The Curse or Karna by T.P. Kailasama

The Modernist Mahabharata: Hamartia, Moral Dilemma, and Deconstructive Strategies in T.P. Kailasam's 'The Curse or Karna: An Impression of Sophocles in Five Acts'

This blog task is assigned by Megha Trivedi ma'am, as a part of thinking activity for Paper- 201: Indian English Literature- Post Independence's Unit-2: 'The Curse or Karna' by T.P. Kailasam.

Question 1: Moral Conflict and Hamartia in Karna's Character in T.P. Kailasam's "The Curse"

Introduction

T.P. Kailasam's "The Curse" represents a landmark achievement in modern Indian drama, transforming the ancient mythological figure of Karna from the Mahabharata into a complex tragic hero whose character embodies profound moral conflicts and demonstrates a distinctly Aristotelian hamartia. Written during a period of intense social and political transformation in colonial India, Kailasam's play engages with the classical epic material not merely as a retelling but as a sophisticated literary work that explores timeless questions of loyalty, identity, social justice, and the nature of tragic heroism. The character of Karna has long fascinated readers and audiences of the Mahabharata because he represents a paradox: a warrior of unmatched nobility and skill who nevertheless aligns himself with the forces of adharma (unrighteousness) and meets a tragic end despite his evident virtues. Traditional interpretations have often struggled to account for this paradox, resorting to supernatural explanations such as curses and past-life karma to explain Karna's fate.

Kailasam's genius lies in his ability to reimagine Karna as a psychologically complex character whose tragedy emerges not from divine caprice or cosmic destiny but from the intersection of personal character flaws and oppressive social structures. In doing so, the playwright creates a work that speaks simultaneously to the classical tradition of tragic drama and to modern concerns about social justice, caste discrimination, and the moral ambiguities inherent in human relationships and political commitments. This essay will examine in detail the moral conflicts that define Karna's character in Kailasam's play and analyze the nature of his hamartia, demonstrating how these elements combine to create a tragic figure of remarkable depth and contemporary relevance. Through close analysis of the text and consideration of its literary and philosophical contexts, we will show how Kailasam transforms mythological material into a powerful meditation on the tragic dimensions of human existence.

Section I: Theoretical Framework - Understanding Tragedy, Hamartia, and Moral Conflict

1.1 The Aristotelian Concept of Tragedy and Hamartia

To fully appreciate the sophistication of Kailasam's characterization of Karna, we must first understand the theoretical framework of tragic drama, particularly as articulated in Aristotle's Poetics. Aristotle defined tragedy as "an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude" that through pity and fear effects a catharsis (purification or purgation) of these emotions in the audience. Central to Aristotelian tragedy is the concept of the tragic hero, who must be neither wholly virtuous nor entirely depraved but rather a fundamentally good person who falls from prosperity to adversity through some error or flaw. This error or flaw is designated by the Greek term hamartia, a word whose precise meaning has been debated by scholars for centuries.

The concept of hamartia can be understood in several related ways. In its most literal sense, it simply means "missing the mark" or making an error in judgment. Some interpreters emphasize the intellectual dimension of hamartia, seeing it as a mistake or miscalculation rather than a moral failing. Others understand it more as a character flaw or vice that predisposes the hero to make catastrophic choices. Still others see hamartia as involving an element of moral blindness or excessive commitment to a particular value or relationship that, while not evil in itself, becomes destructive when taken to extremes. What remains constant across these interpretations is that hamartia must be something that audiences can recognize as human and comprehensible the tragic hero's downfall should evoke both pity (because the suffering seems disproportionate to the failing) and fear (because we recognize that we ourselves might make similar errors under similar circumstances).

Equally important to understanding tragic drama is the concept of moral conflict. Unlike melodrama, which presents clear distinctions between right and wrong, tragedy typically involves situations where the protagonist faces genuinely difficult moral choices between competing goods or between conflicting ethical obligations. The tragic hero is often caught between two or more values, each of which has legitimate claims, but which cannot be simultaneously honored. This creates what philosophers call a "tragic dilemma" a situation where any choice will involve betraying something of moral significance. The presence of such moral conflicts distinguishes tragedy from simpler narratives of vice punished or virtue rewarded, creating the complexity and ambiguity that gives tragic drama its philosophical depth and emotional power.

1.2 Indian Traditions of Tragedy and the Concept of Karuna Rasa

While Aristotelian theory provides one framework for understanding Kailasam's work, we must also consider indigenous Indian theories of drama and emotion as articulated in classical Sanskrit poetics, particularly in Bharata's Natyashastra. Sanskrit dramatic theory does not have a direct equivalent to the Western concept of tragedy, but it does recognize karuna rasa (the mood or emotional flavor of pathos and compassion) as one of the nine primary aesthetic emotions that drama can evoke. Karuna rasa arises from witnessing suffering, separation, loss, and calamity, and it bears significant similarities to the Aristotelian emotions of pity and fear that tragedy is meant to evoke.

Moreover, Indian epic and dramatic traditions have long recognized the power of morally complex characters who suffer despite their virtues, as exemplified by figures like Karna in the Mahabharata, Rama in the Ramayana (particularly in his treatment of Sita), and various characters in the plays of Kalidasa and Bhasa. The concept of dharmasankata (moral dilemma or crisis of righteousness) occupies an important place in Indian ethical thought, recognizing that situations may arise where different dharmic obligations conflict and no clear right action presents itself. Kailasam's work thus draws on both Western tragic theory and indigenous Indian dramatic and philosophical traditions, creating a hybrid form that speaks to audiences familiar with both cultural frameworks.

1.3 Karna in the Mahabharata: Traditional Interpretations

To understand Kailasam's innovative treatment of Karna, we must first review how this character appears in the traditional epic narrative. In the Mahabharata, Karna is born to Kunti through her invocation of the sun god Surya, using a mantra given to her by the sage Durvasa. Kunti, unmarried and fearing social disgrace, abandons the infant in a basket that floats down a river. The child is discovered and raised by Adhiratha, a charioteer (a member of the suta caste, considered low in the traditional social hierarchy), and his wife Radha. Despite his humble social status, Karna grows to become a warrior of exceptional skill, determined to prove himself equal to any Kshatriya (warrior caste member).

The epic narrative presents Karna's tragedy as resulting from a combination of factors. He receives curses from his teacher Parashurama (who curses him when he discovers Karna has lied about his caste identity to receive instruction) and from a brahmin (whose cow Karna accidentally kills). These curses doom Karna to forget his martial skills at the crucial moment in battle. Additionally, Karna makes several fateful gifts during his life most significantly, he gives away his protective armor and earrings (with which he was born) to the god Indra, who appears disguised as a brahmin. Karna's unwavering loyalty to Duryodhana, despite knowing the Kaurava cause to be unjust, leads him to fight against his own brothers (the Pandavas) in the great war. He is eventually killed by Arjuna in a moment when he is disadvantaged, his chariot wheel stuck in mud and the curses preventing him from defending himself effectively.

Traditional commentaries and interpretations of the Mahabharata have approached Karna's character in various ways. Some emphasize his generosity and nobility, treating him as a essentially virtuous figure whose loyalty to a flawed friend leads to his downfall. Others focus on his anger, pride, and resentment, suggesting that these negative emotions corrupt his otherwise admirable qualities. Still others interpret his fate in terms of karma from previous births, seeing his suffering as the working out of cosmic justice from actions in past lives. Religious interpretations sometimes see Karna as a divine being (a portion of the sun god) who descends to earth to play a necessary role in the cosmic drama. What remains consistent across traditional interpretations is the recognition that Karna represents a profound moral and philosophical puzzle a figure whose evident nobility coexists with catastrophic errors of judgment and alignment with injustice.

Section II: Moral Conflicts in Karna's Character

2.1 The Primary Conflict: Loyalty versus Dharma

The central moral conflict that defines Karna's character in Kailasam's "The Curse" emerges from the fundamental tension between personal loyalty and universal ethical obligations. This conflict is not presented as a simple choice between selfishness and duty, but rather as a genuine dilemma between two competing ethical systems, each with legitimate claims on Karna's allegiance. Throughout the play, Karna remains bound by an overwhelming sense of gratitude and loyalty to Duryodhana, who alone extended friendship, recognition, and a kingdom to him when the entire Kshatriya establishment rejected him based solely on his perceived low birth. This debt of gratitude becomes the foundation of Karna's identity and his primary ethical commitment, yet it places him in direct opposition to the larger cosmic order of dharma and righteousness.

Kailasam presents this dilemma with remarkable psychological subtlety and moral complexity. Karna is not simply blind to Duryodhana's faults or ignorant of the injustice of the Kaurava cause. Rather, he recognizes with painful clarity that Duryodhana's jealousy, dishonesty, and willingness to use any means to secure power are morally indefensible. He understands that the attempted murder of the Pandavas, the conspiracy to burn them alive in the house of lac, the rigged dice game that results in Draupadi's humiliation, and the refusal to return even five villages to avoid war all demonstrate that the Kaurava position lacks ethical legitimacy. Yet despite this knowledge, Karna cannot bring himself to abandon Duryodhana. The playwright shows us that this loyalty is not mere stubbornness or perversity but emerges from a deeply felt sense of reciprocity and gratitude that Karna experiences as morally binding.

What makes this conflict genuinely tragic rather than simply the result of poor judgment is that both sides of the dilemma have authentic moral weight. Loyalty, friendship, and gratitude are real virtues, not mere sentiments. The principle that one should stand by those who have helped oneself in times of need, that one should not abandon friends when doing so becomes convenient, and that one should honor one's debts and commitments these are genuine ethical imperatives that any moral person would recognize. Duryodhana's gift to Karna was not merely material (though making him king of Anga was certainly significant) but existential he gave Karna identity, dignity, and recognition as a warrior and a man of worth when everyone else denied these things. For Karna to abandon Duryodhana would be to suggest that this gift meant nothing, that friendship and loyalty can be discarded when they become inconvenient, and that one's ethical commitments can be renegotiated whenever a better opportunity presents itself.

At the same time, the claims of universal dharma the ethical obligations that transcend personal relationships and demand justice, truth, and righteousness regardless of personal cost also have undeniable moral force. The Pandavas, whatever their individual flaws, have been grievously wronged and have exhausted all peaceful means of obtaining justice. The war, once begun, will result in massive carnage and suffering. Karna's participation on the Kaurava side will contribute directly to injustice and will require him to fight against and potentially kill his own brothers, even if he does not yet know their true relationship to him. The play shows Karna wrestling with these competing claims, unable to find any resolution that does not require betraying some fundamental aspect of his moral self.

Kailasam deepens this moral conflict by showing how it is inseparable from questions of identity and social justice. Karna's loyalty to Duryodhana is not simply personal but is bound up with his experience of rejection and marginalization by the very social order that the Pandavas, despite their individual virtues, represent and uphold. The "righteous" Pandavas and their allies including the god Krishna, the guru Drona, and the patriarch Bhishma all participate in the system of caste discrimination that has denied Karna recognition and opportunity throughout his life. When Drona refuses to teach Karna because of his perceived low birth, when Draupadi laughs at him during her swayamvara and declares she will not marry a suta-putra (son of a charioteer), when Bhishma and others repeatedly insult him with references to his supposed inferior birth these actions reveal that the "side of dharma" is deeply implicated in social injustice.

From this perspective, Karna's loyalty to Duryodhana represents not merely personal gratitude but a form of resistance against a hypocritical social order that preaches dharma while practicing discrimination. Duryodhana, for all his faults, judges Karna on his merit rather than his birth, offers him a place of honor, and treats him as an equal. The play thus presents Karna's moral dilemma as involving not just a choice between personal loyalty and universal ethics, but a choice between competing understandings of what justice means. Should he support the established order that claims to represent righteousness but denies dignity to people like himself? Or should he remain loyal to the friend who, despite his moral failings, at least treats him with respect and recognizes his worth? There is no easy answer to this question, and Kailasam does not pretend there is. This ambiguity is central to the play's tragic power.

2.2 The Conflict of Identity: Between Two Worlds

A second profound moral conflict that permeates Karna's character throughout Kailasam's play emerges from his ambiguous identity and the painful liminality of his social position. Born as a Kshatriya prince, the son of Kunti and the sun god Surya, but raised as the son of a charioteer, Karna exists in a space between social categories, fully belonging to neither world. This identity conflict generates moral dilemmas that go beyond abstract ethical principles to touch the very core of Karna's sense of self and his understanding of his place in the cosmic and social order.

The play presents Karna's identity crisis as both personal and philosophical. On the personal level, Karna has built his entire sense of self around his status as a self-made warrior who has achieved greatness despite the disadvantages of low birth. His pride, his determination, his very understanding of his own worth all of these are constructed around the narrative of overcoming social barriers through sheer merit and determination. When Krishna reveals to him that he is actually Kunti's eldest son and therefore the rightful king of Hastinapura, Karna confronts not merely new information but a potential collapse of his entire self-understanding. If he accepts this revelation and claims his true birthright, he must acknowledge that his entire life has been based on a false premise, that the social rejection he suffered was unjust not merely because birth-based discrimination is wrong but because he was actually born into the highest social category all along.

This creates a profound psychological and moral crisis. To accept his true identity would mean betraying Adhiratha and Radha, the charioteer and his wife who loved him and raised him as their own son. It would mean acknowledging that Kunti, who abandoned him to save her own reputation, has a greater claim on his filial loyalty than the parents who actually cared for him through his childhood. It would mean abandoning Duryodhana, who accepted him as a brother-in-arms when he believed himself to be of low birth, in favor of the Pandavas, who rejected and humiliated him when they thought him unworthy. Kailasam presents this not as a simple choice between truth and falsehood but as a choice between competing understandings of what constitutes authentic identity and where true familial and social obligations lie.

Moreover, Karna's identity conflict raises profound questions about the nature of social identity itself and the relationship between birth and merit. Traditional Indian social theory, at least in its orthodox brahmanical formulations, held that one's varna (social category) was determined by birth and reflected one's essential nature (svabhava). To be born a Kshatriya meant not merely that one's parents were Kshatriyas but that one possessed the inherent qualities courage, martial skill, leadership associated with that varna. Conversely, to be born a suta meant that one naturally belonged to a service occupation and did not possess the qualities necessary for warrior status. This theory provided ideological justification for a rigid social hierarchy in which social mobility was essentially impossible.

Karna's very existence challenges this ideological system. Throughout the play, he demonstrates all the qualities supposedly unique to Kshatriyas indeed, he surpasses most warriors of acknowledged high birth in skill, courage, and adherence to the warrior code. Yet he has been raised as a suta and initially has no knowledge of his Kshatriya birth. This raises the question: what actually determines one's varna birth or demonstrated qualities? If Karna can possess Kshatriya qualities while believing himself to be a suta, does this not prove that these qualities are not in fact birth-determined? And if so, does the entire system of varna distinction not collapse? Kailasam uses Karna's identity conflict to expose the contradictions inherent in birth-based social stratification, showing how the system must deny or suppress evidence of merit in lower-caste individuals in order to maintain its ideological coherence.

The moral conflict this creates for Karna is profound. Should he accept the social identity assigned to him by his upbringing, remaining loyal to his adoptive parents and the community that raised him, or should he claim his "true" identity based on birth? Should he ground his sense of self in the relationships and experiences that have actually shaped his life, or should he accept that blood relationships and birth status have a claim that supersedes lived experience? The play suggests that there is no fully satisfactory answer to these questions. Either choice requires Karna to betray something fundamental either the people who actually loved and raised him, or the abstract principle of his "true" identity. This dilemma is rendered more acute by the fact that Karna's revelation comes at a moment when claiming his true identity would also require abandoning his closest friend and ally in favor of brothers who have shown him nothing but contempt and hostility throughout his life.

Kailasam also explores how this identity conflict intersects with questions of legitimacy and belonging. Even after learning his true parentage, Karna continues to be viewed as illegitimate by the orthodox characters in the play. His birth outside of marriage, regardless of its divine origin, marks him as socially problematic. Moreover, his years of living as a suta have, in the eyes of caste-orthodox characters, "polluted" him in ways that cannot be undone simply by revealing his true birth. The play thus exposes how social identity is not simply a matter of biological fact but is constructed through complex social processes of recognition, acceptance, and legitimation. Karna can know his true parentage, but if society refuses to recognize him as legitimate, that knowledge changes little in practical terms.

This creates another dimension of moral conflict: Karna must decide whether to fight for recognition and acceptance from a social order that has rejected him, or whether to maintain his dignity by refusing to seek approval from those who have shown themselves to be prejudiced and unjust. There is a certain integrity in Karna's refusal to abandon Duryodhana even after learning his true identity it suggests that his loyalty is not merely a matter of convenience or self-interest but reflects a genuine commitment to those who have stood by him. At the same time, this refusal perpetuates his alienation from his birth family and contributes to a war that will result in immense suffering. The play does not resolve this dilemma but presents it as genuinely tragic a situation where any choice involves loss and betrayal.

2.3 The Conflict Between Vengeance and Magnanimity

A third significant moral conflict that characterizes Karna throughout Kailasam's play involves the tension between his desire for revenge and vindication on one hand, and his innate nobility of spirit and capacity for forgiveness on the other. The humiliations that Karna suffers throughout his life particularly his public rejection at Draupadi's swayamvara, the constant mockery he endures regarding his supposed low birth, and the refusal of teachers and warriors to accept him as an equal create understandable anger and a burning desire to prove his worth and achieve vindication against those who have wronged him. Yet Karna also demonstrates remarkable magnanimity and generosity, even toward those who have injured him, revealing a character that struggles between the very human desire for revenge and a higher ethical calling toward forgiveness and nobility.

The play presents this conflict with considerable psychological depth, showing how Karna's anger and resentment are not simply personality defects but reasonable and even justified responses to genuine injustice. When Draupadi laughs at him during her swayamvara and declares that she will not marry a suta-putra, she inflicts a profound public humiliation that goes beyond mere social embarrassment to strike at the core of Karna's sense of worth and dignity. This is not a minor slight but a devastating rejection that confirms all of Karna's worst fears about his social status and his inability to transcend the circumstances of his birth. His anger in response to this humiliation is entirely comprehensible, and his participation in her subsequent humiliation during the dice game (though the extent of his role varies in different versions) can be understood, if not excused, as emerging from this wounded pride and desire for retribution.

Draupadi's rejection of Karna at Swayamwara

Similarly, Karna's resentment toward the Pandavas and their allies is grounded in real grievances. Drona has refused to teach him, Bhishma has repeatedly insulted him, Arjuna has been elevated as the greatest warrior while Karna's equal or superior skills have been dismissed or attributed to various dishonorable tricks or advantages. The entire orthodox establishment has conspired to deny him the recognition his abilities deserve. His desire to defeat Arjuna in particular, to prove once and for all that he is the superior warrior, represents not merely petty rivalry but a demand for justice and recognition that has been systematically denied him. The play shows us that this desire for vindication is tied to Karna's sense of self-worth and his refusal to accept the verdict that birth determines value.

Yet alongside this anger and desire for revenge, Karna demonstrates a capacity for magnanimity that complicates any simple reading of his character as motivated by resentment. Most notably, when Kunti reveals herself as his mother and begs him not to kill her other sons, Karna makes a remarkable promise: he will not kill four of the five Pandavas, ensuring that Kunti will still have five sons after the war regardless of whether Karna or Arjuna survives their inevitable confrontation. This promise is all the more extraordinary given Kunti's treatment of him she abandoned him as an infant to save her own reputation, allowed him to suffer humiliation and discrimination throughout his life without revealing his identity, and comes to him now not out of maternal love but purely to protect her acknowledged sons. Karna would be entirely justified in rejecting her plea, yet he accedes to it, demonstrating a nobility of spirit that transcends his justifiable anger.

This capacity for magnanimity is evident in other episodes as well. Karna adheres strictly to the warrior's code of honor even when doing so disadvantages him militarily. He famously gives away his protective armor and earrings to Indra, knowing that this will leave him vulnerable, because he has taken a vow never to refuse a brahmin's request and cannot break this vow even to save his own life. His refusal to use the divine Nagastra weapon more than once, even when doing so would secure victory, demonstrates a rigid adherence to principles that goes beyond strategic calculation to reflect a deep commitment to honor and ethical behavior. These actions reveal a character who is capable of rising above resentment and self-interest to act according to noble principles.

The conflict between vengeance and magnanimity creates a profound internal tension within Karna's character. On one hand, he burns with desire to prove himself, to achieve vindication, to make those who have humiliated him acknowledge his worth. This desire fuels his martial prowess and his determination to defeat Arjuna. On the other hand, his innate nobility keeps pulling him toward forgiveness, generosity, and adherence to ethical principles that limit his pursuit of revenge. The play suggests that this internal struggle is never fully resolved Karna remains to the end a man at war with himself, unable to fully embrace either righteous anger or complete forgiveness.

Kailasam uses this conflict to explore broader philosophical questions about justice, forgiveness, and the appropriate response to injustice. Is Karna's desire for vindication morally legitimate, or does it represent a failure to rise above ego and wounded pride? Should victims of injustice seek revenge or demonstrate forgiveness? Does magnanimity toward those who have wronged oneself represent moral superiority or a failure to stand up for justice? The play refuses to offer simple answers to these questions, instead presenting them as genuine dilemmas that Karna must navigate without clear guidance. This ambiguity is central to the play's moral complexity and its refusal to reduce Karna to a simple hero or villain.

2.4 The Conflict of Knowledge and Action

A final significant moral conflict in Karna's characterization involves the tension between his knowledge of what is right and his inability or unwillingness to act on that knowledge. Throughout the play, Karna demonstrates clear moral insight he recognizes Duryodhana's faults, understands that the Kaurava cause lacks justice, and even acknowledges that he is fighting against righteousness. Yet this knowledge does not translate into corresponding action. Karna continues to support Duryodhana and the Kaurava cause despite his recognition of their moral bankruptcy, creating a conflict between knowledge and will, between ethical understanding and practical commitment.

This conflict speaks to a perennial philosophical problem: why do people fail to act in accordance with what they know to be right? The ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Socrates, famously held that knowledge of the good necessarily leads to virtuous action that weakness of will is ultimately impossible because anyone who truly knows what is right will act accordingly. Karna's character challenges this optimistic view, suggesting instead that knowledge of the right may be insufficient to produce right action when other forces loyalty, pride, social identity, emotional attachments pull in different directions. The play thus engages with fundamental questions about moral psychology and the relationship between knowledge, virtue, and action.

Kailasam presents this conflict as tragic rather than simply as moral failure. Karna is not ignorant of ethics or indifferent to righteousness. Rather, he is caught in a situation where his clearest ethical insights conflict with other deeply held commitments and values that he cannot simply set aside. His knowledge of Duryodhana's faults makes his loyalty more rather than less admirable in one sense, because it demonstrates that his commitment is not based on illusion or self-deception but represents a deliberate choice to honor friendship and gratitude despite their costs. Yet this same knowledge also makes his continued support of the Kaurava cause more morally troubling, because he cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.

This conflict between knowledge and action becomes particularly acute in Kailasam's treatment of Karna's response to Krishna's revelation of his true identity. Krishna explicitly offers Karna the throne of Hastinapura and the opportunity to join his true brothers on the side of righteousness. This is not merely new information but a genuine opportunity for Karna to change course and align himself with dharma. Karna's refusal of this opportunity, despite his clear understanding of both the practical advantages and the moral superiority of accepting, represents a moment of genuine tragic choice. He chooses loyalty over dharma, personal commitment over cosmic righteousness, with full knowledge of what he is doing and what it will cost him. This makes his fate tragic rather than merely unfortunate he brings about his own destruction with open eyes, unable or unwilling to act on his knowledge because other commitments have an even stronger hold on his will and identity.

Section III: Hamartia- The Tragic Flaw

3.1 Excessive Loyalty as Tragic Flaw

Having examined the major moral conflicts that characterize Karna's personality in Kailasam's play, we can now turn to a detailed analysis of his hamartia or tragic flaw. The most fundamental aspect of Karna's hamartia, as constructed by Kailasam, is his excessive, almost pathological loyalty that overrides all other considerations and ultimately leads to his destruction. This loyalty transcends rational calculation, ethical reflection, and even self-interest to become an absolute value that Karna will not compromise under any circumstances. While loyalty is normally considered a virtue, Kailasam shows how it becomes a tragic flaw when elevated to the status of an unconditional imperative that admits no exceptions or qualifications.

Karna's loyalty to Duryodhana is presented throughout the play as the defining characteristic of his identity and the primary motivation for his actions. From the moment Duryodhana offers him friendship and makes him king of Anga, Karna feels an overwhelming sense of gratitude and obligation that shapes all his subsequent choices. This sense of debt is not merely tactical or pragmatic Karna does not support Duryodhana simply because it is in his interest to do so, but because he genuinely believes that loyalty demands unswerving support regardless of consequences. When Krishna offers him the throne and reveals his true identity, Karna's refusal is grounded explicitly in his loyalty: he cannot betray Duryodhana, who stood by him when others rejected him, even if doing so would be personally advantageous and morally preferable.

What makes this loyalty a tragic flaw rather than an admirable virtue is its excessive, unqualified nature. Karna's commitment to Duryodhana admits no room for ethical discrimination or moral judgment. He supports Duryodhana not because he believes the Kaurava cause is just (he explicitly acknowledges that it is not) but purely because of personal obligation. This represents a failure to recognize that loyalty, like all virtues, must be balanced against other moral considerations and must have limits. There are situations where loyalty to an individual should be overridden by loyalty to higher principles justice, truth, the prevention of mass suffering. Karna's inability or unwillingness to recognize any such limits transforms his loyalty from a virtue into a vice.

Moreover, Kailasam suggests that Karna's excessive loyalty stems partly from psychological needs rather than purely from ethical conviction. Having been rejected and marginalized throughout his life, Karna desperately needs the validation and acceptance that Duryodhana's friendship provides. His loyalty is thus bound up with his sense of self-worth and his identity as someone worthy of respect and brotherhood. To abandon Duryodhana would threaten this hard-won sense of worth and plunge Karna back into the state of social death he experienced before their friendship. This psychological dimension does not make Karna's loyalty less real, but it does suggest that it is driven partly by need rather than purely by principle, and that this neediness makes him vulnerable to exploitation.

The play shows how Duryodhana, consciously or unconsciously, exploits Karna's excessive loyalty for his own purposes. He repeatedly appeals to Karna's sense of obligation and honor to secure his support in increasingly unjust actions. The loyalty that initially appeared as a noble bond between friends gradually reveals itself as a form of bondage that prevents Karna from exercising independent moral judgment. By the time Karna recognizes the full extent of Duryodhana's moral bankruptcy, he is so deeply committed that he cannot extricate himself without betraying his entire sense of identity and purpose. His loyalty has become a trap that ensures his participation in injustice and ultimately guarantees his destruction.

3.2 Pride and the Obsession with Honor

Closely related to Karna's excessive loyalty is his overwhelming concern with honor, reputation, and the maintenance of a warrior's code of conduct. Throughout Kailasam's play, Karna makes decisions that are motivated primarily by his desire to maintain an unblemished reputation for honor, generosity, and adherence to principle, even when these decisions are strategically catastrophic and morally questionable. This obsessive concern with honor represents another crucial dimension of his tragic flaw, transforming what should be a virtue concern for one's ethical reputation into a rigid inflexibility that prevents adaptation, compromise, or recognition of conflicting obligations.

The most dramatic manifestation of this flaw is Karna's donation of his protective armor and earrings (kavach-kundal) to Indra, who comes to him disguised as a brahmin beggar. Karna has been born with these divine protections, which make him essentially invulnerable in battle. Their loss will leave him fatally exposed during the war. Both his charioteer father Adhiratha and his friend Duryodhana warn him against making this donation, recognizing that it will cost him his life. Yet Karna has taken a vow never to refuse any request from a brahmin, and he will not break this vow even to save himself. He cuts the armor and earrings from his own body, an act of extraordinary pain and self-mutilation, purely to maintain his reputation for generosity and honor.

This action is presented ambiguously in the play it demonstrates both Karna's remarkable nobility and his self-destructive rigidity. On one level, his willingness to sacrifice his own safety to keep a vow represents the highest form of ethical commitment, a refusal to compromise principles for convenience or self-interest. Yet on another level, it represents a kind of pride or vanity about one's ethical reputation that overrides more important considerations. Karna's donation will not only cost him his own life but will also weaken the Kaurava cause and contribute to massive suffering in the war. Is maintaining an unblemished record of never refusing a brahmin really worth these costs? The play suggests that Karna's action, while admirable in one sense, represents a failure to recognize that ethical behavior sometimes requires flexibility and that rigid adherence to abstract principles may not always serve the larger good.

Similarly, Karna's refusal to use the Nagastra weapon more than once, despite the fact that doing so could secure victory and save countless lives on his side, demonstrates the same rigid adherence to warrior codes that becomes self-destructive. The Nagastra, a divine serpent weapon, fails to kill Arjuna on its first use due to Krishna's intervention. The weapon returns to Karna and could be used again, but Karna refuses on the grounds that a true warrior never uses the same weapon twice against the same opponent. This adherence to an abstract principle of martial honor takes precedence over pragmatic considerations, strategic necessity, and even loyalty to his allies whose lives depend on his victory. The play presents this as a form of pride Karna is so invested in maintaining a perfect ethical record, in being able to say that he won or lost purely through his own skill without any perceived advantages or shortcuts, that he sacrifices effectiveness for the sake of reputation.

Kailasam suggests that this obsession with honor is partly a compensation for the wounds to Karna's pride that he has suffered throughout his life. Having been repeatedly told that he is inferior, having been rejected and humiliated based on his supposed low birth, Karna becomes obsessed with proving his superiority through an absolutely unblemished adherence to the highest standards of warrior conduct. He must be not merely as good as the Kshatriyas who rejected him, but better more generous, more honorable, more strictly adherent to codes of conduct. This psychological need to prove himself transforms legitimate concern for ethical behavior into a kind of perfectionism that becomes destructive. Karna cannot accept any compromise of his ideals because any such compromise would confirm, in his own mind, the verdict of those who judged him inferior.

The play also shows how this concern with honor creates a kind of moral blindness. Karna is so focused on maintaining his personal reputation for nobility and generosity that he fails to recognize how his actions serve a larger injustice. He can take pride in never breaking a vow, in never refusing a request, in never using the same weapon twice but these personal ethical achievements occur within the context of fighting for a fundamentally unjust cause. The play suggests that there is something morally problematic about this kind of ethics that focuses on personal honor and rule-following rather than on larger questions of justice and the consequences of one's actions. Karna's rigid adherence to warrior codes allows him to maintain a sense of personal virtue while participating in mass violence and injustice, suggesting a failure of moral imagination or ethical priority.

3.3 Social Resentment and Wounded Pride

A third crucial dimension of Karna's hamartia in Kailasam's portrayal is the deep resentment and wounded pride that results from his experience of caste discrimination and social marginalization. While this resentment is entirely justified as a response to genuine injustice, the play shows how it nevertheless becomes a tragic flaw by clouding Karna's judgment, making him vulnerable to manipulation, and preventing him from recognizing the larger patterns of injustice in which he has become complicit. The psychological wounds inflicted by years of humiliation create a bitterness and defensiveness that distorts Karna's perceptions and motivations, ensuring that his considerable virtues serve destructive rather than constructive purposes.

Throughout the play, Kailasam shows how Karna's experiences of rejection have shaped his personality and his choices in fundamental ways. The memory of humiliations Drona's refusal to teach him, Draupadi's mocking laughter, the constant insults about his birth remains fresh and painful throughout his life, creating a burning desire to prove himself and to achieve vindication against those who have wronged him. This desire for vindication is understandable and even admirable in some respects, representing a refusal to accept unjust social verdicts and a determination to assert one's worth despite systemic discrimination. Yet the play also shows how this resentment makes Karna vulnerable to Duryodhana's manipulation and prevents him from seeing clearly the moral dimensions of the conflict in which he is engaged.

Duryodhana understands Karna's psychological vulnerabilities and exploits them skillfully. He offers Karna not merely material benefits but, more importantly, recognition and validation the things that the orthodox establishment has denied him. By accepting him as an equal and a friend, by making him a king, by consistently affirming his worth, Duryodhana creates a bond that is partly based on meeting Karna's deep psychological need for acceptance. This is not to say that their friendship is insincere or purely manipulative both men seem to genuinely care for each other. But the friendship is nevertheless marked by an imbalance of power and need that gives Duryodhana leverage over Karna. Because Karna needs Duryodhana's validation so desperately, because their friendship represents his only experience of full acceptance and recognition, he cannot afford to examine too critically the uses to which this friendship is being put.

Moreover, Karna's resentment toward the orthodox establishment prevents him from recognizing that the Pandavas, for all their participation in caste prejudice, are nevertheless fighting for a more just cause than the Kauravas. His legitimate anger at the injustice he has personally suffered blinds him to the larger questions of justice at stake in the war. Because the Pandavas and their allies have wronged him personally, he cannot see them as potential allies in a broader struggle for justice. His perspective is narrowed to his personal grievances, preventing him from achieving a broader social or ethical vision. The play suggests that this is a tragic consequence of oppression the very real injuries inflicted by an unjust social system can create psychological damage that prevents victims from effectively resisting or transforming that system.

Kailasam also explores how Karna's wounded pride makes him unable to accept help or to admit vulnerability in ways that might save him. When Krishna offers him the throne and reveals his true identity, Karna's response is shaped partly by his pride he cannot accept that his entire life's struggle has been based on a false premise, that he has been fighting for recognition that was rightfully his all along. To accept Krishna's offer would require admitting that he needed this revelation, that his own efforts were insufficient, that he was indeed a victim rather than a self-made hero. His pride makes this admission impossible, ensuring that he rejects the opportunity for redemption that is offered to him.

The play suggests that this combination of justified resentment and wounded pride creates a tragic bind. Karna's anger at injustice is legitimate and even admirable he refuses to accept the social verdict that he is inferior, and his determination to prove himself represents a form of resistance against oppression. Yet this same anger and the psychological wounds that produce it make him unable to act effectively in his own interest or to see beyond his personal grievances to larger questions of justice and ethics. The oppression he suffers damages him in ways that ensure his continued suffering, creating a cycle of victimization that he cannot break free from despite his considerable virtues and abilities.

3.4 Inability to Adapt or Compromise

A final dimension of Karna's tragic flaw in Kailasam's portrayal is his fundamental inability to adapt to changing circumstances or to recognize when rigid adherence to principles must give way to flexibility and compromise. Throughout the play, Karna demonstrates a kind of rigidity or inflexibility in his commitments, his values, and his understanding of himself that prevents him from responding effectively to new information or altered situations. While this steadfastness can appear admirable representing integrity and consistency of character the play reveals how it becomes destructive when circumstances demand change, reevaluation, or compromise.

This inflexibility is evident in all the dimensions of Karna's character that we have already discussed. His loyalty to Duryodhana remains absolute regardless of how Duryodhana behaves or what new information comes to light about Karna's own identity and obligations. His adherence to warrior codes and his concern for honor remain unchanged even when the consequences of maintaining these principles become catastrophic. His resentment toward those who have wronged him persists even when opportunities for reconciliation present themselves. In each case, Karna's response to changing circumstances is to double down on his existing commitments rather than to reevaluate them in light of new information or altered contexts.

The most dramatic illustration of this inflexibility comes in Karna's response to Krishna's revelation of his true parentage. This revelation should fundamentally change Karna's understanding of his situation, his obligations, and his interests. He learns that he is fighting against his own brothers, that his entire sense of identity as a marginalized outsider is based on incomplete information, that he has a legitimate claim to the throne, and that he has the opportunity to switch sides and fight for what even he recognizes as the more just cause. Yet none of this new information changes his fundamental commitments. He refuses Krishna's offer and continues on his established path, essentially treating the revelation as irrelevant to his decisions and his sense of self.

Kailasam presents this response as simultaneously admirable and tragic. On one level, Karna's refusal to be swayed by self-interest demonstrates remarkable integrity he will not abandon his principles and his commitments simply because doing so has suddenly become convenient and advantageous. His loyalty is proven to be genuine rather than opportunistic precisely because he maintains it even when it no longer serves his interests. Yet on another level, his refusal represents a failure of moral imagination and practical wisdom. Circumstances have genuinely changed in ways that should alter his ethical calculus. His obligations to his adoptive parents do not disappear upon learning of his birth parents, but they must now be balanced against newly discovered obligations to his birth mother and brothers. His loyalty to Duryodhana remains a real value, but it must now be weighed against the knowledge that this loyalty requires him to fight against his own family. A wise person would recognize that such radically altered circumstances require rethinking one's commitments, but Karna cannot or will not engage in such rethinking.

This inflexibility extends to Karna's understanding of his own identity. Having constructed his sense of self around being a marginalized warrior who achieves greatness despite social discrimination, he cannot easily incorporate the new information that he was actually born into the highest social category. This would require a fundamental reconstruction of his self-understanding, an acknowledgment that the narrative he has been telling himself about his life is incomplete or misleading. Rather than undertake this difficult psychological work, Karna essentially rejects the new information, choosing to continue understanding himself as he always has as Adhiratha's son, as Duryodhana's friend, as an outsider fighting against an unjust establishment. This choice preserves his existing identity but at the cost of denying important truths about himself and his situation.

The play suggests that this inability to adapt or compromise is partly a product of Karna's experiences of oppression. When one has been marginalized and discriminated against, when one has had to fight for every scrap of recognition and dignity, flexibility and compromise can feel like weakness or capitulation. Karna has survived by being absolutely unwavering in his commitments and absolutely determined in his pursuit of his goals. To suddenly become flexible and willing to compromise would feel like betraying everything he has stood for and achieved. The very qualities that have enabled him to survive and maintain his dignity in the face of systematic discrimination his unwavering loyalty, his rigid adherence to principles, his refusal to admit vulnerability become the qualities that ensure his destruction when circumstances change in ways that demand flexibility and adaptation.

3.5 The Synthesis: Hamartia as Personal and Social

Having examined the various dimensions of Karna's tragic flaw, we can now see how Kailasam creates a complex and multifaceted hamartia that operates simultaneously on personal and social levels. Unlike simplistic character portrayals where the tragic flaw is a single vice or error, Karna's hamartia emerges from the interaction of several related characteristics excessive loyalty, obsessive concern with honor, wounded pride and resentment, and inability to adapt that combine to produce his tragic fate. Moreover, these personal characteristics are shown to be partly products of the social structures and experiences of oppression that have shaped Karna's life, suggesting that his tragedy results not from individual moral failure alone but from the intersection of personal character and unjust social systems.

This understanding of hamartia as both personal and social represents one of Kailasam's most sophisticated contributions to the tradition of tragic drama. Classical Aristotelian tragedy tends to locate hamartia primarily within the individual character, treating it as a personal flaw or error that leads to downfall. While Aristotle recognizes that external circumstances play a role in tragedy, the primary focus remains on the protagonist's character and choices. Kailasam retains this focus on personal character Karna's loyalty, pride, and inflexibility are genuinely his own characteristics, not simply imposed on him by external forces. Yet the play also shows how these personal characteristics are shaped, encouraged, and exploited by the social context in which Karna lives.

Karna's excessive loyalty, for instance, is not merely a personal quirk but a predictable response to his experience of marginalization. Having been denied recognition and acceptance by the legitimate social order, he clings with disproportionate intensity to the one source of validation he has found. His obsession with honor and reputation similarly reflects the psychological need to compensate for the constant message he has received that he is inferior and unworthy. His resentment and wounded pride are direct products of the discrimination he has suffered. His inability to adapt results partly from the rigid determination required to survive and maintain dignity in the face of systematic oppression. In each case, what appears as a personal flaw can also be understood as a reasonable or even inevitable response to unjust social conditions.

This dual nature of Karna's hamartia creates the play's distinctive tragic vision. Unlike pure social protest literature, which might present Karna as simply a victim of injustice with no personal responsibility for his fate, Kailasam insists on Karna's agency and his personal contribution to his own destruction. Karna makes genuine choices throughout the play, and these choices are not fully determined by his circumstances. He could accept Krishna's offer; he could qualify his loyalty to Duryodhana; he could allow pragmatic considerations to override his rigid adherence to honor codes. His refusal to make these choices represents a real exercise of agency and personal responsibility. Yet unlike pure character tragedy, which would locate the source of disaster entirely within personal failings, Kailasam also insists on the role of social injustice in producing the psychological wounds and character deformations that lead to Karna's choices.

This creates a tragic vision of remarkable complexity and ambiguity. We cannot simply blame Karna for his fate, because his character flaws are partly products of injustice inflicted on him by others. Yet we cannot simply absolve him of responsibility, because he makes genuine choices and demonstrates agency throughout. We cannot simply condemn the social system, because individuals within that system also make choices and demonstrate personal virtues and vices. Yet we cannot ignore the social dimensions of the tragedy, because the play repeatedly shows how unjust structures shape individual psychology and constrain available options. This refusal of simple blame or easy moral conclusions gives Kailasam's work its philosophical depth and its continued relevance to contemporary audiences grappling with questions of individual responsibility, social justice, and the nature of tragic suffering.

Conclusion

T.P. Kailasam's portrayal of Karna in "The Curse" creates one of the most psychologically complex and morally ambiguous tragic heroes in modern Indian drama. Through careful attention to the multiple moral conflicts that define Karna's character between loyalty and dharma, between competing understandings of identity, between vengeance and magnanimity, between knowledge and action Kailasam presents a figure who cannot be reduced to simple categories of hero or villain, righteous or unrighteous. Karna's tragedy emerges from genuine moral dilemmas where competing values and obligations create situations in which any choice involves betrayal of something important and where no clear right action presents itself.

Similarly, Karna's hamartia operates on multiple levels simultaneously, combining excessive loyalty, obsessive concern with honor, wounded pride, and inability to adapt into a complex tragic flaw that is both personally characteristic and socially produced. Kailasam's genius lies in showing how these personal flaws are inseparable from the social context of caste discrimination and marginalization that has shaped Karna's psychology and limited his options. This creates a tragic vision that acknowledges both individual agency and social determination, both personal responsibility and systemic injustice, refusing the comforting certainties of simpler moral narratives.

The play's continued power and relevance derive precisely from this complexity and ambiguity. In presenting Karna as simultaneously noble and flawed, victim and agent, justified in his resentments yet destructive in his actions, Kailasam creates a character who resonates with the moral complexities of actual human experience. We recognize in Karna's dilemmas the genuine difficulty of ethical decision-making in a world where values conflict, where social structures constrain choice, and where personal psychology limits our ability to act on our best insights. His tragedy evokes both pity because his suffering seems disproportionate to his failings and because we recognize how circumstance has shaped his fate and fear because we see how easily noble qualities can become destructive and how difficult it is to escape the psychological wounds inflicted by injustice.

Ultimately, Kailasam's "The Curse" succeeds not merely as a retelling of a familiar mythological story but as a profound meditation on the nature of tragedy, the sources of human suffering, and the complex relationship between individual character and social structure. By transforming the mythological Karna into a psychologically realistic character whose dilemmas speak to modern concerns while retaining the essential power of tragic drama, Kailasam creates a work that honors both classical tradition and contemporary consciousness, both the demands of artistic form and the imperatives of social conscience.

Question 2: Deconstruction of Myth in T.P. Kailasam's "The Curse"

Introduction

T.P. Kailasam's "The Curse" represents a watershed moment in the history of Indian drama, marking a decisive shift from reverential retelling of mythological narratives to critical reinterpretation that challenges the ideological assumptions embedded within traditional epic literature. Writing in the early decades of the twentieth century, during a period of intense social, political, and cultural transformation in colonial India, Kailasam participated in a broader modernist project that sought to interrogate received traditions, expose the power structures concealed within classical texts, and reimagine ancient stories in ways that spoke to contemporary concerns about social justice, caste discrimination, and the nature of ethical obligation. His treatment of the Karna story from the Mahabharata exemplifies what contemporary literary theory would call "deconstruction" a critical approach that exposes the contradictions, ambiguities, and unstable meanings within texts that present themselves as unified and authoritative.

The term "deconstruction," associated primarily with the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, refers to a mode of reading that reveals how texts undermine their own claims to stable meaning and unified truth. Deconstructive reading exposes the binary oppositions (such as good/evil, high/low, center/margin) that structure texts and shows how these oppositions are unstable, with each term depending on and contaminating the other. It reveals the "aporia" or moments of undecidability where texts contradict themselves or where their explicit claims conflict with their implicit assumptions. It demonstrates how meanings are always deferred, never fully present, and always dependent on contexts and interpretive frameworks that shift over time. While Kailasam was almost certainly not familiar with Derridean deconstruction in any technical sense he was writing decades before Derrida's major works appeared his dramatic practice nevertheless enacts a deconstructive approach to mythological narrative, challenging the authority of the epic tradition and revealing its internal contradictions and ideological investments.

The Mahabharata, the epic source for Kailasam's play, occupies a foundational position in Indian culture as a repository of ethical wisdom, religious teaching, and philosophical reflection. Composed over centuries and reaching its final form around 400 CE, the epic presents itself as a comprehensive guide to dharma (righteousness) and offers narratives that are meant to illustrate proper conduct in various life situations. Traditional interpretation has generally treated the epic as authoritative and has sought to harmonize its various elements into a coherent ethical and philosophical system. The war between the Pandavas and Kauravas has typically been understood as a cosmic battle between dharma and adharma (righteousness and unrighteousness), with the Pandavas representing the forces of good despite their occasional moral lapses.

Kailasam's deconstruction challenges this traditional interpretive framework on multiple fronts. He strips away the supernatural and divine elements that traditional readings use to explain and justify the epic's events, presenting instead a world of recognizably human motivations, psychological complexities, and social conflicts. He problematizes the binary opposition between dharma and adharma, showing how both sides of the war participate in injustice and how the supposedly righteous characters display prejudice and cruelty. He exposes how the epic's narrative serves to legitimize oppressive social structures, particularly the caste system, and he uses the figure of Karna to reveal the violence and injustice concealed within supposedly natural or divinely ordained social hierarchies. He transforms literal supernatural curses into metaphors for social oppression, shifting causation from the cosmic to the social realm. Through these and other strategies, Kailasam creates a work that uses traditional material to challenge traditional interpretations, employing the authority of the epic against itself to open space for critical consciousness and social critique.

This essay will examine in detail the various dimensions of Kailasam's deconstructive project in "The Curse." We will analyze how the playwright systematically dismantles key elements of traditional mythological narrative its theological framework, its ethical certainties, its social assumptions, and its narrative strategies while simultaneously creating new interpretive possibilities that speak to modern consciousness and contemporary social concerns. Through close attention to the play's treatment of characterization, causation, social hierarchy, gender, language, and dramatic structure, we will demonstrate how "The Curse" represents not merely an adaptation of mythological material but a fundamental interrogation of the ideological functions that such material has traditionally served in Indian culture. The analysis will show how Kailasam's work participates in the broader project of literary modernism while remaining deeply rooted in Indian cultural traditions, creating a hybrid form that challenges both colonial dismissals of Indian culture and conservative defenses of tradition against critical scrutiny.

Section I: Demythologization and the Humanization of Epic Narrative

1.1 Stripping Away the Divine: From Cosmic Drama to Human Tragedy

The most fundamental aspect of Kailasam's deconstructive approach to the Mahabharata material involves the systematic removal or reinterpretation of the supernatural and divine elements that pervade the traditional epic narrative. The Mahabharata presents its story within an explicitly theological framework where gods intervene directly in human affairs, where characters are often incarnations of divine beings or possess supernatural powers, where cosmic forces of dharma and adharma battle through human proxies, and where events are understood as manifestations of divine will and karmic necessity working themselves out over multiple lifetimes. This theological framework provides traditional interpretation with explanations for suffering, justifications for violence, and resolutions to moral ambiguities that might otherwise prove troubling.

Kailasam's "The Curse" deliberately strips away this divine scaffolding, presenting instead a world that operates according to recognizably human psychology, social dynamics, and political forces. The gods, who appear frequently in the Mahabharata as active participants in the drama, are either absent entirely from Kailasam's play or appear only in ways that can be understood naturalistically rather than supernaturally. When Indra comes to Karna requesting his armor and earrings, for instance, the play can be read as presenting this not as a literal divine visitation but as Karna's rationalization of a self-destructive decision his need to prove his generosity and maintain his reputation leads him to give away his protection, and the figure of Indra serves as the narrative vehicle for this psychologically motivated action rather than as an external supernatural force compelling him.

This demythologization fundamentally changes the meaning and implications of the narrative. In the traditional epic, Karna's fate can be explained and to some extent justified by reference to supernatural causation he is cursed by his guru Parashurama and by a brahmin, he is targeted by the god Indra who seeks to protect his son Arjuna, he is born with particular karmic debts from previous lives that must be discharged through suffering in this life. These supernatural explanations remove much of the moral and philosophical difficulty from the story by locating causation outside the realm of human choice and social structure. If Karna suffers because of divine curses and karmic necessity, then no one is really to blame, and questions about social justice or the fairness of his treatment become less pressing because his fate is cosmically ordained rather than socially produced.

Kailasam's removal of this supernatural framework forces audiences to confront the human and social causes of Karna's tragedy. Without divine curses to explain his downfall, we must look instead to the choices made by human characters and to the social structures that constrain those choices. Karna suffers not because gods have cursed him or because he carries karmic debts from previous lives, but because human beings Kunti, Drona, Draupadi, the Pandavas, and Karna himself make particular choices within the context of an unjust social system. This shift from supernatural to human causation makes the tragedy more disturbing in some ways, because it suggests that the suffering could have been prevented through different choices or through transformation of the social structures that produce such suffering. Where the epic's theological framework can provide a kind of comfort by suggesting that even terrible suffering serves some larger cosmic purpose, Kailasam's humanized version offers no such consolation the tragedy is simply tragic, a waste of human potential and a product of human failings and social injustice.

Moreover, the demythologization extends to the characterization of all the play's figures, not just Karna. In the traditional epic, the Pandavas are presented as partial incarnations of gods Yudhishthira of Dharma (righteousness personified), Bhima of Vayu (the wind god), Arjuna of Indra (king of gods), and the twins Nakula and Sahadeva of the Ashvins (divine physicians). This semi-divine status helps explain their eventual victory and provides theological justification for their claim to represent dharma despite their various moral failings. Kailasam strips away this divine dimension, presenting the Pandavas instead as human beings with virtues and vices, prejudices and noble impulses, no more inherently righteous than their opponents. Similarly, Krishna, who in the epic is an avatar of Vishnu and speaks with divine authority, becomes in Kailasam's treatment a human political figure whose pronouncements about dharma carry no special metaphysical authority but must be evaluated on their own merits.

This humanization of all characters creates a dramatic world where moral evaluation cannot rely on divine endorsement or supernatural status but must be based on actual behavior and consequences. The traditional epic can point to the characters' divine identities as evidence of who represents righteousness the Pandavas are incarnations of gods and therefore must be on the side of dharma, regardless of their actual conduct. Kailasam's play offers no such shortcut to moral judgment. Characters must be evaluated based on what they do and say, based on how they treat others, based on the justice or injustice of their causes. This creates a much more ambiguous and morally complex dramatic world where audiences cannot simply align themselves with supposedly divine forces but must engage in genuine ethical reflection and judgment.

The demythologization also affects the play's treatment of destiny and free will. The Mahabharata frequently invokes destiny, fate, and divine will as explanations for events, suggesting that the war and its outcome were predetermined by cosmic forces. This fatalism can serve to absolve characters of full responsibility for their choices if events were destined to occur, then individual decisions matter less, and the terrible violence of the war becomes part of a necessary cosmic process. Kailasam's version largely eliminates this fatalistic framework, presenting choices as genuinely free and consequences as resulting from human decisions rather than cosmic necessity. This heightens the tragic nature of the drama characters are not simply playing out predetermined roles but are making real choices that could have been otherwise, and the catastrophe results from these choices rather than from inevitable destiny.

1.2 Psychological Realism and Interiority

Closely related to the demythologization of the narrative is Kailasam's commitment to psychological realism and the exploration of characters' interior emotional and mental lives. The Mahabharata, like most epic literature, focuses primarily on external actions and events. Characters are known largely through what they do and say in public contexts, and their motivations are often explained through external factors divine influence, karmic necessity, adherence to dharma or surrendering to adharma. The epic provides relatively little access to the interior psychological processes, the private doubts and conflicts, the complex mixture of motives that characterize actual human decision-making.

Kailasam transforms this epic style by creating psychologically complex characters whose actions emerge from recognizable human emotions, needs, insecurities, and conflicts. We are given extensive access to Karna's interior life his pain at rejection, his desperate need for validation and recognition, his conflicted feelings about loyalty and righteousness, his wounded pride and burning resentment, his genuine nobility of spirit struggling against his bitterness and anger. The play reveals how these psychological factors shape his decisions and determine his fate in ways that feel authentic and human rather than mythological or archetypal. Similarly, other characters are presented with psychological depth Kunti's abandonment of Karna is shown to emerge not from simple heartlessness but from terror of social disgrace and the impossibly constrained choices available to an unmarried woman who has given birth; Duryodhana's attachment to Karna reflects not only political calculation but genuine emotional need; Draupadi's cruelty at the swayamvara stems from social conditioning and her own vulnerabilities.

This psychological realism serves a deconstructive function by replacing the epic's clarity and moral certainty with ambiguity and complexity. When characters are motivated by complex mixtures of worthy and unworthy impulses, when noble actions coexist with ignoble motivations, when understandable human needs lead to destructive consequences, the clear moral categories of the traditional narrative begin to break down. We cannot simply categorize characters as good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, when we have access to their psychological complexity and can see how their flaws are intertwined with their virtues, how their worst actions emerge from comprehensible human needs and vulnerabilities.

Moreover, the psychological approach reveals the emotional costs and human damage caused by the social structures and conflicts that the epic might treat more abstractly. When we see in detail the psychological wounds inflicted on Karna by caste discrimination, when we experience his pain and humiliation, when we understand how these experiences shape his personality and limit his choices, the abstract question of caste injustice becomes concrete and immediate. The play makes audiences feel the human costs of social hierarchies rather than simply considering them as philosophical abstractions or accepting them as natural or divinely ordained features of social organization.

The emphasis on psychological realism also challenges the epic's tendency toward archetypal characterization. In the traditional Mahabharata, characters often function as types or examples the loyal friend, the jealous rival, the noble warrior, the virtuous king. While they may display complexity within these archetypal frameworks, they are primarily understood as representatives of particular values or qualities rather than as fully individualized psychological beings. Kailasam's approach creates characters who exceed their archetypal functions, who cannot be reduced to single qualities or values, who surprise us with their contradictions and complexities. This makes them feel more human but also makes moral judgment more difficult and ambiguous, undermining the epic's function as a clear guide to dharmic conduct.

1.3 The Transformation of Supernatural Curses into Social Metaphors

One of Kailasam's most sophisticated deconstructive strategies involves his reinterpretation of the supernatural curses that doom Karna in the traditional epic narrative. In the Mahabharata, Karna receives two particularly significant curses. His teacher Parashurama curses him when he discovers that Karna has lied about his caste identity to receive instruction in weapons, cursing him to forget his martial knowledge at the crucial moment when he most needs it. A brahmin curses Karna after Karna accidentally kills the brahmin's cow while practicing archery, cursing him such that his chariot wheel will become stuck in mud during a critical battle. These curses are presented as literal supernatural forces that will inevitably manifest at the appointed time, ensuring Karna's defeat and death despite his skill and valor.

Kailasam's play transforms these literal supernatural curses into powerful metaphors for social oppression and the structural violence of caste hierarchy. The "curse" of the play's title becomes understood not as supernatural doom but as the curse of casteism itself the systematic denial of opportunity, recognition, and dignity to people based on their birth rather than their qualities or achievements. In this reading, Karna is cursed not by individual brahmins or gurus but by the entire social system that has marginalized him from birth, that has denied him education and recognition, that has humiliated and rejected him at every turn despite his evident merit. The curse is the accumulated weight of social prejudice, the psychological damage inflicted by years of discrimination, the structural barriers that prevent him from achieving his full potential or finding his proper place in society.

This metaphorical reinterpretation fundamentally changes the political meaning of the narrative. When curses are understood as supernatural forces, they suggest that Karna's fate is cosmically ordained and therefore not really anyone's fault it is simply his destiny to suffer and die, perhaps as punishment for misdeeds in past lives or as part of a larger cosmic plan. This interpretation can serve conservative ideological functions by naturalizing social hierarchies and suggesting that people suffer because they deserve to suffer, because of their own karmic debts, rather than because of unjust social structures. By contrast, when curses are understood as metaphors for social oppression, the narrative becomes a critique of caste hierarchy and a demand for social justice. Karna suffers not because of cosmic necessity but because of human choices to maintain unjust social structures and to deny dignity and opportunity to those deemed inferior by arbitrary standards of birth.

The metaphorical curse also helps explain Karna's ultimate defeat in psychological and social rather than supernatural terms. Parashurama's curse that Karna will forget his martial knowledge becomes a metaphor for how internalized oppression and psychological damage undermine even the most talented individuals. The constant message that one is inferior, the repeated experiences of rejection and humiliation, the accumulated psychological wounds these create self-doubt, anxiety, and internal conflicts that can cause even the most skilled person to fail at crucial moments. Similarly, the curse that his chariot wheel will become stuck can be read as representing how structural barriers and bad luck tend to accumulate for marginalized people, how those already disadvantaged face additional obstacles that more privileged individuals do not encounter, how the system is rigged against those it has marked as inferior.

This transformation of supernatural elements into social metaphors exemplifies deconstruction's strategy of revealing how apparently natural or divinely ordained phenomena are actually products of human social construction. The traditional epic presents curses as simply given supernatural facts that characters must accept and work within. Kailasam's reinterpretation exposes these "curses" as metaphors for social processes that could potentially be changed through human action and social transformation. What appears as cosmic necessity is revealed as social injustice that demands resistance and reform.

Section II: Problematizing Dharma and Ethical Binaries

2.1 Challenging the Dharma/Adharma Binary

Central to the traditional interpretation of the Mahabharata is the understanding of the war between the Pandavas and Kauravas as fundamentally a conflict between dharma (righteousness, law, cosmic order) and adharma (unrighteousness, lawlessness, chaos). The Pandavas are conventionally seen as representing the forces of dharma, despite their occasional moral lapses, while the Kauravas represent adharma, despite the presence of noble individuals like Bhishma and Karna on their side. This binary structure provides clear moral orientation for audiences and readers, allowing them to identify who deserves support and who deserves condemnation, who fights for justice and who fights for injustice.

Kailasam's "The Curse" systematically deconstructs this binary opposition, exposing its instability and revealing how both sides of the conflict participate in injustice while both also possess legitimate grievances and moral claims. The play refuses to allow audiences the comfort of clear moral sides, instead presenting a complex situation where the supposedly righteous characters display prejudice, cruelty, and hypocrisy, while the supposedly unrighteous side includes noble individuals whose loyalty and personal virtues are undeniable. This problematizing of the dharma/adharma binary serves multiple deconstructive purposes: it reveals the ideological work that the binary performs in justifying violence and maintaining social hierarchies; it exposes internal contradictions within the epic's own ethical framework; and it creates space for critical reflection on the nature of justice and righteousness rather than accepting conventional attributions.

The play's treatment of the Pandavas provides perhaps the clearest example of how Kailasam challenges traditional moral binaries. In the conventional interpretation, the Pandavas represent dharma they are rightful heirs to the kingdom, they have been wronged by the Kauravas through attempted murder and fraudulent dice games, they seek only justice, and they eventually triumph because dharma must ultimately prevail. Yet Kailasam's play repeatedly shows how the Pandavas and their allies participate in grave injustices, particularly in their treatment of Karna. Drona, the weapons master who teaches the Pandavas and who is closely allied with them, refuses to teach Karna on grounds of caste prejudice, denying education and opportunity based purely on perceived social status. Draupadi publicly humiliates Karna at her swayamvara, laughing at him and declaring she will not marry a suta-putra, inflicting wounds to his dignity and self-worth that shape his entire subsequent life.

[Image suggestion: Scene depicting the contrast between public claims to righteousness and private acts of discrimination—perhaps showing characters who espouse dharma while practicing caste prejudice]

The Pandavas themselves, though perhaps not directly responsible for all the discrimination Karna faces, nevertheless benefit from and participate in the caste system that marginalizes him. They accept without question a social order in which birth determines opportunity and worth. When Krishna reveals Karna's true identity and offers him recognition, it comes only at a moment when it serves Pandava interests to weaken the Kaurava side, not from any genuine concern for justice toward Karna himself. The play suggests that the Pandavas' righteousness is selective and self-serving they demand justice for wrongs done to them but participate in injustice toward others whom they deem inferior.

By exposing this hypocrisy and selective morality, Kailasam challenges the audience to question whether the Pandavas truly represent dharma or whether they simply represent the interests of the established social order that benefits them. The play suggests that much of what passes as dharma in the epic is actually the ideology of dominant groups seeking to legitimize their power and privilege. When those who claim to represent righteousness practice systematic discrimination against others, when they demand justice for themselves while denying it to the marginalized, their claim to moral superiority becomes questionable. The binary between dharma and adharma begins to collapse as we see that both sides are implicated in injustice, that both contain mixtures of virtue and vice.

Conversely, Kailasam's treatment of the Kaurava side, and particularly of Duryodhana, adds complexity that challenges their simple categorization as representing adharma. Duryodhana is certainly flawed he is jealous, ambitious, willing to use dishonest means to secure power, and ultimately responsible for the war that will destroy countless lives. Yet the play also shows his genuine friendship with Karna, his willingness to judge people on merit rather than birth, and his loyalty to those who support him. Unlike the supposedly righteous Pandavas who practice caste discrimination, Duryodhana accepts Karna as an equal despite his perceived low birth. This does not make Duryodhana righteous or justify his other actions, but it does complicate any simple moral judgment of him as purely evil or as simply representing adharma.

Moreover, the play gives some legitimacy to Duryodhana's grievances and perspective. From his point of view, he is the eldest son of the reigning king and has been raised as heir to the throne. The Pandavas' claim to the kingdom can be seen as aggressive and unjustified, particularly given that their father Pandu had already abdicated in favor of his brother Dhritarashtra. The traditional narrative treats the Pandavas' claim as obviously legitimate and Duryodhana's resistance as pure jealousy and wickedness, but Kailasam's play suggests there are genuinely competing claims here, different understandings of legitimate succession, different perspectives on justice that cannot be simply reduced to a binary of right versus wrong.

This problematizing of ethical binaries serves important critical functions. It prevents the audience from taking moral shortcuts, from simply identifying with supposedly righteous characters without critically examining their actual conduct. It exposes how claims to represent dharma or righteousness often serve ideological functions, legitimizing the interests of powerful groups while concealing their own participation in injustice. It suggests that justice is more complex than simply determining which side is right and which is wrong, that it requires attention to how power operates, how social structures produce systematic advantages for some and disadvantages for others, how even those who claim to represent righteousness may be implicated in oppression.

2.2 Contextualizing Karna's "Adharmic" Alignment

Within the problematizing of ethical binaries, Kailasam pays particular attention to contextualizing and explaining Karna's alignment with the Kaurava side, which traditional interpretation treats as his fundamental moral error. In conventional readings of the Mahabharata, Karna's loyalty to Duryodhana despite knowing that the Kaurava cause is unjust represents his tragic flaw and the source of his downfall he fights for adharma out of misplaced loyalty, and his fate is therefore a kind of punishment or natural consequence of his error. This interpretation can serve to reinforce orthodox values by suggesting that personal loyalty should never override adherence to dharma and that those who support unjust causes, even for seemingly noble reasons, will inevitably suffer.

Kailasam's play fundamentally reframes this issue by showing how Karna's alignment with Duryodhana is not simply a matter of personal moral failure but a comprehensible and even partly justified response to systematic social oppression. The play forces audiences to confront the question: why should Karna support the Pandavas and the social order they represent when that order has systematically denied him justice, dignity, and opportunity throughout his life? The supposedly righteous side has treated him with contempt and cruelty based purely on his perceived social status. Drona has refused to teach him, Draupadi has publicly humiliated him, Bhishma and others have insulted him repeatedly, and the entire Kshatriya establishment that claims to represent dharma has participated in his marginalization.

By contrast, Duryodhana alone has offered Karna recognition, friendship, and a place of honor. He has judged Karna on merit rather than birth, has treated him as an equal, and has given him a kingdom and a social identity that the righteous side denied him. From this perspective, Karna's loyalty to Duryodhana represents not a moral failing but a principled refusal to support a hypocritical social order that preaches dharma while practicing discrimination. His choice to stand with Duryodhana can be read as a form of resistance against caste oppression, an insistence on personal loyalty and gratitude over abstract principles of dharma that the orthodox establishment has weaponized against people like himself.

[Video suggestion: Academic discussion on resistance, loyalty, and moral ambiguity in postcolonial literature - YouTube search: "Postcolonial ethics loyalty resistance literature"]

This reframing does not necessarily make Karna's choice morally correct or unproblematic the play does not resolve the ethical dilemma but rather deepens it. Duryodhana's cause is indeed unjust in many respects, and the war will cause immense suffering. Karna's support for Duryodhana contributes to injustice and violence. Yet the play insists that we understand this choice within its full social context, that we recognize how the supposedly righteous side's own injustices have created the conditions for Karna's alignment with their opponents. The traditional binary that treats the Pandavas as representing dharma and anyone who opposes them as representing adharma cannot accommodate this complexity. Kailasam's deconstruction reveals how the categories themselves are unstable and how their application serves ideological functions that the play exposes and challenges.

Moreover, the play suggests that Karna's situation reveals a broader problem with how dharma is conceived and deployed in the epic tradition. Dharma is supposed to be universal righteousness, applicable to all and demanding justice for all. Yet in practice, dharma as articulated by the orthodox establishment serves the interests of dominant castes and reinforces hierarchies that deny justice to marginalized groups. When those who claim to represent dharma practice systematic discrimination, they reveal that their version of righteousness is partial and self-serving rather than truly universal. Karna's rejection of their dharma in favor of personal loyalty to someone who has treated him justly can thus be read not as a rejection of true righteousness but as a rejection of a hypocritical ideology that masquerades as righteousness while perpetuating oppression.

This contextualization of Karna's choice serves broader deconstructive purposes by revealing how ethical categories that present themselves as absolute and universal are actually contingent on social position and experience. What counts as dharma depends partly on where one stands in the social hierarchy. For the Pandavas and the orthodox establishment, dharma requires maintaining the social order that benefits them, supporting birth-based hierarchies, and punishing those who challenge their authority. For Karna and others marginalized by this system, dharma might mean something quite different perhaps it means loyalty to those who have shown you genuine kindness, resistance to hypocritical authority, or insistence on being judged by merit rather than birth. The play does not endorse a simple relativism where all perspectives are equally valid, but it does expose how claims to represent universal dharma often conceal particular interests and how ethical judgment must attend to social position and power relations rather than simply accepting dominant interpretations of righteousness.

2.3 Exposing Contradictions in the Epic's Ethical Framework

Beyond challenging the specific binary of dharma/adharma as applied to the Pandava-Kaurava conflict, Kailasam's deconstruction exposes more fundamental contradictions within the Mahabharata's ethical framework. The epic presents itself as a comprehensive guide to dharma, offering narratives and philosophical discussions meant to illustrate proper conduct in various life situations. Yet the epic contains numerous contradictions, moments where different ethical principles conflict, situations where characters face genuine dilemmas with no clear dharmic solution. Traditional commentary has worked to harmonize these contradictions, to explain away apparent inconsistencies, and to maintain the epic's authority as an ethical guide. Kailasam's play instead highlights these contradictions and uses them to question whether the epic's ethical framework is as coherent and authoritative as it claims.

One central contradiction that the play explores involves the relationship between universal ethical principles and particular social obligations. The epic teaches that dharma requires certain universal principles truthfulness, non-violence (in some contexts), compassion, justice. Yet it also teaches that one's specific dharma depends on one's social position one's varna (social category), one's ashrama (life stage), one's particular relationships and roles. These two dimensions of dharma can come into conflict, and the epic does not provide clear guidance for resolving such conflicts. Karna's dilemma exemplifies this contradiction: universal dharma might require him to support justice and oppose tyranny, but his specific dharma as a friend and grateful recipient of Duryodhana's patronage requires loyalty. The epic's framework cannot clearly resolve this dilemma, and different characters and commentators might reasonably prioritize differently.

Another contradiction involves the tension between the epic's ostensible opposition to caste-based discrimination and its simultaneous reinforcement of caste hierarchy. The Mahabharata contains passages that suggest virtue and character matter more than birth, that all humans share fundamental dignity, that the rigid enforcement of caste distinctions represents a decline from earlier, more virtuous ages. Yet the epic also contains numerous passages that assume the naturalness and rightness of caste hierarchy, that treat low-birth as genuinely disqualifying people from certain roles, that present the social order as divinely ordained and properly based on birth. Traditional interpretation often tries to harmonize these contradictory elements, but Kailasam's play instead highlights the contradiction and uses it to critique the caste system.

The play shows how characters selectively invoke different aspects of the epic's teachings to justify their own interests. The orthodox establishment appeals to birth-based varna distinctions when excluding Karna from opportunities, but they also appeal to merit-based criteria when convenient. They insist on rigid adherence to social hierarchy when it serves to maintain their dominance, but they are willing to bend rules when it benefits themselves. This selective deployment of ethical principles exposes how the epic's complex and sometimes contradictory ethical framework can be manipulated to serve particular interests, how claims to follow dharma can mask pursuit of power and privilege.

Kailasam also exposes contradictions in the epic's treatment of violence and war. The Mahabharata ultimately validates the massive violence of the war by presenting it as necessary to uphold dharma and punish the wicked. Yet the epic also contains extensive passages lamenting the horrors of war, the destruction of families and civilization, the moral compromises and atrocities that war necessitates. The war that is supposedly fought for dharma involves numerous violations of ethical principles by both sides lies, deceptions, killings of unarmed opponents, and other actions that would be condemned in other contexts but are justified as necessary in war. The epic's framework struggles to reconcile its validation of violence in service of dharma with its acknowledgment of war's moral horror and destructive consequences.

Kailasam's play emphasizes this contradiction by presenting the impending war as an unmitigated catastrophe that will destroy countless lives and create immense suffering, regardless of whose cause is more just. The play refuses to provide the consolation that the epic offers that the violence serves a necessary cosmic purpose, that it represents the triumph of good over evil, that it will usher in a new age of righteousness. Instead, the war appears as human disaster resulting from accumulated failures, injustices, and inability to resolve conflicts peacefully. This exposes the contradiction in an ethical framework that claims to value life and compassion yet ultimately validates massive violence.

By highlighting these and other contradictions, Kailasam's deconstruction undermines the epic's authority as a comprehensive and coherent guide to ethical conduct. Rather than offering clear answers to moral questions, the epic reveals itself to contain competing values, conflicting principles, and unresolved tensions. This does not necessarily mean the epic has no ethical value, but it does mean that it cannot simply be accepted as authoritative without critical examination. Audiences must engage in their own ethical reflection rather than deferring to the epic's supposed wisdom, must recognize the complexity and ambiguity of moral situations rather than looking for simple rules or clear guidance.

Section III: Critique of Social Hierarchies and Caste System

3.1 Exposing the Arbitrariness and Injustice of Birth-Based Status

Perhaps the most sustained and powerful dimension of Kailasam's deconstruction involves his critique of the caste system and birth-based social hierarchies that the Mahabharata, despite some ambivalence, largely takes for granted and reinforces. The play uses Karna's story as a sustained demonstration of the arbitrariness, injustice, and destructive consequences of a social system that determines individual worth, opportunity, and identity based solely on the circumstances of one's birth rather than on one's qualities, achievements, or character. This critique operates on multiple levels simultaneously exposing the system's internal contradictions, demonstrating its human costs, revealing its ideological functions, and showing how it corrupts even supposedly virtuous individuals who participate in it.

The fundamental arbitrariness of birth-based status is revealed most dramatically through the irony of Karna's actual identity. Throughout his life, Karna is treated as a suta (charioteer caste) and denied recognition and opportunity on this basis. Yet he is actually born a Kshatriya, the son of Kunti and thus of royal blood. His social identity the basis on which he is judged and excluded is completely false, based on ignorance of his actual parentage. This irony exposes the absurdity of judging people by birth: Karna possesses all the qualities supposedly characteristic of Kshatriyas, all the skills and virtues associated with warrior nobility, yet he is excluded from the warrior class purely because people are ignorant of his true birth. When his birth is finally revealed, nothing about Karna himself has changed he has the same qualities, abilities, and character he always had yet suddenly his social status is supposed to be different.

This demonstrates that birth-based status is fundamentally arbitrary and unrelated to actual qualities or merit. If Karna can be a true Kshatriya in every meaningful sense while believed to be a suta, then clearly the categories of varna do not reflect natural or inherent differences between groups of people. The system assumes that birth determines essential nature that Kshatriyas naturally possess courage, martial skill, and leadership ability while sudras and others naturally lack these qualities. But Karna's existence refutes this assumption. He develops all the supposedly Kshatriya qualities while being raised as a suta, proving that these qualities are not birth-determined but can be developed by anyone with opportunity, training, and determination.

The play also exposes the violence and cruelty inherent in enforcing birth-based hierarchies. The discrimination Karna faces is not merely abstract social disadvantage but involves concrete acts of exclusion, humiliation, and denial of basic dignity. Drona's refusal to teach him represents not just lost opportunity but a declaration that Karna is fundamentally unworthy, that his aspirations are illegitimate, that he should accept his "proper place" and not seek to rise above it. Draupadi's mocking laughter at the swayamvara is not harmless social awkwardness but a cruel public humiliation that strikes at Karna's sense of worth and humanity. The constant insults about his birth that he endures from Bhishma, Kripacharya, and others represent ongoing psychological violence that damages him deeply.

Kailasam shows how this systematic violence is built into the caste system's very logic. A hierarchical system based on birth necessarily involves constantly policing boundaries, asserting the superiority of upper castes and the inferiority of lower ones, using humiliation and exclusion to maintain these distinctions. The play reveals how even characters who claim to be virtuous and righteous participate in this structural violence. Drona is respected as a great teacher and brahmin, yet he practices discrimination that denies education to worthy students. Draupadi is presented in traditional readings as a model of womanly virtue, yet she casually inflicts profound cruelty on Karna based on caste prejudice. The play suggests that the caste system corrupts everyone who participates in it, making it impossible to be truly righteous while upholding such an unjust social order.

3.2 Demonstrating the Waste of Human Potential

Beyond exposing the arbitrariness and violence of caste hierarchy, Kailasam's play demonstrates the tremendous waste of human potential that such a system produces. Karna represents what might be called "latent nobility" extraordinary abilities, virtues, and potential that cannot be realized because social structures deny him the opportunity, recognition, and support necessary for their full development. The play shows how caste discrimination not only harms individuals but impoverishes society as a whole by preventing talented people from contributing fully and by channeling their abilities toward destructive rather than constructive purposes.

Throughout the play, Karna demonstrates abilities that mark him as potentially one of the greatest warriors and leaders of his generation. His martial skills rival or exceed those of Arjuna, who is celebrated as the greatest archer of the age. His generosity and adherence to principle exceed that of supposedly more virtuous characters. His intelligence and strategic thinking, when given opportunity to develop, prove formidable. Yet because of caste prejudice, these abilities are systematically denied recognition and legitimate outlet. Drona refuses to train him, meaning he must seek education through deception or from less prestigious teachers. The Kshatriya establishment refuses to accept him as an equal, meaning he cannot compete openly or receive the honors his skills deserve. He is excluded from legitimate paths to recognition and achievement.

The result is that Karna's extraordinary abilities are channeled toward service of a flawed and ultimately doomed cause. Instead of being able to use his skills in constructive ways, perhaps as a great general serving a just king or as a teacher passing his knowledge to the next generation, Karna ends up fighting in a catastrophic war that serves no good purpose and results in his death. The play suggests that this represents a tragic waste not only for Karna personally but for society his talents could have served the common good, could have been used to protect and strengthen the kingdom, could have contributed to justice and prosperity. Instead, they are squandered in pointless conflict, and ultimately destroyed, because the social system could not accommodate a man of merit who lacked the proper birth credentials.

Kailasam extends this critique beyond Karna's individual case to suggest a broader pattern. How many other talented individuals, the play implicitly asks, have been denied opportunity and recognition because of birth? How much potential has been wasted, how many contributions to art, science, warfare, governance, and other fields have been lost because the caste system excludes people based on arbitrary criteria rather than allowing merit to flourish? The rigid social hierarchy that claims to ensure social order and preserve valuable knowledge actually impoverishes society by limiting the pool of talent that can be developed and deployed. It creates a system where accidents of birth matter more than ability or character, where less talented individuals of high birth are elevated while more talented individuals of low birth are suppressed.

Moreover, the play shows how the waste of Karna's potential creates not merely lost opportunity but actively destructive consequences. A man of Karna's abilities who had been properly recognized and integrated into the social order might have been a force for stability and justice. Instead, his marginalization creates resentment, bitterness, and a desire for vindication that makes him vulnerable to Duryodhana's manipulation. His legitimate grievances against the orthodox establishment lead him to support a cause that, while giving him personal dignity, serves larger injustice. The social system that excluded him thus creates its own enemy a powerful warrior whose talents are turned against the established order partly because that order denied him justice. This suggests that caste discrimination is not merely unjust but also politically and socially destabilizing, creating conflicts and resentments that threaten the very order the system claims to maintain.

3.3 Revealing the Ideological Functions of Caste Discourse

Kailasam's deconstruction also exposes the ideological functions served by caste discourse the ways that beliefs about birth-based status work to legitimize inequality, naturalize hierarchy, and prevent questioning of the social order. The play reveals how various discursive strategies are deployed to maintain caste boundaries and to justify exclusion of those deemed low-born. By making these ideological mechanisms visible, the play opens them to critical scrutiny and challenges their naturalized authority.

One key ideological strategy that the play exposes is the conflation of social status with inherent worth and natural ability. Characters who defend caste distinctions repeatedly suggest that Kshatriyas naturally possess certain qualities courage, nobility, leadership ability while lower castes naturally lack these qualities or possess different ones suited to different roles. This conflation serves to make social hierarchy appear natural rather than constructed, to suggest that people occupy their social positions because of what they essentially are rather than because of arbitrary historical circumstances and power relations. By showing that Karna possesses all the supposedly Kshatriya qualities despite his supposed suta birth, the play exposes this conflation as false ideology rather than natural fact. Qualities and abilities are distributed among people in ways that do not correlate with birth or social status.

Another ideological strategy the play reveals is the use of religious and cosmic justifications for caste hierarchy. Traditional brahmanical ideology presents the varna system as divinely ordained, as established by the gods or by cosmic law, as reflecting the essential structure of reality. This presentation makes the system seem unchallengeable to question caste hierarchy is to question divine will or cosmic order itself. Kailasam's demythologization undermines these religious justifications by showing the system as a human social construction maintained through human choices and capable of being changed through human action. When the gods and cosmic forces are removed from the picture, what remains is simply human beings making choices about how to organize society, choices that can be evaluated and criticized on ethical and practical grounds rather than accepted as divinely mandated.

The play also exposes how caste ideology uses circular reasoning to justify itself. Karna is denied opportunities because he is supposedly low-born; his lack of conventional credentials is then used as evidence of his unsuitability; his unsuitability justifies continued exclusion. This circular logic makes the system self-reinforcing those who are disadvantaged by the system are kept disadvantaged, and their continued disadvantage is offered as justification for the system that disadvantages them. By showing Karna achieving excellence despite systematic obstacles, the play breaks this circular reasoning and demonstrates that lack of conventional credentials reflects lack of opportunity rather than lack of ability.

Furthermore, Kailasam reveals how caste ideology operates through what we might now call "respectability politics" the insistence that marginalized people must be absolutely perfect in order to deserve recognition while members of dominant groups are allowed flaws and failures. Karna's slightest misstep is seized upon as evidence of his unworthiness, while the numerous moral failings of high-born characters are excused or overlooked. This double standard serves to maintain hierarchy by ensuring that marginalized individuals can never fully qualify for acceptance whatever they achieve, whatever virtues they demonstrate, it is never quite enough because the standards applied to them are impossible to meet. The play exposes this double standard by showing Karna as more virtuous in many respects than supposedly superior characters, yet still denied recognition.

3.4 The Construction of Identity Through Social Recognition

A particularly sophisticated aspect of Kailasam's critique involves his exploration of how social identity is constructed through processes of recognition and exclusion rather than simply reflecting pre-social facts about individuals. The play shows that Karna's identity as a suta or as a Kshatriya is not simply a matter of biological fact but depends on social recognition on whether others acknowledge him as belonging to one category or another. This insight challenges essentialist understandings of caste identity and reveals how the system depends on continuous social practices of boundary-maintenance and identity-attribution.

Throughout the play, Karna possesses all the qualities supposedly essential to Kshatriya identity martial skill, courage, adherence to warrior codes, royal blood yet he is not recognized as a Kshatriya because key social authorities refuse to acknowledge him as such. Drona's refusal to teach him, the rejection at Draupadi's swayamvara, the constant reminders that he is a "suta-putra" these are not simply responses to a pre-existing identity but are performative acts that constitute that identity. Karna is a suta because powerful social actors treat him as a suta and refuse to recognize him as anything else, not because he possesses some essential suta nature that they are simply observing and responding to.

This becomes clear when we consider how quickly identity could shift if social recognition changed. When Krishna reveals Karna's true parentage and offers him recognition as Kunti's eldest son, nothing about Karna's actual qualities or abilities has changed, yet his social identity could potentially shift completely from suta to royal Kshatriya, from outsider to heir to the throne. This shift would depend entirely on whether key social actors (Kunti, the Pandavas, the broader Kshatriya community) choose to recognize him in this new identity. The play thus reveals social identity as constructed through ongoing processes of recognition and exclusion rather than as simply reflecting natural or essential differences between people.

This insight has radical implications for the caste system. If social identity depends on recognition rather than reflecting pre-social essence, then the entire structure of caste hierarchy rests on collective agreement to maintain certain forms of recognition and exclusion rather than on natural or divine foundations. The system persists because powerful actors continue to enforce it, continue to recognize some people as high-born and others as low-born, continue to grant privileges based on these attributions. But this means the system could potentially be changed through changes in practices of recognition through decisions to recognize people based on qualities and achievements rather than birth, through refusal to enforce caste boundaries, through extension of dignity and opportunity regardless of origin.

Karna's tragedy is partly that he seeks recognition from authorities who are committed to denying it to him based on caste ideology. He repeatedly demonstrates his worth and merit, hoping that this will compel recognition from Drona, from the Pandavas, from the broader Kshatriya establishment. But the play shows that no amount of demonstrated merit will secure recognition from those who are ideologically committed to birth-based hierarchy, because granting such recognition would undermine the system itself. If someone of supposedly low birth can achieve equal or superior status through merit, this threatens the entire logic of birth-based hierarchy. The system therefore must deny recognition to talented low-caste individuals not despite their achievements but because of them their success poses a threat that must be contained through exclusion and delegitimization.

Section IV: Gender, Power, and Patriarchal Structures

4.1 Kunti's Impossible Choices and Constrained Agency

While Kailasam's primary focus in "The Curse" is on caste discrimination and Karna's tragedy, the play also offers significant, if somewhat less developed, insights into gender and the constraints of patriarchal social structures. The treatment of Kunti Karna's birth mother who abandons him as an infant provides the clearest example of how the play deconstructs traditional mythological treatment of gender by revealing how women's choices are constrained by oppressive social structures that leave them with no good options. Rather than simply condemning Kunti as heartless or weak, Kailasam's play contextualizes her decision within the impossibly limited choices available to unmarried women who become pregnant in a rigidly patriarchal society.

In traditional interpretations of the Mahabharata, Kunti's abandonment of Karna is often treated as a personal moral failing an act of selfishness or cowardice for which she bears individual responsibility and which contributes to the tragic consequences that follow. She is sometimes portrayed as choosing her own reputation and comfort over her child's welfare, as abandoning her firstborn to avoid social scandal. While such readings acknowledge the social pressures she faced, they ultimately locate responsibility primarily with Kunti herself rather than with the social structures that gave her such constrained options.

Kailasam's treatment complicates this judgment by showing how Kunti's choice was not really a free choice at all but rather a selection between catastrophic alternatives within a social context that allowed no good outcome. As an unmarried princess who has given birth, Kunti faces social death complete loss of status, honor, marriageability, and possibly physical safety. In the rigid patriarchal society depicted in the play, a woman's worth and identity are almost entirely dependent on her sexual purity and her relationships to men (as daughter, wife, mother of legitimate children). For an unmarried woman to have a child is to be marked as "ruined," to be rendered unmarriageable, to bring shame on her family, and to face potential violence or total social exclusion.

Given these constraints, Kunti's options are all terrible. She can keep the child and face social destruction for both herself and him an unmarried mother and her illegitimate child would have no place in respectable society, no means of support, no protection from violence and exploitation. She can attempt to explain that the child was conceived through divine intervention by the sun god Surya (which is the truth in the mythological framework), but this explanation is unlikely to be believed and might even make matters worse by suggesting either insanity or blasphemy. Or she can abandon the child in hopes that he will be found and raised by others, saving both his life (rather than the more common practice of infanticide) and her own social position. None of these options is morally satisfying, and whichever she chooses will involve profound harm.

The play suggests that Kunti's decision to abandon Karna, while tragic and harmful, is comprehensible as the least catastrophic option available within her constrained circumstances. She is not simply selfish or cowardly but rather trapped in a social system that gives women no good choices when they transgress or are perceived to transgress sexual norms. The play thus shifts moral responsibility from Kunti individually to the patriarchal social structures that create such impossible dilemmas for women. The "curse" that destroys Karna begins not with any individual's moral failing but with a social system that so severely constrains women's choices and so harshly punishes any deviation from narrow sexual norms that mothers are forced to abandon children to survive.

This deconstructive move is significant because it challenges the tendency in traditional readings to blame individual women for choices made under oppressive constraints while leaving the oppressive structures themselves unexamined. By showing how patriarchal structures limit women's agency and create situations where any choice leads to harm, Kailasam opens space for critique of these structures rather than simply condemning the individuals who must navigate them. This does not absolve Kunti of all responsibility her later interactions with Karna, particularly her approach to him before the war purely to protect her other sons, can still be criticized. But it does complicate moral judgment by revealing how her choices have been shaped and constrained by social structures not of her making.

4.2 Draupadi's Laughter and Internalized Oppression

Another significant, though more ambiguous, element of Kailasam's treatment of gender involves the character of Draupadi and particularly her role in Karna's humiliation at her swayamvara. In traditional tellings, Draupadi's mocking rejection of Karna her declaration that she will not marry a suta-putra is often presented as straightforward caste prejudice and personal cruelty. She appears as simply perpetuating the discriminatory system that excludes Karna based on birth. While this reading is certainly supported by the text, Kailasam's treatment also suggests more complex dimensions related to gender and the internalization of oppressive norms by those who are themselves oppressed.

The play hints at how Draupadi's own position as a woman in patriarchal society shapes her participation in caste discrimination. As a princess whose value is largely determined by her marriageability and who has very limited control over her own fate, Draupadi has learned to value and enforce the social hierarchies that give her what limited status and security she possesses. Her identity and worth depend substantially on marrying appropriately on securing a husband of sufficiently high status who can provide protection and legitimacy. The strict enforcement of caste boundaries is thus not merely abstract prejudice for her but is tied to her own survival and status within the patriarchal order.

Moreover, Draupadi's laughter and rejection of Karna at the swayamvara occurs in an extremely public context where she is performing for an audience of high-status men and their families. Her marriageability and future security depend substantially on how she is perceived by this elite audience. To accept Karna someone believed to be of low birth would potentially mark her as lacking proper understanding of social hierarchy, as willing to transgress important boundaries, as perhaps herself of questionable status or judgment. The play suggests that Draupadi's cruelty toward Karna may be partly a performance of adherence to caste norms, a demonstration to the watching elite that she properly understands and enforces social boundaries, that she is a suitable bride for a high-status Kshatriya precisely because she will not consider someone of lower status.

This reading does not excuse Draupadi's cruelty or absolve her of responsibility for the harm she causes Karna. But it does complicate our understanding by showing how her participation in caste discrimination is bound up with her own subordinate position within patriarchal structures. Women in rigidly hierarchical patriarchal societies often have limited power, but one form of power they may exercise is through strict enforcement of social boundaries and hierarchies, through performance of "respectability" that distinguishes them from those deemed lower or less worthy. Draupadi's enforcement of caste boundaries against Karna can thus be understood partly as an attempt to secure her own precarious position by demonstrating her adherence to the norms of the elite group she seeks to marry into.

This interpretation suggests what later feminist theory would call "internalized oppression" the way that members of subordinated groups often internalize and reproduce the hierarchies and discriminatory practices that subordinate them, partly as a survival strategy within oppressive systems. Draupadi, oppressed by patriarchy, participates in the oppression of Karna through casteism. This does not create a false equivalence between her limited power and the systemic power of patriarchy and caste hierarchy, but it does reveal the complex ways that different forms of oppression intersect and how individuals may be simultaneously victims of one form of oppression and perpetrators of another.

Kailasam's treatment of this dynamic remains somewhat underdeveloped the play's primary focus is on caste rather than gender, and Draupadi's motivations and inner life receive far less attention than Karna's. Nevertheless, the play gestures toward a more complex understanding of how multiple forms of oppression interact and how the enforcement of hierarchical systems involves not only those who benefit most from them but also those whose own positions are precarious and who may use whatever limited power they have to distinguish themselves from those deemed even lower in status.

4.3 Patriarchal Constraints on Male Identity and Honor

Beyond its treatment of specific female characters, Kailasam's play also offers implicit critique of how patriarchal structures constrain and damage men, particularly through rigid codes of masculine honor that demand constant demonstration of prowess, adherence to warrior codes, and maintenance of reputation at all costs. While the play does not develop this theme as explicitly as it addresses caste discrimination, the treatment of Karna's obsession with honor and his self-destructive adherence to warrior codes can be read as revealing how patriarchal constructions of masculinity create psychological damage and lead to tragic consequences.

The warrior culture depicted in the play defines masculinity through narrow criteria: martial skill, physical courage, adherence to codes of honor, generosity, and loyalty. A man's worth is measured largely by his success in demonstrating these qualities and by his reputation among other men. This creates intense pressure to constantly prove oneself, to never show weakness or vulnerability, to maintain an unblemished record of honorable conduct regardless of consequences. Karna's character exemplifies how this construction of masculinity can become self-destructive his refusal to accept help, his inability to admit vulnerability, his willingness to sacrifice his own survival to maintain his reputation all stem partly from internalization of rigid masculine codes that allow no space for flexibility, compromise, or acknowledgment of limits.

The play suggests that these patriarchal constructions of masculinity serve broader functions of maintaining social hierarchy and justifying violence. The emphasis on martial prowess and warrior honor helps legitimize a social order built on violence and military power. The insistence that real men never show weakness or ask for help isolates individuals and prevents collective resistance to unjust structures. The equation of masculine worth with reputation and honor among other elite men creates competition and conflict rather than solidarity. While Kailasam does not develop a fully articulated critique of masculine gender norms, his portrayal of how Karna's adherence to warrior codes contributes to his destruction suggests awareness of how patriarchal constructions of masculinity damage even those men, particularly marginalized men, who attempt to live up to them.

Section V: Linguistic Innovation and Demystification

5.1 Colloquial Language and Accessibility

A crucial element of Kailasam's deconstructive project involves his deliberate choice to write in accessible, colloquial language rather than in the elevated, sanskritized style traditionally associated with mythological and religious narratives. This linguistic choice serves multiple deconstructive functions: it demystifies the epic material by bringing it down to the level of everyday speech; it challenges the monopoly that religious and social elites have traditionally held over interpretation of sacred narratives; it makes the stories accessible to broader audiences who might be excluded by highly literary or sanskritized language; and it asserts that these narratives belong to the people rather than to specialized interpreters who claim unique authority.

Traditional tellings of the Mahabharata, whether in Sanskrit or in vernacular languages, have typically employed elevated literary registers that mark the narratives as belonging to a sphere separate from and higher than everyday life. This linguistic elevation serves important ideological functions: it creates an aura of sacredness and authority around the texts; it requires specialized education to fully understand and interpret them, thus limiting access to elite groups; it marks the narratives as timeless and universal rather than historically contingent; and it reinforces hierarchical relations between those who possess literary education and those who do not. The use of elevated language helps maintain the epic's status as a sacred text whose meanings are not open to questioning or reinterpretation by ordinary people but must be mediated through authorized interpreters.

Kailasam's use of colloquial, accessible English (and later Kannada in translated versions) deliberately violates these conventions and challenges the ideological work they perform. By presenting epic characters speaking in ordinary language, by including humor and everyday idioms, by making the dramatic dialogue sound like how real people might actually talk rather than like formal literary discourse, the playwright demystifies the material and asserts that these stories are about human beings in recognizable situations rather than about distant, sacred figures whose experiences are fundamentally different from our own. The linguistic accessibility invites audiences to engage critically with the material, to recognize themselves and their own ethical dilemmas in the characters, and to form their own judgments rather than deferring to traditional authorities.

Moreover, the use of colloquial language allows for forms of characterization and dramatic interaction that would be impossible in more elevated registers. Characters can express doubt, confusion, conflicted feelings, and psychological complexity in ways that feel natural and authentic. The dialogue can include humor, sarcasm, everyday observations, and emotional directness that more formal language would exclude. This creates more psychologically realistic and emotionally immediate drama that makes audiences engage with characters as recognizable human beings rather than as archetypal figures or moral exemplars. The linguistic choice thus supports the broader deconstructive project of humanizing mythological material and exposing the ideological work that traditional elevated treatments perform.

5.2 Humor as Deconstructive Tool

Related to the use of colloquial language is Kailasam's strategic deployment of humor as a deconstructive tool. Traditional treatments of the Mahabharata, particularly in religious and devotional contexts, typically maintain a serious, even solemn tone befitting the epic's status as sacred literature. While the original Sanskrit text certainly contains moments of humor and irony, later devotional and didactic treatments have often minimized these elements in favor of emphasizing the narrative's religious and ethical gravity. This seriousness helps maintain the text's sacred status and its authority as an ethical guide sacred truths demand reverent reception rather than laughter or ironic distance.

Kailasam's inclusion of humor ranging from gentle comedy to sharp satire serves to puncture this solemnity and to create critical distance from the material. Humor allows audiences to see familiar narratives from new angles, to recognize absurdities or contradictions that reverent seriousness might obscure, to question assumptions that sacred framing has made seem natural or inevitable. The laughter that humor provokes creates a kind of freedom a momentary release from the obligation to receive the narrative reverently and an opening for critical reflection and alternative interpretation.

The play's humor operates at multiple levels. Sometimes it involves character-based comedy the quirks, foibles, and all-too-human weaknesses of characters who are presented in traditional tellings as semi-divine or archetypal. This humanizing humor makes the characters more accessible and relatable while also undercutting any tendency to idealize them or treat them as moral exemplars beyond ordinary human judgment. Other moments of humor involve situational irony the gap between characters' self-understanding or public presentation and the reality of their situations. This ironic humor exposes pretensions and hypocrisies, particularly among characters who claim to represent righteousness while practicing discrimination or other forms of injustice.

Still other uses of humor involve anachronism and contemporary reference moments when the dialogue or situations echo modern concerns or contemporary idioms in ways that remind audiences that they are watching a twentieth-century interpretation rather than simply receiving an ancient story. This reminds audiences of their own position as modern interpreters with contemporary values and concerns rather than as passive recipients of timeless wisdom. The anachronistic humor creates what Bertolt Brecht would call "alienation effects" moments that prevent audiences from becoming completely absorbed in the dramatic illusion and instead maintain critical consciousness of the act of interpretation taking place.

However, it's important to note that Kailasam's humor is not simply irreverent mockery or trivializing of the epic material. Rather, it serves serious purposes of critical engagement and reinterpretation. The humor makes space for questioning and alternative perspectives while still taking seriously the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the narrative. This balance allows the play to challenge traditional interpretations without simply dismissing the epic as irrelevant or without value. Instead, humor becomes a tool for recovering dimensions of the narrative that over-serious devotional treatments have suppressed, and for opening the material to new interpretations that speak to contemporary concerns.

5.3 Dramatic Dialogue and the Exposure of Ideology

Kailasam's use of dramatic dialogue the direct conversation among characters that constitutes the primary mode of a stage play serves deconstructive purposes by allowing contradictions, multiple perspectives, and ideological conflicts to emerge through the interaction of voices rather than being resolved through a single authoritative narrative voice. Unlike the epic narrative mode, which typically includes an omniscient narrator who can provide authoritative judgments and explanations, dramatic dialogue presents multiple perspectives in conflict without necessarily resolving them into a single truth. This formal feature of drama aligns well with deconstructive purposes by revealing contradictions and multiple meanings rather than imposing unified interpretation.

In Kailasam's play, characters articulate different understandings of dharma, different evaluations of social hierarchies, different interpretations of events and of each other's motivations. When Karna and Krishna debate, for instance, they offer competing ethical frameworks Karna emphasizing personal loyalty and gratitude, Krishna emphasizing cosmic righteousness and the demands of one's true identity. The play does not necessarily resolve this debate in favor of one position, but rather allows both perspectives to be articulated with some force, leaving audiences to wrestle with the competing claims.

This dialogic form exposes how claims to represent universal truth or dharma are actually particular perspectives shaped by social position and interests. When Krishna articulates what he presents as universal dharma, we can see how this version of dharma happens to align with Pandava interests and with maintaining the social hierarchies from which they benefit. When Bhishma or Drona defend caste distinctions, we can see how their supposedly principled commitments to social order happen to preserve their own elite positions. The dramatic form allows these ideological dimensions to become visible through the clash of perspectives rather than being concealed beneath a single authoritative narrative voice claiming to speak universal truth.

Moreover, the dialogue form allows for what Mikhail Bakhtin called "heteroglossia" the presence of multiple social languages, registers, and perspectives within a single work. Different characters speak from different social positions and with different linguistic styles that reflect their backgrounds, education, and social roles. This linguistic diversity itself serves deconstructive purposes by revealing that there is no single, unified language of truth but rather multiple socially-situated ways of speaking, each reflecting particular positions and interests. The collision of these different voices and registers prevents any single perspective from achieving total dominance and maintains the play's ethical and interpretive complexity.

Section VI: Structural and Narrative Deconstruction

6.1 Focus and Marginalization: Centering the Peripheral

One of the most fundamental deconstructive moves Kailasam makes involves his choice to center his play on Karna a character who, while important in the Mahabharata, is nevertheless peripheral to the epic's main focus on the Pandavas and their conflicts with the Kauravas. By making Karna the protagonist and viewing events primarily through his perspective, Kailasam performs what deconstruction calls a "reversal of hierarchy" taking a figure who is marginalized both within the epic narrative and within the social world it depicts, and placing him at the center of interpretive attention. This reversal exposes how perspective shapes interpretation and reveals dimensions of the epic that traditional Pandava-centered readings obscure or suppress.

The traditional Mahabharata narrative focuses primarily on the Pandavas their exile, their struggles, their eventual victory. Karna appears in this narrative primarily as their antagonist, the loyal friend of their enemy Duryodhana, the skilled warrior who poses a threat that must be neutralized. While his nobility and tragic dimensions are acknowledged, he remains fundamentally a supporting character in someone else's story. This narrative structure reflects and reinforces the social hierarchies within the epic the Pandavas, as supposedly righteous Kshatriyas who will eventually rule, naturally occupy the center of attention, while characters like Karna who lack proper birth status are relegated to peripheral roles regardless of their abilities or the intrinsic interest of their stories.

By centering Karna, Kailasam asks us to view the entire epic conflict from the perspective of someone who has been marginalized and excluded, someone for whom the supposedly righteous side appears not as heroes but as participants in an unjust social order. From Karna's perspective, the Pandavas are not noble warriors fighting for justice but rather representatives of an orthodox establishment that has denied him recognition and dignity throughout his life. Their supposed righteousness rings hollow when we see how they practice caste discrimination and benefit from social hierarchies that oppress others. The war that traditional tellings present as a necessary battle between dharma and adharma appears from Karna's perspective as a conflict in which both sides are implicated in injustice and in which his own loyalties are shaped by experiences of marginalization that make him unable to support the supposedly righteous side.

This shift in perspective reveals what postcolonial theory calls the "subaltern viewpoint" the perspective of those who are marginalized, excluded, or oppressed by dominant social orders. Viewing the epic from this perspective exposes how narratives that claim to represent universal truth actually reflect the interests and perspectives of dominant groups. The traditional Mahabharata narrative, while containing complexity and acknowledging some moral ambiguity, ultimately validates the Pandavas' victory and treats it as the triumph of dharma. But when we view events from Karna's marginal position, this triumphalist narrative becomes questionable we see the injustices that the "righteous" side perpetrates, we understand why someone might refuse to support them, we recognize that their victory does not represent justice for everyone but only for those already privileged by the social order they uphold.

Moreover, by centering Karna's story, Kailasam reveals how much human drama and ethical complexity exists in the lives and experiences of those whom dominant narratives marginalize. Karna's inner conflicts, his moral dilemmas, his psychological wounds and his nobility of spirit all of this provides material for profound drama and philosophical reflection, yet traditional tellings give relatively little attention to his interior life or perspective. The play suggests that countless stories of equal or greater interest and moral significance exist at the margins of dominant narratives, stories that are suppressed or subordinated because the tellers of those narratives are primarily interested in validating the perspectives and interests of dominant groups. This implicit critique extends beyond the specific case of the Mahabharata to challenge how narratives in general tend to center the powerful and marginalize the perspectives of the oppressed.

6.2 Tragic Form Versus Epic Teleology

Another significant structural deconstruction involves Kailasam's transformation of epic narrative into tragic drama, a shift that fundamentally alters the meaning and implications of the story. The Mahabharata, as an epic, is structured teleologically it moves toward a predetermined end (the Pandavas' victory) that is presented as the working out of cosmic justice and the restoration of dharmic order. While the epic acknowledges the terrible costs of the war and the moral ambiguities involved, it ultimately validates the war as necessary and presents its outcome as just. The epic form, with its grand scope encompassing multiple generations and its cosmic framework, suggests that events have larger meanings and purposes that transcend individual suffering.

Kailasam's transformation of this material into tragedy shifts the framework from cosmic teleology to human catastrophe, from the working out of divine purpose to the waste of human potential through the interaction of character flaws and unjust social structures. Tragedy, unlike epic, does not offer consolation through appeal to cosmic purposes or divine plans. Instead, it confronts suffering as simply tragic as waste, as avoidable catastrophe, as the price of human failings and social injustice. Where the epic can subsume individual suffering into a larger narrative of cosmic justice being served, tragedy insists on the reality and significance of that suffering itself, refusing to explain it away or to suggest it serves some higher purpose.

This shift in genre serves profound ideological purposes. The epic's teleological structure, which presents the Pandavas' victory as cosmically ordained and ultimately just, can serve conservative functions by suggesting that the outcome of conflicts reflects divine will or cosmic order rather than human choices and power relations. It can naturalize the social hierarchies that the Pandavas' victory preserves and legitimize violence by presenting it as necessary to uphold dharma. The tragic form, by contrast, refuses these consolations and justifications. It presents the war not as cosmic necessity but as human catastrophe resulting from accumulated failures to achieve justice, to resolve conflicts peacefully, to overcome social prejudices, and to act on ethical insights.

Moreover, the tragic form emphasizes agency and choice in ways that the epic's fatalistic framework can obscure. Tragedy requires that the protagonist make genuine choices that contribute to his downfall the tragic outcome must result from the interaction of character and circumstance rather than simply from inevitable destiny. This emphasis on choice and agency makes questions of responsibility and justice more pressing and immediate. If Karna's fate results from his choices and from unjust social structures rather than from divine curses or cosmic necessity, then it becomes imperative to ask who or what is responsible, how the catastrophe might have been prevented, what changes in individual character or social structures might have produced different outcomes. The tragic form thus opens space for critical reflection and potential social critique that the epic's teleological structure tends to foreclose.

6.3 Irony and Unstable Meaning

Kailasam makes extensive use of dramatic irony situations where the audience knows things that characters do not as a deconstructive technique that destabilizes the epic's moral certainties and exposes contradictions in its ethical framework. The most pervasive irony in the play involves the audience's knowledge that Karna is actually Kunti's son and therefore the Pandavas' older brother, while most characters remain ignorant of this fact. This irony creates multiple layers of meaning that complicate any simple moral interpretation of events.

When we watch Draupadi reject Karna at her swayamvara or see the Pandavas treat him with contempt, knowing that he is actually their brother and of royal birth, the injustice of caste-based discrimination becomes viscerally apparent. The supposedly righteous characters are treating their own brother with cruelty and contempt based on false beliefs about his birth. This irony exposes how arbitrary and unjust the caste system is Karna possesses exactly the same birth status as the Pandavas (royal Kshatriya), yet he is excluded and humiliated purely because of ignorance of this fact. If his treatment would be considered unjust once his true birth is known, then it was unjust all along, and the revelation merely exposes an injustice that already existed rather than creating a new situation.

Moreover, the irony creates profound moral complications around the question of the war itself. The traditional reading presents the war as righteous the Pandavas fighting to reclaim what is rightfully theirs, to punish wickedness, to restore dharmic order. But when we know that Karna is Kunti's eldest son, the rightful heir to the throne is actually fighting on the "wrong" side. The supposedly righteous cause is being advanced by younger brothers against their elder brother who, by the very logic of primogeniture and dharmic succession that justifies the Pandavas' claim, should actually be king. This irony thoroughly destabilizes the epic's moral binaries who is fighting for justice and who for injustice becomes radically unclear when we recognize that the supposedly righteous side is fighting against the person with the strongest legitimate claim to rule.

The irony also exposes the performative, constructed nature of identity and righteousness. Nothing about Karna's actual qualities or character changes when his true birth is revealed, yet his social identity and the moral evaluation of his choices potentially shifts completely. This reveals that social identity and moral status are not natural facts but depend on social recognition and interpretation. The character who was condemned as low-born and therefore unworthy could be instantly transformed into a royal prince if the right people choose to recognize him as such. This exposes how categories of identity that present themselves as natural or essential are actually products of social processes of recognition and attribution.

Furthermore, dramatic irony creates a kind of tragic inevitability that differs from the epic's fatalistic framework. We watch characters making choices that we know will lead to catastrophe, that we can see are based on incomplete information or false assumptions, yet we cannot intervene to change the outcome. This creates the characteristic tragic emotions of pity and fear pity because the characters suffer based on ignorance and circumstances beyond their control, fear because we recognize how easily we ourselves might make similar errors, how impossible it is to act with perfect knowledge, how our own most carefully considered choices might be based on incomplete understanding that future revelations could expose as tragically mistaken. This form of irony thus serves the broader tragic vision while simultaneously exposing contradictions and instabilities in the epic's moral framework.

6.4 The Unresolved Ending and Interpretive Openness

A final aspect of Kailasam's structural deconstruction involves the relative openness and lack of resolution in the play's ending, particularly when compared to the epic's more definitive conclusions. The Mahabharata continues well beyond Karna's death to show the Pandavas' victory, their rule, and eventually their own renunciation and journey to heaven, providing a sense of completion and cosmic justice being served despite all the suffering involved. The epic's conclusion, while acknowledging the costs and moral ambiguities of the war, ultimately validates the Pandavas' cause and suggests that dharma has been upheld.

Kailasam's play, by focusing on Karna and ending with his death or its immediate aftermath, refuses these consolations and leaves audiences with a sense of tragic waste rather than cosmic justice achieved. The play does not show us the Pandavas' victory or any restoration of righteous order that might justify the suffering we have witnessed. Instead, we are left with the image of a noble man destroyed by the combination of his character flaws and an unjust social system, with questions about responsibility and justice unresolved, with no sense that his death serves any larger purpose or that the world he leaves behind will be more just than the one in which he suffered.

This structural choice serves important deconstructive purposes. By refusing the epic's consoling resolution, the play maintains its critical edge and prevents audiences from accepting easy justifications for injustice and suffering. We cannot tell ourselves that Karna's suffering was necessary for some greater good or served some cosmic purpose, because the play does not show us any such greater good or cosmic justice. We are forced to confront his suffering as simply tragic as waste, as the destruction of human potential, as the consequence of human failings and social injustice that could have been otherwise.

Moreover, the relatively open ending leaves interpretive questions unresolved and forces audiences to engage in their own ethical reflection rather than accepting authoritative resolutions. Was Karna right to remain loyal to Duryodhana? Were the Pandavas justified in their treatment of him? Does his nobility redeem his choice to fight for an unjust cause, or does his support for Duryodhana negate his personal virtues? What responsibility do individuals bear for their participation in unjust social systems, and what responsibility do social structures bear for the tragic choices individuals make? The play raises these questions with considerable sophistication but does not provide definitive answers, instead leaving audiences to wrestle with the ethical complexities and to form their own considered judgments.

This interpretive openness reflects a modernist sensibility that questions whether art should provide moral instruction or definitive answers to ethical questions. Instead of didactically teaching audiences what to think, the play invites them to think to engage critically with complex moral situations, to recognize ambiguity and contradiction, to develop their own ethical positions through encounter with difficult questions. This approach contrasts sharply with traditional uses of the Mahabharata as a source of moral instruction and dharmic guidance, where the expectation is that the epic will teach proper conduct through positive and negative examples. Kailasam's refusal of didactic resolution serves his broader deconstructive project by challenging the epic's authority as a straightforward guide to ethical conduct and opening space for diverse interpretations and critical perspectives.

Section VII: Historical Context and Cultural Politics

7.1 Colonial Context and Cultural Nationalism

To fully understand the significance of Kailasam's deconstructive project, it is essential to consider the historical and cultural context in which he was writing. "The Curse" was created during the colonial period in India, at a moment of intense cultural and political ferment when intellectuals were grappling with questions about Indian identity, tradition, modernity, and the relationship between indigenous culture and Western ideas. The play participates in complex cultural politics that involve both resistance to colonial narratives about Indian civilization and critical engagement with indigenous traditions that many reformers saw as requiring transformation.

British colonialism operated partly through cultural and ideological domination, including narratives that presented Indian civilization as backward, superstitious, bound by oppressive traditions like caste hierarchy, and in need of Western enlightenment and progress. Colonial education introduced Indians to Western literature, philosophy, and ideas about individual rights, social justice, and rational inquiry. While this colonial education served imperial purposes by creating administrators and intermediaries for colonial rule and by promoting belief in Western superiority, it also provided intellectual tools that could be used to critique both colonialism and indigenous social injustices.

Indian intellectuals of Kailasam's generation faced complex negotiations between these competing pressures. On one hand, there was strong pressure toward cultural nationalism defending Indian civilization and traditions against colonial dismissal, asserting the value and sophistication of Indian literature, philosophy, and culture, and resisting Western attempts to transform Indian society according to colonial models. This cultural nationalism often involved celebrating the epics like the Mahabharata and Ramayana as evidence of India's ancient and sophisticated civilization, as repositories of wisdom and ethical insight that could provide foundations for modern Indian identity.

On the other hand, many of these same intellectuals were also committed to social reform to challenging caste discrimination, promoting women's rights, questioning religious orthodoxy, and transforming aspects of Indian society they saw as oppressive or unjust. This reformist impulse drew on both indigenous reform traditions (like bhakti movements that challenged brahmanical orthodoxy) and Western liberal and progressive ideas about equality, individual rights, and social justice. The challenge was how to engage in this critical reform project without seeming to validate colonial narratives about Indian backwardness or to accept that Western civilization was superior and should serve as the model for Indian development.

Kailasam's work can be understood as navigating these complex pressures through a strategy that engages critically with indigenous tradition while asserting its continued relevance and value. By taking the Mahabharata as his subject, he affirms the importance and richness of classical Indian literature this is not a rejection of tradition in favor of Western models but rather a continuation of engagement with texts that have been central to Indian culture for millennia. By writing in English and later in Kannada rather than Sanskrit, by using modern dramatic techniques, by engaging with questions of social justice, he demonstrates that Indian culture is living and dynamic rather than static and unchanging. And by subjecting the epic to critical reinterpretation rather than simply celebrating it uncritically, he shows that respect for tradition need not mean blind acceptance of all its elements, that one can honor classical texts while also questioning the ideological work they perform and challenging the social structures they have been used to legitimize.

This approach allows Kailasam to engage in social critique particularly of caste discrimination while grounding that critique in indigenous materials and traditions rather than simply importing Western ideas. The play suggests that the resources for challenging caste oppression exist within Indian tradition itself, in the figure of Karna who demonstrates the injustice of birth-based hierarchies, in the epic's own acknowledgment of moral complexity and ethical dilemmas, in indigenous concepts of dharma and justice that can be interpreted in ways that support rather than oppose social reform. This strategy anticipates what postcolonial theorists would later call "strategic essentialism" or "critical traditionalism" engaging with tradition in ways that affirm cultural continuity while also transforming oppressive elements and recovering progressive possibilities that orthodox interpretations have suppressed.

7.2 Social Reform Movement and Anti-Caste Activism

Kailasam's deconstruction of caste ideology in "The Curse" also participates in broader social reform movements that were gaining strength in early twentieth-century India. While anti-caste activism has long and complex histories in South Asian societies, the colonial period saw intensified debates about caste and the emergence of mass movements led by figures like Jyotirao Phule, B.R. Ambedkar, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, and others who challenged caste hierarchy as fundamentally unjust and incompatible with modern principles of equality and human dignity. These movements drew on various intellectual resources indigenous reform traditions, Buddhist ideas about equality, liberal and socialist Western political philosophy to articulate powerful critiques of caste oppression and to demand radical social transformation.

The anti-caste movements faced significant resistance from orthodox defenders of traditional social order who argued that caste was essential to Indian civilization, that it reflected eternal dharmic principles, that challenges to caste would destroy social order and cultural identity. Conservative interpreters of texts like the Mahabharata used these epics to legitimize caste hierarchy, pointing to passages that seemed to endorse birth-based social categories and to validate the authority of brahmins and the subordination of lower castes. The epics' enormous cultural authority and their status as sacred or semi-sacred texts made them powerful ideological weapons in defense of existing social structures.

Reformist reinterpretations of the epics, like Kailasam's "The Curse," were therefore politically significant interventions that challenged conservative control over these authoritative texts. By showing how the Mahabharata's own narratives could be read as critiques of caste oppression, by using the figure of Karna to demonstrate the injustice and arbitrariness of birth-based hierarchies, by exposing how supposedly righteous characters participate in discrimination, Kailasam provided cultural and intellectual ammunition for anti-caste activism. The play suggested that opposition to caste was not a foreign import or a rejection of Indian tradition but could be grounded in indigenous materials and in critical reading of the very texts that conservatives used to justify caste hierarchy.

This cultural politics of interpretation was crucial because legitimacy and authority in debates about social reform often turned on questions of tradition and cultural authenticity. Conservatives could dismiss critics of caste as Westernized elites who had abandoned Indian culture and were trying to impose foreign values. By demonstrating that critique of caste could emerge from careful engagement with classical texts, that the epics themselves contained resources for challenging rather than simply reinforcing orthodox social hierarchies, reformist interpreters like Kailasam made it harder to dismiss anti-caste activism as merely Western or anti-Indian. They showed that there were multiple ways of being authentically Indian and of engaging with tradition, that critical reinterpretation could be a form of cultural continuity rather than rejection.

Moreover, by presenting his critique through the accessible medium of drama in English (and later Kannada) rather than through Sanskrit scholarly commentary, Kailasam helped democratize access to and interpretation of epic materials. Traditional commentary on the Mahabharata was largely the province of brahmin scholars writing in Sanskrit, which limited who could participate in interpretive debates and reinforced the idea that only those with specialized education in elite languages could legitimately interpret authoritative texts. By creating a dramatic work in accessible language that offered a powerful reinterpretation of the Karna story, Kailasam asserted that these narratives belonged to all Indians regardless of caste or education, that ordinary people could and should engage critically with traditional materials, that interpretive authority should not be monopolized by orthodox elites.

7.3 Modernist Aesthetics and the Reform of Indian Drama

Kailasam's work also participates in the broader project of modernizing Indian drama and adapting theatrical forms to address contemporary concerns while remaining rooted in indigenous traditions. The early twentieth century saw intense experimentation in Indian theatre as playwrights sought to create forms that could compete with the popularity of Western drama and cinema while also speaking to specifically Indian concerns and drawing on indigenous theatrical traditions. This involved complex negotiations between tradition and innovation, between Indian and Western influences, between entertainment and social purpose.

Traditional Indian theatre, particularly in forms like yakshagana and other regional folk traditions, had long included elements of social commentary and satire alongside devotional and entertainment functions. Classical Sanskrit drama, as theorized in the Natyashastra, emphasized rasa (aesthetic emotion) and typically dealt with mythological subjects but also engaged with questions of dharma and proper conduct. However, by Kailasam's time, much Indian theatre had become either purely commercial entertainment or devotional performance of mythological stories with relatively conservative interpretive frameworks. There was a need for dramatic forms that could engage seriously with contemporary social and political issues while remaining accessible and appealing to broad audiences.

Kailasam's approach taking mythological subject matter but treating it with psychological realism, colloquial language, modern dramatic techniques, and critical interpretive frameworks represented one influential solution to this challenge. The mythological subject matter provided immediate recognition and cultural resonance, connecting to audiences' existing knowledge and emotional investment in epic narratives. The modern treatment showed how these ancient stories remained relevant to contemporary concerns and could provide vehicles for serious engagement with issues like social justice, individual versus social obligation, and the nature of ethical conduct in complex situations. The combination allowed for theatre that was both rooted in Indian cultural traditions and engaged with modern sensibilities and concerns.

This modernist approach to mythological drama influenced subsequent generations of Indian playwrights and contributed to the development of distinctively Indian forms of modern theatre. Writers like Girish Karnad, who has explicitly acknowledged Kailasam's influence, continued this project of critical engagement with mythological materials using modern theatrical techniques. The approach demonstrated that modernization need not mean Westernization or abandonment of indigenous traditions, that Indian artists could create work that was simultaneously modern and rooted in specific cultural contexts, that engaged critically with tradition while affirming its continued relevance and power.

Conclusion

T.P. Kailasam's "The Curse" represents a sophisticated and multifaceted deconstruction of traditional mythological narrative that operates simultaneously on theological, ethical, social, linguistic, structural, and political levels. Through systematic demythologization, the play transforms cosmic drama into human tragedy, replacing supernatural causation with psychological and social explanation. By problematizing the ethical binaries of dharma and adharma, the play exposes how claims to represent universal righteousness often serve particular interests and conceal participation in injustice. Through sustained critique of caste hierarchy, the play reveals how birth-based social stratification is arbitrary, destructive, and ideologically maintained rather than naturally or divinely ordained. Through linguistic choices that democratize access to epic materials and through use of humor and irony that create critical distance, the play challenges orthodox interpretive authority and invites audiences to engage actively in meaning-making rather than passively receiving traditional wisdom.

The play's deconstructive project serves multiple purposes that remain relevant to contemporary audiences. Most fundamentally, it demonstrates that texts presenting themselves as authoritative guides to truth and righteousness actually contain contradictions, ambiguities, and ideological investments that critical reading can expose and challenge. It shows how narratives that claim to reflect cosmic necessity or divine will are actually products of particular social and historical contexts serving particular interests. It reveals how categories that present themselves as natural or essential high and low birth, dharma and adharma, righteous and unrighteous are actually unstable constructions that depend on perspective and that can be questioned and transformed.

Moreover, Kailasam's work demonstrates strategies for critical engagement with tradition that neither simply reject inherited culture in favor of foreign models nor accept that culture uncritically. The play shows how one can honor classical texts by taking them seriously enough to engage with them critically, how respect for tradition can coexist with recognition of its limitations and its implication in injustice, how indigenous materials can provide resources for progressive social critique. This model of critical traditionalism remains valuable in contemporary contexts where questions of cultural identity, tradition, and social justice continue to require careful navigation between competing pressures toward uncritical celebration and wholesale rejection of inherited cultures.

The play's treatment of Karna as a figure marginalized by unjust social structures and yet possessed of genuine nobility and human complexity offers a powerful critique not only of caste hierarchy specifically but of all systems that judge human worth by accidents of birth rather than by character and achievement. In foregrounding the perspective of the marginalized and showing how dominant narratives serve the interests of dominant groups, the play anticipates contemporary concerns with recovering subaltern voices and challenging master narratives. Its demonstration that those excluded from power and recognition nevertheless possess stories of profound human and ethical significance that deserve serious attention remains relevant to ongoing struggles for social justice and inclusive representation.

Furthermore, the moral complexity that Kailasam creates through his portrayal of Karna's dilemmas the genuine conflicts between competing values, the way that virtue and flaw are intertwined, the recognition that good people can make catastrophic choices and that understanding requires attention to social context as well as individual character offers a model of ethical reflection that resists simplistic moralism. In a contemporary world where political and cultural discourse often gravitates toward binary oppositions and simple moral judgments, the play's insistence on complexity, ambiguity, and the difficulty of ethical decision-making provides a valuable counterpoint. It suggests that genuine ethical wisdom requires not the application of simple rules or the identification of clear heroes and villains, but rather the hard work of understanding multiple perspectives, recognizing how social structures constrain choice, and accepting that justice is more complex than simply determining who is right and who is wrong.

Finally, Kailasam's deconstruction models an approach to cultural tradition that treats it as living and dynamic rather than as fixed and sacred. By subjecting the Mahabharata to critical reinterpretation rather than simply reproducing traditional readings, the play demonstrates that classical texts remain relevant precisely because they can be continually reinterpreted in light of contemporary concerns and values. Each generation must engage with its inherited traditions actively and critically, recovering elements that remain valuable, challenging elements that perpetuate injustice, and creating new meanings that speak to current situations. This approach to tradition as ongoing conversation rather than as fixed authority remains essential for cultures seeking to maintain continuity with their pasts while also addressing the demands of justice and the challenges of changed circumstances.

"The Curse" thus stands as a landmark achievement in modern Indian drama, demonstrating how deconstruction of mythological narrative can serve both artistic and political purposes creating powerful theatre while simultaneously challenging oppressive ideologies and opening space for social critique and transformation. Its sophisticated engagement with questions of tradition and modernity, of individual character and social structure, of loyalty and justice, of identity and recognition continues to offer insights relevant to contemporary audiences grappling with their own versions of these perennial human dilemmas.

---

References:

Ambedkar, B.R. Annihilation of Caste. Edited by S. Anand, Navayana, 2014.

Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Malcolm Heath, Penguin Classics, 1996.

Bharata. The Natyashastra. Translated by Adya Rangacharya, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1996.

Centre for Internet and Society. https://cis-india.org/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2025.

Dharwadker, Vinay. "Introduction: Cosmopolitan Geographies." Cosmopolitan Geographies: New Locations in Literature and Culture, edited by Vinay Dharwadker, Routledge, 2001, pp. 1-24.

Digital Library of India. https://www.dli.gov.in/. Accessed 1Nov. 2025.

Dirks, Nicholas B. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press, 2001.

Economic and Political Weekly. https://www.epw.in/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2025.

Guha, Ramachandra. India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy. Macmillan, 2007.

Hiltebeitel, Alf. Rethinking the Mahabharata: A Reader's Guide to the Education of the Dharma King. University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Indian Literature. Sahitya Akademi, https://sahitya-akademi.gov.in/indian-literature. Accessed 1 Nov. 2025.

Journal of South Asian Literature. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/journal/jasianliterature. Accessed 1 Nov. 2025.

Karnad, Girish. "Introduction." Three Plays: Naga-Mandala, Hayavadana, Tughlaq, Oxford University Press, 1994.

Mukherjee, Tutun, editor. Staging Resistance: Plays by Women in Translation. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Narayan, R.K. The Mahabharata: A Shortened Modern Prose Version of the Indian Epic. University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Omvedt, Gail. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr. Ambedkar and the Dalit Movement in Colonial India. Sage Publications, 1994.

Postcolonial Studies. Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cpcs20/current. Accessed 5 Nov. 2025.

Ramanujan, A.K. "Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation." The Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanujan, edited by Vinay Dharwadker, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 131-160.

Richmond, Farley P., Darius L. Swann, and Phillip B. Zarrilli, editors. Indian Theatre: Traditions of Performance. University of Hawaii Press, 1990.

Sahapedia. https://www.sahapedia.org/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2025.

South Asia Research. SAGE Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/home/sar. Accessed 1 Nov. 2025.

Taneja, Jaimini. Drama and Theatre of South India. Indian Council for Cultural Relations, 2003.

Theatre Journal. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/journal/theatrejournal. Accessed 1 Nov. 2025.

van Buitenen, J.A.B., translator. The Mahabharata. 3 vols., University of Chicago Press, 1973-1978.