An Analysis of two important characters of the Mahabharata; Bhishma and Karna.

BHISHMA

Bhishma and his actions has invited severe scepticism and criticism. First, would be Bhishma’s inaction when he could have prevented Draupadi’s disrobing and public humiliation in the Kaurava kingdom. Bhishma is bound by a narrow interpretation of his vows as well as a rigid orthodox thinking, and as such, forced to ignore the many faults of the subsequent kings that ruled Hastinapur. This was apparent in the way he chose to be a silent spectator when the cheerharan was taking place. Women were considered like ‘property’ and once Yudhishthira gambled away his wife Draupadi to Duryodhana, he did not think it right to protest the ghastly act even on humanitarian grounds. The eighth son of King Shantanu and Ganga, Bhishmapitamah was the ‘father figure’ in the Mahabharata and the great grand uncle of the Kauravas and the Pandavas. A man of principles and a great warrior; his silence during Draupadi’s cheerharan elicited surprise, outrage and anguish. Bhishma said, 'O blessed one, morality is subtle. I therefore am unable to duly decide this point that thou hast put, beholding that on the one hand one that hath no wealth cannot stake the wealth belonging to others, while on the other hand wives are always under the orders and at the disposal of their lords.’ when Draupadi questioned him on the same.

Bhishma’s inaction at crucial junctures in the story is a blot on his otherwise righteous conduct and goes against him when a final evaluation of his character is done. His great strength and bravery is wasted, indeed misused, by the Kauravas and their maternal uncle Shakuni both before and during the war who understood Bhishma’s inability to shrug off his misplaced loyalty to the throne and used it to their advantage. ‘Had Bhishma understood and interpreted his vow of loyalty to the throne better and taken a broader view of his duties, he would have realized that he was doing a great disservice to the kingdom and its people, not to mention the Kuru clan which was hell bent on self destruction, by not taking action against the injustice being meted out to the Pandavas.’ Also, abducting the three princesses of Kashi (Amba, Ambika and Ambalika) for his brothers was a folly that ultimately would be the root cause of his death. Discarding Amba also showed reckless abandon and complete apathy towards others. His silence and inactions in particular are troubling.

KARNA

Despite everything, Karna too is at fault due to his arrogance, pride, stubbornness and his ignorance. Karna always fostered hatred and resentment in his being against society. He was blinded with negativity. Duryodhana always relied on him for guidance, advice and support. Karna could've very well changed the course of the war and indeed prevented the war by counselling Duryodhana but he refused to do so; very well knowing that destruction would follow suit. He actively goaded Duryodhana and instead of stopping his atrocities, he further encouraged him to carry on with his acts. He was a willing participant in Draupadi’s cheerharan. Karna never really hated the Pandavas. He had fixed in his mind a forced and unnatural hostility towards them because Duryodhana had such a hostility. His commitment to Duryodhana can also be interpreted as foolishness when he refuses Krishna’s offer of switching sides to battle adharma instead of siding with it. Thus his biggest mistake was supporting the Kauravas despite knowing that they were doing wrong.