The Curse or Karna by T.P. Kailasama
- This blog is part of task given by Meghama'am.
About the Author:
T. P. Kailasam (Thyagaraja Paramasiva Kailasam, 1884–1946) was an influential Indian playwright and poet, often regarded as the “Father of Modern Kannada Theatre.” Born in Mysore into a respected family his father was a high court judge he studied geology in London, where he also developed a passion for drama. Although he began his career as a geologist, Kailasam eventually left government service to pursue literature and theatre full time. He wrote both in English and Kannada, blending humour, satire, social critique, and realism into his works. His plays broke away from the dominance of mythological dramas and addressed contemporary issues such as caste, class, hypocrisy, and individual struggles, earning him a pioneering place in modern Indian drama.
About the Work (The Curse of Karna):
The Curse of Karna is Kailasam’s English play that reinterprets the Mahabharata episode of Karna, focusing on his tragic life shaped by fate, social rejection, and moral conflict. The play highlights Karna’s deception to learn from Parashurama, the resulting curse that dooms him, and his lifelong struggle against the humiliation of low birth despite his extraordinary talent and courage. Kailasam emphasizes themes of caste versus merit, loyalty versus duty, and the cruel power of destiny, turning Karna into a tragic hero whose downfall evokes both pity and admiration. Beyond retelling myth, the play critiques rigid social hierarchies and reflects Kailasam’s modernist approach to using ancient stories to address contemporary injustices.
Que-1: Write a critical note on the deconstruction of myth in The Curse.
- Deconstruction of Myth in T. P. Kailasam’s The Curse or Karna:
T. P. Kailasam’s The Curse (or Karna) performs a systematic deconstruction of the Mahābhārata myth by relocating its moral center, questioning inherited authority, and exposing the social mechanisms (especially caste) that manufacture tragedy. Rather than offering a piously reverent retelling, Kailasam transforms a familiar epic episode into a modern, social tragedy: Karna is not merely a “fated” heroic figure but a created victim of social stigma, institutional hypocrisy and enacted curses that function as instruments of exclusion. This deconstructive move forces readers/audiences to read the epic as social commentary rather than as timeless moral certitude.
Re-centering the subaltern (Karna as social subject):
Kailasam recasts Karna from an accessory figure in epic war-narratives into the central consciousness of his play. Karna’s humiliation, his adoption by a charioteer family, and repeated exclusions (from instruction, honor, social status) are dramatized to foreground caste-based injustice. By doing so the play reconstructs the Mahābhārata’s social hierarchy as a problem rather than as a natural order Karna’s suffering is shown to be produced by social practices (insults, denial of education, ritual exclusions) rather than simply by divine will. This is a core deconstruction: the mythic sanction for hierarchy is shown to be historically and socially contingent.
Problematising mythic authority (teachers, curses, gods):
Kailasam isolates episodes that in the epic are taken as authoritative (e.g., Parashurama’s status as guru, the power of curses) and re-presents them with ambiguity and social implication. The Parashurama episode Karna disguising himself as a Brahmin to learn culminates in a curse that is staged less as supernatural drama and more as the social violence of exposed identity. Parashurama’s curse therefore becomes emblematic: it stands for how social institutions (religion, pedagogy, ritual) punish transgression of caste boundaries. In this way the play demystifies “divine” pronouncements and shows them performing social exclusion.
Irony and inversion of heroic norms:
Kailasam retains Karna’s heroic virtues (courage, generosity, loyalty) but juxtaposes them against the petty ethicalities of caste-bound society. The play’s tragic irony is that Karna, who “deserves” respect by merit, is denied it by birth the mythic narrative that normally legitimizes kingship and heroism is inverted. The result is Aristotelian tragedy retooled: the hero’s downfall is not only an outcome of fate but an effect of social structures and moral hypocrisy. This inversion forces audiences to doubt epic categories of honor, villainy and dharma.
Character revision and moral complexity:
Kailasam de-essentializes canonical characters. Figures who in standard readings function as upright authorities (gurus, kings) are shown capable of cruelty, prejudice and inconsistency; Karna, though on the “wrong” side politically (aligned with Duryodhana), is humanized and made morally complex. This destabilization of moral binaries (good/bad, king/subject) is a classic deconstructive strategy: the play dismantles received signifiers and replaces them with ambivalence and social critique.
Language, staging and modernist form:
Kailasam writes the play with an awareness of modern dramatic form (five acts, tragic arc, dialogues that emphasize interior psychology) and borrows techniques from European tragedy to interrogate Indian myth. The staging emphasizes private suffering and social humiliation rather than cosmic spectacle; this formal choice underpins the deconstruction: mythic grandeur is deflated into personal pain, and ritual pronouncements are shown in their everyday effects.
Sociopolitical reading caste and historicity:
The play converts mythical dilemmas into contemporary social ones. Rather than accepting caste as metaphysical fact, Kailasam’s Karna is an emblem of structural injustice. Reading Karna as subaltern exposes the epic as a repository of social memory that legitimate groups deploy the play therefore encourages a historicized reading of myth, where the epic’s incidents are symptoms of social orders rather than models of ethical perfection.
Intertextuality and comparative retrieval:
Kailasam’s play deliberately dialogues with other Karna-interpretations (classical Sanskrit plays, folk retellings) and with Western tragic forms; this intertextuality lets him both honor the tragic potential of Karna (like Bhasa’s Karnabharam) and at the same time subvert it by foregrounding social causes. The play is thus a “retrieval” of myth that is simultaneously revisionary it retrieves Karna’s dignity but revises the sources of his suffering.
Ethical implications and modern readership:
The deconstruction ends in ethical demand: Kailasam asks the audience to confront the real-world consequences of social hierarchies not merely to admire the tragic quality of Karna’s life. The play’s final effect is pedagogic and political: it encourages a revaluation of caste, honor and duty in modern social life. In this way deconstruction is not only scholarly unmasking but also moral persuasion.
Conclusion:
Kailasam’s The Curse deconstructs myth by historicizing the epic, exposing the social machinery behind “sacred” pronouncements, and converting an ancient heroic narrative into a modern indictment of caste and institutional violence. The play’s strength lies in its double move it restores dignity to a marginalized subject (Karna) while also demythologizing the structures (gurus, curses, ritual authority) that keep the marginalization in place. The result is a modern tragic play that uses myth to interrogate present injustice rather than to naturalize it.
Que-2: Write a critical note on the class conflict and caste conflict in The Curse.
- Critical Note on Class Conflict and Caste Conflict in The Curse (or Karna):
T. P. Kailasam’s The Curse (or Karna) dramatizes the Mahābhārata hero Karna not only as a tragic figure but as an emblem of the social tensions between caste and class in Indian society. By retelling Karna’s story through the lens of humiliation, exclusion, and aspiration, Kailasam shifts the focus from divine destiny to man-made structures of inequality. The play becomes a critique of how rigid caste boundaries and hierarchical class divisions deform human potential and perpetuate injustice.
Caste Conflict:
At the core of the play lies Karna’s struggle with caste-based discrimination. Born to Kunti but raised by a charioteer family, Karna is socially branded as a sutaputra (charioteer’s son), an identity that denies him access to respect and recognition despite his exceptional skill and nobility. His deception to study under Parashurama illustrates this: Karna must hide his birth to gain knowledge, and when exposed, he is cursed symbolizing how caste society punishes those who transgress boundaries. Even in public contests, Karna is mocked and rejected by other warriors who see his low birth as incompatible with valor and honor. Kailasam emphasizes that Karna’s tragedy is not simply the result of divine curse but of social stigma and Brahmanical gatekeeping, exposing caste as an exclusionary structure that defines worth by birth rather than by merit.
Class Conflict:
While caste forms the deepest wound, the play also stages class conflict. Karna’s life is marked by his in-between status: materially he is not impoverished, for Duryodhana elevates him to kingship of Anga, yet socially he remains marginal. This contradiction produces conflict between aristocratic privilege and social prejudice. On the one hand, Karna embodies the class of warriors through his skill, loyalty, and royal patronage; on the other, he remains an outsider to the ruling class because caste identity trumps class position. This tension dramatizes how social power is not purely economic or political but deeply tied to cultural legitimacy. Kailasam shows that wealth or patronage (class mobility) cannot erase caste-based stigma thus highlighting how caste undermines the very idea of meritocracy or social advancement.
Intersection of Caste and Class:
Kailasam’s most significant insight is the way caste and class intersect in Karna’s fate. Though he rises to high rank through merit and royal favor, his caste identity shadows him relentlessly. His loyalty to Duryodhana is partly born of gratitude but also of desperation, since society refuses him dignity elsewhere. The play thereby suggests that class mobility in a caste-ridden society is always fragile: material elevation cannot guarantee social respect. This intersection is what deepens Karna’s tragedy his downfall is not merely fated but socially engineered by the clash between inherited caste restrictions and aspirational class mobility.
Conclusion:
By weaving caste and class conflict into the tragic life of Karna, Kailasam deconstructs the epic myth and repurposes it as a social critique. The Curse (or Karna) portrays how the hero’s talents and virtues are nullified by entrenched hierarchies, making his fall not just a personal misfortune but a symptom of structural oppression. In doing so, the play speaks beyond the Mahābhārata to Kailasam’s own time, exposing the persistence of caste injustice in modern India and the hollowness of class advancement without social reform. Karna’s story thus becomes a mirror for society’s failure to reconcile merit with dignity, and tradition with justice.
References:
- de Bruin, Hanne M., and Clara Brakel-Papenyzen. “The Death of Karna: Two Sides of a Story.” Asian Theatre Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 1992, pp. 38–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1124249. Accessed 25 Sept. 2025.
- Nadkarni, M. V. “Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism? Demolishing a Myth.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 38, no. 45, 2003, pp. 4783–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4414252. Accessed 25 Sept. 2025.
- Thiagarajan V. A. “The English Plays and Poems of Kailasam.” Triveni Jornal, 2022, https://www.wisdomlib.org/history/compilation/triveni-journal/d/doc68524.html. Accessed 27 September 2025.
Comments
Post a Comment