life without a single pause. He never got his due, but never gave up his efforts, his courageous spirit led him to brave impossible odds in his life and he died with unique courage, valour and honour.

In the Mahābhārata, Bheeshma and Lord Krishna concede that Karna was a noble spirit who rarely appears in the human race. Karna is especially adored for his generosity. He is idealized as an inspiration for struggling humanity not to lose heart. He is also considered an example of how misjudgment can render all the finer qualities of an individual futile.

http://www.quora.com/Mahabharata/Was-Draupadi-in-love-with-Karna

​

 

[KRN]

These interpretations are not based on the MBH. Even a cursory reading of MBH will show that Bheeshma never praised Karna and on the contrary he chose to demotivate K time and again. Until - fed up with the slurs K voluntarily chooses to not fight until B falls in the battlefield. Draupadi says *I will not wed a Suta*. It is simply a personal preference in her Swayamvara. In the original MBH draupadi never expresses regret that she rejected Karna for the Pandavas. Karna was always respectful of his parents and never disowned them even when Krishna offers the kingdom to him so where is the Qn of his considering his fathers profession - *Suta* - as an insult? I have already given many examples on Suta as a venerated caste / profession.

Anyone can write a Ramayana and say Rama stole Ravanas wife Mandodari. It is creative freedom. Another freedom is to study the original and find out the subtle truths hidden inside. I enjoyed a lot reading the texts in original and my message is an attempt at sharing and encouraging others to do so too.

 

[P.J.]

Your points proved one thing; Pandavas never recognized Karna which a common man with ordinary intelligence can do.

The question is whether Karna is Good or Bad, I am of the firm view he was not BAD.



Draupadi has longed for a husband who will have wisdom and moral values, will be strong and well built, a good archer, handsome and intelligent.

Karna is the only character in Mahabharata who has all these qualities. Also, all these qualities have been equally divided in Pandavas (Yudhistira for moral values, Bhima for physical strength, Arjuna for archery, Nakula is handsome and Sahadev is the most intelligent).

Karna is the best archer (next to Eklavya) and Arjuna is no match for him. Dronacharya knew that Karna is far superior than Arjuna, hence he denies to teach him archery lessons. Bhisma knew that Karna is superior to Arjuna and thus prevents him from entering the war during initial days.

On the 10th day of the battle, Arjuna slays Bheesma with the help of Shikhandi.

Then Karna goes to Bhisma and asks for forgiveness, that he insulted Draupadi and he should have prevented his "wicked" friend Duryodhana from insulting the kulvadhu, who represents the pride and glory of Kuruvansh. He tells Bheesma that he was taken aback, that he was burning inside because Draupadi prevented him from entering his Swyamvar and denied him the glory he deserves. He continues telling Bheesma that by calling Draupadi a "Whore", he has committed a grave "sin" and he begs for forgiveness.

To this Bheesma says

"Hey Karna, jyesth Kunti putra Karna, you have finally realized your mistake. Ghayal nagin, ghayal sherni aur apamanit stree se daro.Yasaswi bhava..!"

Karna was taken by a shock. He didn't knew that Bheesma knows his real identity. He asks Bheesma that if he knew that he is the eldest Kunti Putra, why did he prevented him from entering the war? What is his fault?

Bheesma says

"Karna, my son, you and Arjuna are the greatest warriors Kuruvansh has seen after me. Duryodhana, Yudhistir, Bheema, Dushasana... they don't have the merit of being a guardian of Kuru throne.


There are two reasons why he doesn't kill Bheema, despite having all the options to do so.

1. Karna has given his word to Kunti, that her 5 sons will remain alive. If he kills Bheema, he can't kill Arjuna.
2. If Karna kills Bheema, he would do injustice to Draupadi's unstrangled hair. Draupadi has taken a vow that until and unless someone brings the blood of Dussasana's heart and wets her hair, she will never tie her hair. Bheema has made a vow that he will kill Dussasana and bring his hearts blood to Draupadi. If he kills Bheema in this battle, he will do injustice to Draupadi.

Was Draupadi in love with Karna? - Quora
​

 

[sarang]

Was Draupadi in love with Karna? - Quora

Amit banerjee is a Farzi Philosopher. Means what?

All characters in Mahabharath have various shades of grey; but their character must be analysed through other characters in mahabharata (original), what they said or how they acted.

 

[P.J.]

Why Sri Krishna did not stop the Dice Game ?

Why Sri Krishna did not stop the Dice Game ?


Please read from here

nithanam

 

[sooriya]

very interesting thread which had been started with a pinpointed question had travelled accross so many twists right from relevance to irrelevant turns questioning the very verosity of the great epic Mahabharatha in the mean time personal duals between members ultimately challenging about the existency of Pandavas vis a vis Krishna. With my limited knowledge I humbly submit that Mahabharata is hailed as Panchama Vedha for its contents--THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD NOT AVAILABLE IN MAHABHARATHA. Regarding the main question whether Karna good or bad yes from the common man's perception he lived a very noble life with unlimited wisdom and charity. But when a Upanyasaka starts his upanyasa the Dharma of him to preach the rightious path ordained in Shruthi and as per that Karna is to be called bad. Please note the stricture only he is not bad but one amongst the bad since he was one among those present in the Drudhrashtra sabhaduringthe panchaali episode. Thepity is we are to quote cinimatic depiction of Puranas for substantiating our weak arguments. The main reason of Krishna avathara was to reduce the bhoo-bhara for which other than the great war to be instrumental apart from establishing the win of Dharma over the Adharma as specified in his Geetha Whenever evil outshines good He would come to establish Dharma. As our counter arguing genle person's view that Karna was wronged from his birth and so on cannot be nullifide the reason from the dharmic point of view that irrespective of your good or exemplary character you can not be left unpunished when you take a stand against the dharma-in his case even he had helped the side of adharma which unpardonable. I had come accross a humourous approach by one of our member for questioning the very existance of Krishna while observing thatr the earlier avatharas of Vamana and Bhargava was stories glorifying brahmins when they were at peak and further when Kshathriyas overpowered them they had to create the Rama and Krishna avatharas duly glorifying them-Kshathriyas. Here it is conveniantly it was forgotten that Vyasa was neither Brahmin nor Shuthra by birth. This is the greatness of this religion that we can air our opinions fearlessly in open forum whether right or wrong side of the argument. To conclude however your greatness be you are judged by the side you are taking here Karna lost his ground for steadfastly siding with the cunningness of Dhuryodhana. For today's so called rational thinkers even today in our judiciary for the first time accused their charactewr is verified and depending upon the outcome the quantam of punishment may be lineant but not nullified if they are proved sinner.