Some time back I saw a Hindi movie “Rajneeti”. The story line is based on the great Indian epic “Mahabharata”. In an after-movie discussion with my friends I was telling them why I don’t like Lord Krishna, though he is supposed to be “the GOD”. I had this thought for quite a few years when I started asking questions “Why” for everything. This blog is based on this. I am putting forward my thoughts on “Why Lord Krishna is the real Villain?”
Just a recap of Mahabharata: It revolves around the Kauravas, Pandavas and Karna the pre-marital son of the mother of Pandavas, Kunti. The former is portrayed as the villains and the later as the hero’s, saviors of justice, good deeds and virtue. In a game of dice, the Pandavas are compelled to play with all the things they have including the brothers, the king and their common wife Draupati. All were won by the Dhartarashtras, the Pandavas were humiliated and sent to forest for 12 years. In their return to claim their lost things, a war is declared between Dhartarashtras and Pandavas with Karna at Dhartarashtras’ side due to pure friendship and Lord Krishna at Pandavas’ side due to the family relationship. Lord Krishna plays tactically outside the war frame and also within the frame to defeat the Dhartarashtras. The entire story is written as a book called the Bhagavad Gita.
Now you may ask a question why “Lord Krishna” is the villain. After all, he saved the Pandavas who are considered to be “Good” people and won the battle for them. Let us see why?
I would like to introduce another hero rather the “hidden hero” of Mahabharata, Karna. Bhagavad Gita portrays him as an all time generous and a good individual. He never says no to anybody whatever they may ask for. After all, he also carries the same blood as that of the Pandavas. He is the son of the “Sun” and “Kunti”. Since he is a premarital son of Kunti, after his birth he was rolled in a cloth and set afloat on river Ganga. He was then picked up by a charioteer of the king and raised was by him. He was born with armour and earrings. He was a great warrior and learnt the art by himself by just observing the guru. He was better than the best, Arjuna. Karna is a true friend of Duryodhana, the king of Dhartarashtras.
So now let us come to the point. We all know that Lord Krishna played a vital role in Mahabharata. Why do I portray him as a villain?
I call Krishna the Villain keeping Karna in mind as my hero. The only mistake, people say, he did wrong was being in the bad company. Otherwise Gita portrays him as a gem of a person. At one stage after the war Krishna himself says to Arjuna that Karna is the real warrior and better than him. There are reasons how he was pulled into the bad company. Karna was denied his rights in several kingship activities saying he is not a Kshatriya and son fo a charioteer. He was humiliated and cursed for the reason of his birth. Naturally, he accepted the person who extended a friendly arm. Though Duryodhana involved in evil activities, he was a good friend of Karna and he saw Karna as his Commander in his army. Here, Krishna doesn’t have anything to do, but as we all call him “GOD” he could have stopped Karna ending up with bad company. This was his first fault as Karna is worth a human being.
During the “Game of Dice” still Karna refused to support the activities of Shakuni and he didn’t like him. The climax of the “Game of Dice”, the humiliation of Draupadi, is heart breaking from the Pandavas point of view but it all started and ended with the knowledge of Krishna and I would say it of no mistake from Duryodhana. In the game of dice the Pandavas lost their wife, Draupadi. Krishna didn’t stop Pandavas from playing their wife. He didn’t do that or he was not there to advice Pandavas and Pandavas, didn’t know how to respect a woman, leave alone their wife. They saw their wife equivalent to objects to play with. Krishna didn’t advice them but had decided to play it against Duryodhana and his friend Karna, who didn’t have his presence in the court room. If Krishna had to punish, he should have done it with Duryodhana and Shakuni and not Karna.
Just before the great battle of Kurukshetra, Krishna strategizes on the strengths and weaknesses of Duryodhana. He understands Karna to be the biggest strength and meets Karna to reveal the truth of his birth and mother and asks him to join Pandavas, ditching Duryodhana, but Karna refuses. Now Krishna, as he had failed, tries to get Karna through the back door by using his weakness, generous nature etc. He orders Lord Indra to meet Karna and ask for his golden armour and earrings fearing that these two will guide Karna to victory. Karna though, knew that the person who had come was Lord Indra in disguise and also of his intensions, still cut off the armour and gave it to Lord Indra. In return Indra gave him to use the “Bhramashtra”.
Krishna was worried by the meeting of Lord Indra and Karna, though he succeeded 50% in his plan. Still Karna had the bhramastra which Lord Indra gave him. This time Krishna tries to play with Karna’s emotions and asks Kunti to meet Karna and let him know the truth. Kunti tried to get him with Pandavas but as usual Karna refused. He also gave her a word that he will not harm the Pandavas but “Arjuna” and also use the ashtray only once. Since Arjuna is in the hands of Krishna, Karna knew that nothing may harm him. In return Karna didn’t ask for surety of his own life.
During the war, Karna spared every member of the Pandavas. When he met Arjuna with Krishna, Krishna plays a trick. When Karna used his Bhramastra, Krishna cunningly sunk the chariot down to save Arjuna. Karna’s aim was the neck of Arjuna and since the chariot was sunk, it missed Arjuna. The charioteer for Karna, said not to aim his neck but the waist. Karna didn’t consider that advice, due to that the charioteer left the battlefield angry leaving behind Karna helpless. When Karna tries to get his chariot running, Krishna orders Arjuna to attack him and so does Arjuna, but Karna remains alive. The Dharma that Karna did unto others was saving him from dying. Krishna knew that killing Karna is difficult when they face him and ordered to kill him when he was busy pushing the chariot.
To tackle this Lord Krishna appears as an old aged brahmin in front of Karna and asks him for the fruits of all the dharma that he has done and as usual Karna gives that and dies. After the war, when Lord Krishna meets Gandhari, she tells to Krishna "you knew what was going to happen and you still could've prevented the war".
Yes this is the point where I am coming from.
· Krishna could have stopped the war, he could have brought everyone together well before anything could have happened.
· Krishna hit the weak points of Karna before the war could begin knowing that he cannot win him in the battlefield. This is an ultimate misuse of Krishna’s powers, as he is the god and he knew what was going to happen.
· Krishna sent Lord Indra to get Karnas armour, which is the super cunning behaviour one can show.
· Krishna sent Kunti to get two promises, which is what we call playing politics. Kunti didn’t have an option. She had to spare Karna life in return for her five legal sons, as Karna is not a legal child and if the world comes to know about it, they would curse her.
· Krishna sunk the chariot to save Arjuna and he knew that Karna would not use the ashtray for the second time as he had promised his mother. This is against the nature. Just to save somebody of his interest how can nature be changed?
· Krishna uses the chariot which has the divine power of Lord Hanuman, which protected them from Karna’s arrows. This is against the rules of war, as people with equal powers are expected to face each other.
· After all, Krishna knew that Karna is a righteous and generous person. If Karna would have lived for some more time then dharma would have stood in the minds and hearts of the people. By killing Karna, Krishna has eradicated dharma from people.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended not to hurt the hearts that worship and love Lord Krishna. This is just another view from a humble thinker. There could be counter arguments to the points mentioned above and it doesn’t discuss about the entire backdrop of Mahabharata.