document_title: List of wars involving Switzerland

question_text: when was the last time switzerland was in a war

root

text: List of wars involving Switzerland

text: Old Swiss Confederacy[edit]

text: Growth (1291–1523)[edit]

text:
Start
Finish
Name of Conflict
Belligerents
Outcome

Allies
Enemies

15 November 1315

Battle of Morgarten
part of

the growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy

 Old Swiss Confederacy
 Archduchy of Austria
Decisive Swiss victory
Pact of Brunnen

9 July 1386

Battle of Sempach
part of

the growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy

 Old Swiss Confederacy
 Archduchy of Austria
Decisive Swiss victory

2 November 1440
12 June 1446
Old Zürich War
 Old Swiss Confederacy
 Imperial City of Zürich
 Archduchy of Austria
 Kingdom of France

Swiss Confederation victory

1474
1477
Burgundian Wars
 Old Swiss Confederacy
 Kingdom of France

 Duchy of Burgundy
Franco-Swiss victory

January 1499
September 1499
Swabian War
 Old Swiss Confederacy
 Holy Roman Empire

Swabian League

Swiss Confederation victory
Treaty of Basel (1499):

Further independence of the Swiss Confederation from the Holy Roman Empire

1511
1516
War of the League of Cambrai
 Swiss mercenaries
 Papal States
 Spain
 Holy Roman Empire
 England  Duchy of Milan

 Venice
 France
 Scotland
 Duchy of Ferrara

Defeat

tag: table

text: Reformation (1523–1648)[edit]

text:
Start
Finish
Name of Conflict
Belligerents
Outcome

Allies
Enemies

1529

First War of Kappel

Civil War of religions

Unresolved, no actual battles fought

1531

Musso war
Three Leagues
 Old Swiss Confederacy (Protestant cantons)

 Duchy of Milan
Victory
Increased Catholic-Protestant tension, leading to the Second War of Kappel

1531

Second War of Kappel

Civil War of religions

Catholic cantons victory

30 June 1422

Battle of Arbedo
 Old Swiss Confederacy
 Duchy of Milan
Defeat:

End of Swiss expansionism

text: Ancien Régime (1648–1798)[edit]

text:
Start
Finish
Name of Conflict
Belligerents
Outcome

Allies
Enemies

January 1653
June 1653
Swiss peasant war of 1653

Civil War

Military victory of the ruling city councils

1656 and 1712

The First War of Villmergen and the Toggenburg War (or Second War of Villmergen)

Civil Wars of religion

text: Napoleonic Era and Restoration (1798–1848)[edit]

text:
Start
Finish
Name of Conflict
Belligerents
Outcome

Allies
Enemies

1798
1799
French Revolutionary Wars

Swiss Campaign

Switzerland becomes a battlefield for Revolutionary France
French victory: creation of the Helvetic Republic, a French client state

1799
1802
War of the Second Coalition
 French Republic
 Polish Legions
French client states

 Austria
 Russia
 Great Britain (until 1801)
 United Kingdom (from 1801)
 French Royalists
 Portugal
 Two Sicilies
 Ottoman Empire

French Republic victory

1802

Stecklikrieg

Civil war

Collapse of the Helvetic Republic, French Act of Mediation and creation of the Swiss Confederation (Napoleonic)

1806
1807
War of the Fourth Coalition
 First French Empire
French client states

 Prussia
 Russia
 United Kingdom
 Saxony[a]
 Sweden
 Sicily
French victory

10 April 1809
14 October 1809
War of the Fifth Coalition
 First French Empire
French client states

 Austria

 Tyrol (in rebellion against Bavaria)

 United Kingdom
 Sicily
 Sardinia
 Black Brunswickers

French victory

1813
1814
War of the Sixth Coalition
 First French Empire
French client states

 Russia
 Prussia
 Austria
 United Kingdom
 Sweden
 Spain
 Portugal
 Sicily
 Sardinia
Defeat

20 March 1815
8 July 1815
War of the Seventh Coalition
Seventh Coalition:
 Austrian Empire
 Russian Empire
 Prussia
 United Kingdom
 Hanover
 Nassau
 Brunswick
 Sweden
 United Netherlands
 Spain
 Portugal
 Sardinia
 Sicily
 Tuscany
 Switzerland
 French Royalists

 First French Empire
 Naples
Coalition victory

3 November 1847
29 November 1847
Sonderbund War

Civil war

Rise of Switzerland as a federal state


document_title: National Labor Relations Board

question_text: what la created the national labor relations board

text: National Labor Relations Board

text: History[edit]

text: 1933–1935: First collective bargaining organization 'National Labor Board'[edit]

text: The history of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) can be traced to enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. Section 7(a) of the act protected collective bargaining rights for unions,[4] but was difficult to enforce. A massive wave of union organizing was punctuated by employer and union violence, general strikes, and recognition strikes.[5][6][7] The National Industrial Recovery Act was administered by the National Recovery Administration (NRA). At the outset, NRA Administrator Hugh S. Johnson believed that Section 7(a) would be self-enforcing, but the tremendous labor unrest proved him wrong. On August 5, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced the establishment of the National Labor Board, under the auspices of the NRA, to implement the collective bargaining provisions of Section 7(a).[1]

tag: p

text: The National Labor Board (NLB) established a system of 20 regional boards to handle the immense caseload. Each regional board had a representative designated by local labor unions, local employers, and a "public" representative. All were unpaid. The public representative acted as the chair. The regional boards could hold hearings and propose settlements to disputes. Initially, they lacked authority to order representation elections, but this changed after Roosevelt issued additional executive orders on February 1 and February 23, 1934.

text: The NLB, too, proved ineffective. Congress passed Public Resolution No. 44 on June 19, 1934, which empowered the president to appoint a new labor board with authority to issue subpoenas, hold elections, and mediate labor disputes.[8][9] On June 29, President Roosevelt abolished the NLB and in Executive Order 6763 established a new, three-member National Labor Relations Board.[10][11]

text: Lloyd K. Garrison was the first chair of the National Labor Relations Board (often referred to by scholars the "First NLRB" or "Old NLRB").[2] The "First NLRB" established organizational structures which continue at the NLRB in the 21st century. This includes the regional structure of the board; the use of administrative law judges and regional hearing officers to initially rule on cases; an appeal process to the national board; and the use of expert staff, organized into various divisions, at the national level.[12] Formally, Garrison established the:[13]

text:
Executive Office, which handled administrative activities of the national and regionalsit boards, field staff, and Legal Division. It was overseen by an Executive Secretary.
Examining Division, national staff which conducted field investigations and assisted the regional boards with adjudications, hearings, and representative elections.
Information Division, which provided the press and public with news.
Legal Division, which assisted the Department of Justice in seeking compliance with board decisions in the courts, or in responding to suits brought about by board decisions.[14]
Research Division, which studied decisions of the regional boards so that a comprehensive labor law might be developed, and studied the economics of each case.

tag: ul

text: Within a year, however, most of the jurisdiction of the "First NLRB" was stripped away. Its decisions in the automobile, newspaper, textile, and steel industries proved so volatile that Roosevelt himself often removed these cases from the board's jurisdiction. Several federal court decisions further limited the board's power. Senator Robert F. Wagner (D – NY) subsequently pushed legislation through Congress to give a statutory basis to federal labor policy that survived court scrutiny. On July 5, 1935, a new law—the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, also known as the Wagner Act)—superseded the NIRA and established a new, long-lasting federal labor policy.[15] The NLRA designated the National Labor Relations Board as the implementing agency.

text: 1935–1939: Constitutionality, communism, and organizational changes[edit]

text: The first chair of the "new" NLRB was J. Warren Madden, professor of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.[16] Madden largely confirmed the previous structure of the "first NLRB" by formally establishing five divisions within the agency:

text:
The Administrative Division, which oversaw all administrative activities of the national and regional boards, as well as their finances. It was led by a Secretary.
The Economic Division, which analzyed economic evidence in cases and made studies of the economics of labor relations for use by the board and the courts. It was supervised by a Chief Industrial Economist. (The division was also known as the Technical Service Division.)[17]
The Legal Division, which handled NLRB decisions which were appealed to the courts, or cases where the NLRB sought enforcement of its decisions. The position of General Counsel (an individual hired by the board) was created to oversee this division. There were two subdivisions: The Litigation Section, which advised the national and regional boards, prepared briefs, and worked with the Justice Department; and the Review Section, which analyzed regional hearings and decisions, issued interpretations of law, prepared forms, and drafted regulations.
The Publications Division, which handled all press and public inquiries, and published the decisions of the national and regional boards and their rules and regulations. It was overseen by a Director of Publications.
The Trial Examining Division, which held hearings before the national board. It was overseen by a Chief Trial Examiner.

text: Benedict Wolf was the first Secretary of the NLRB, Charles H. Fahy the first General Counsel, and David J. Saposs the first Chief Industrial Economist.[18] Wolf resigned in mid-1937, and Nathan Witt, an attorney in the Legal Division, was named Secretary in October.[19]

text: The Economic Division was a critical one for the NLRB. Cause-and-effect was one of the fundamental assumptions of the National Labor Relations Act, and for the causes of labor unrest to be understood economic analysis was needed.[20] From the start, the Economic Division undertook three important tasks: 1) Gather economic data in support of cases before the courts; 2) Conduct general studies of labor relations to guide the board in formulating decisions and policies; and 3) Research the history of labor relations (the history of written agreements, whether certain issues were historically part of collective bargaining, how unions functioned internally, trends in employer activities, trends in collective bargaining, whether certain employer actions led to labor disputes, etc.) so that the board could educate itself, the courts, Congress, and the public about labor relations.[21] The first function proved critical to the survival of the NLRB. It was the Economic Division's data and analysis, more than then NLRB's legal reasoning, which proved critical in persuading the Supreme Court to sustain the Wagner Act in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel.[22][23] The Court even cited several Economic Division studies in its decision.[24] In the wake of Jones & Laughlin Steel, many labor relations experts outside the agency concluded that economic analysis was "an accepted fact" essential to the proper functioning of the agency.[25] The Economic Division did, too.  It asked Madden to pair an economist with an attorney in every important case,[26] and prepared outline of the economic data needed to support each case in case it went before the courts.[27]

text: During his time on the NLRB, Madden was often opposed by the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which believed that Madden was using the NLRA and the procedures and staff of the NLRB to favor the AFL's primary competitor, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).[28][29] The NLRB and NLRA were also under intense pressure from employers, the press, congressional Republicans, and conservative Democrats.[30][31]

text: The NLRB's Economic Division proved critical in pushing for a congressional investigation into employer anti-union activities, and ensuring that investigation was a success. The Economic Division was deeply aware of employer use of labor spies, violence, and company unions to thwart union organizing, and quietly pressed for a congressional investigation into these and other tactics. Senator Robert M. La Follette, Jr. took up the suggestion, on June 6, 1936, the Senate Committee on Education and Labor established a Subcommittee Investigating Violations of Free Speech and the Rights of Labor chaired by La Follette.[32] Better known as the "La Follette Committee", the subcommittee held extensive hearings for five years and published numerous reports.  The committee uncovered extensive evidence of millions of company dollars used to pay for spies and fifth columnists within unions, exposed the culpability of local law enforcement in acts of violence and murder against union supporters (particularly in the Harlan County War),[33] revealed the wide extent of illegal blacklisting of union members, and exposed the use of armed strikebreakers and widespread stockpiling of tear gas, vomit gas, machine guns, mortars, and armor by corporations to use against strikers.[34] Some of the evidence the committee used was provided by the Economic Division,[35] and the investigation proved critical for a time in defending the agency from business and congressional attack.[32]

text: The biggest issue the NLRB faced was constitutional. The Justice Department and NLRB legal staff wanted the Supreme Court to rule as quickly as possible on the constitutionality of the NLRA. But the Board and Justice Department also realized that the Court's Lochner era legal philosophy made it unlikely for the Court to uphold the Act. Subsequently, Madden strove to resolve minor cases before they could become court challenges, and worked to delay appeals as long as possible until the best possible case could be brought to the Court.[36] This legal strategy paid off. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRA in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937).[37] Afterward, Madden continued to strategically guide the NLRB's legal efforts to strengthen the federal courts' view of the NLRA and the board's actions.[36] Because of the efforts of Madden and NLRB General Counsel Charles H. Fahy, the Supreme Court reviewed only 27 cases between August 1935 and March 1941, even though the board had processed nearly 5,000 cases since its inception. The Supreme Court enforced the NLRB's rulings in 19 cases without modifying them, enforced them with modification in six more, and denied enforcement in two cases. Additionally, the Board won all 30 injunction and all 16 representation cases before the lower courts, a rate of success unequalled by any other federal agency.[38]

text: AFL opposition to the "Madden Board" grew after decisions in Shipowners' Ass'n of the Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002 (1938), enf'd American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, 308 U.S. 401 (1940) (awarding a longshoremen's unit to the CIO rather than the AFL), and American Can Co., 13 NLRB 1252 (1939) (unit's history of collective bargaining outweighs desire of workers to form craft-only unit).[39]

text: The AFL began pushing for an investigation into the NLRB, and this investigation led to allegations of communist influence within the agency. In June 1938, the House Un-American Activities Committee (led by Chairman Martin Dies, Jr. [D-TX]) heard testimony from AFL leader John P. Frey, who accused Madden of staffing the NLRB with communists.[40] The allegations were true, in at least one case: Nathan Witt, the NLRB's executive secretary and the man to whom Madden had delegated most administrative functions, was a member of the Communist Party of the United States.[41][42] These allegations and discoveries significantly damaged the agency's support in Congress and with the public.

text: A second investigation into the NLRB led to organizational changes at the board. On July 20, 1939, Republicans and conservative Democrats formed a coalition to push through the House of Representatives a resolution establishing a Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board (the "Smith Committee"), chaired by conservative, anti-labor Rep. Howard W. Smith (D-VA).[43][44] On March 7, 1940, the Smith Committee proposed legislation to abolish the NLRB, reconstitute it, and radically amend the NLRA.[45][46][47] President Roosevelt opposed the bill, although he conceded that perhaps the Board's membership should be expanded to five from three.[48] The Smith bill won several early tests in the House, which also voted to substantially cut the NLRB's budget.[49] Smith won a vote in the House Rules Committee permitting him to bring his bill to the floor for a vote.[50] In an attempt to defuse the legislative crisis, Madden fired 53 staff and forced another five to resign, and decentralized the NLRB's trial process to give regional directors and field agents more authority.[51] But the House still passed the Smith bill by a vote of 258 to 129 on June 7, 1940.[52] To protect the NLRB, Roosevelt convinced Senator Elbert D. Thomas, chair of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, to hold no hearings or votes on the bill, and the legislation died.[53][54]

text: The Smith Committee investigation had a lasting effect on labor law in the U.S., and was the basis for the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.[55][56] Madden's term on the NLRB came to an end after just four years. On November 15, 1940, President Roosevelt nominated Harry A. Millis to the NLRB and named him chair, and nominated Madden to a seat on the U.S. Court of Claims.[57]

text: 1940–1945: The Economics Division and World War II[edit]

text: Another major structural change occurred at the same time that Madden left the NLRB. The Smith committee's anti-communist drive also targeted David J. Saposs, the NLRB Chief Industrial Economist. Saposs had been surreptitiously assessed by members of the Communist Party USA for membership, and rejected as a prospect.[58] But Smith and others attacked Saposs as a communist, and Congress defunded his division and his job on October 11, 1940.[59][60][61] Although the Smith committee's investigation proved critical, the disestablishment of the Economic Division was due to many reasons—both internal and external to the NLRB, and only some of which involved allegations of communist infiltration. As historian James A. Gross observed:.[62]

text: The Division was eliminated for all kinds of reasons which had nothing to do with the merits and importance of its work:  political pressures and maneuverings, jealousy and empire building between and among lawyers and economists inside the Board, opposition to leftist ideologies, a personal attack on the Chief Economist, David Saposs, and a mighty hostility to the administrative process.

text: The loss of the Economic Division was a major blow to the NLRB.  It had a major tactical impact: Economic data helped the NLRB fulfill its adjudicatorial and prosecutorial work in areas such as unfair labor practices (ULPs), representation elections, and in determining remedial actions (such as reinstatement, back pay awards, and fines).[63] Economic data also undermined employer resistance to the agency by linking that opposition to employer ULPs.[64] The loss also left the board dependent on the biased information offered by the parties in dispute before it, leading to poor decision-making and far less success in the courts.[65] It also had a major strategic impact: It left the board unable to determine whether its administration of the law was effective or not.[66] Nor could the board determine whether labor unrest was a serious threat to the economy or not. As labor historian Josiah Bartlett Lambert put it: "Without the Economic Research Division, the NLRB could not undertake empirical studies to determine the actual impact of secondary boycotts, jurisdictional strikes, national emergency strikes, and the like."[67] The Economic Division was critical to a long-range NLRB process to lead to the long-term evolution of industrial labor relations in the U.S., but that goal had to be abandoned.[26][68] Most importantly, however, the evisceration of the Economic Division struck at the fundamental purpose of federal labor law, which was to allow experts to adjudicate labor disputes rather than use a legal process. With this data and analysis, widespread skepticism about the board's expertise quickly spread through Congress and the courts.  It also left the board largely unable to engage in rule-making, forcing it to make labor law on an inefficient, time-consuming case-by-case basis.[69] As of 1981, NLRB was still the only federal agency forbidden to seek economic information about the impact of its activities.[70]

text: The second chair of the NLRB, Harry A. Millis, led the board in a much more moderate direction.[67] Lacking an economic division to give it ammunition to fight with Millis deliberately made the NLRB dependent on Congress and the executive branch for its survival.[71] Millis made a large number of organizational changes. He stripped the office of Secretary of its power, set up an Administrative Division to supervise the 22 regional offices, initiated a study of the Board's administrative procedures, and genuinely delegated power to the regional offices.[72] He removed casehandling and regional office communication from the jurisdiction of the Office of the Secretary and created a Field Division.[73][74] He also adopted procedures requiring the board made its decisions based solely on the trial examiner's report, authorized NLRB review attorneys to review trial examiner report, required decisions to be drafted ahead of time and distributed for review, authorized review attorneys to revise drafts before a final decision was issued, required trial examiners to emphasize findings of fact and to address points of law, and began holding board meetings when there were differences of opinion over decisions.[73]

text: Millis eliminated the Review Division's decisive role in cases, which had been established under Madden and Witt.[75] Madden and Witt had adopted a highly centralized Board structure so that (generally speaking) only the cases most favorable to the board made it to the courts. The centralized structure meant that only the strongest cases made it to national board, so that the board could apply all its economic and legal powers to crafting the best decision possible. This strategy enabled the NLRB to defend itself very well before the Supreme Court. But Madden and Witt had held on to the centralized strategy too long, and made political enemies in the process. Millis substituted a decentralized process in which the board was less a decision-maker and more a provider of services to the regions.[75] Many of the changes Millis instituted were designed to mimic requirements placed on other agencies by the Administrative Procedure Act.[62]

text: American entry into World War II on December 8, 1941, significantly changed the NLRB. On January 12, 1942, President Roosevelt created the National War Labor Board (NWLB), which displaced the NLRB as the main focus of federal labor relations for the duration of the war. The NWLB was given the authority to "finally determine" any labor dispute which threatened to interrupt war production, and to stabilize union wages and benefits during the war. Although Roosevelt instructed the NWLB not to intrude on jurisdiction exercised by the NLRB, the War Labor Board refused to honor this request. From 1942 to 1945, Millis tried to secure a jurisdictional agreement with NWLB chair George W. Taylor. But these discussions proved fruitless, and Millis broke them off in June 1945. The NWLB also heavily raided the NLRB for staff, significantly hindering NLRB operations.[76]

text: Additional changes came with the passage of the War Labor Disputes Act (WLDA) on June 25, 1943. Enacted over Roosevelt's veto after 400,000 coal miners, their wages significantly lower due to high wartime inflation, struck for a $2-a-day wage increase,[77][78] the legislation (in part) required the NLRB to issue a ballot outlining all the collective bargaining proposals and counter-proposals, wait 30 days, and then hold a strike vote.[79] The War Labor Disputes Act proved very burdensome.  The NLRB processed 2,000 WLDA cases from 1943 to the end of 1945, of which 500 were strike votes. The act's strike vote procedures did little to stop strikes, however, and Millis feared unions were using the referendums to whip up pro-strike feelings among their members. Millis also believed the law's strike vote process permitted more strikes to occur than the NLRB would have allowed under its old procedures. There were so many strike vote filings in the six months after the war ended that NLRB actually shut down its long distance telephone lines, cancelled all out of town travel, suspended all public hearings, and suspended all other business to accommodate the workload.[80] By early 1945, Millis was in ill health.[81]  He resigned from the NLRB on June 7, 1945,[82] and Paul M. Herzog was named his successor.

text: 1947–1965: Taft-Hartley[edit]

text: A major turning point in the history of the NLRB came in 1947 with passage of the Taft-Hartley Act. Disruptions caused by strikes during World War II as well as the huge wave of strikes that followed the end of the war fueled a growing movement in 1946 and 1947 to amend the NLRA to correct what critics saw as a pro-labor tilt in federal law.[83][84] Drafted by the powerful Republican Senator Robert A. Taft and the strongly anti-union Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr., the Taft-Hartley Act banned jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary picketing, mass picketing, union campaign donations made from dues money, the closed shop, and unions of supervisors. The act also enumerated new employer rights, defined union-committed ULPs, gave states the right to opt out of federal labor law through right-to-work laws, required unions to give an 80-days' strike notice in all cases, established procedures for the President to end a strike in a national emergency, and required all union officials to sign an anti-Communist oath. Organizationally, the act made the General Counsel a presidential appointee, independent of the board itself, and gave the General Counsel limited powers to seek injunctions without referring to the Justice Department. It also banned the NLRB from engaging in any mediation or conciliation, and formally enshrined in law the ban on hiring personnel to do economic data collection or analysis.[62]

text: Herzog publicly admitted the need for some change in the NLRA, but privately he opposed the proposed Taft-Hartley amendments. He felt the communist oath provisions were unconstitutional, that the amendments would turn the NLRA into a management weapon, that creation of an independent General Counsel would weaken the NLRB, and that the law's dismantling of the agency's economic analysis unit deprived the NLRB of essential expertise.[85] Nonetheless, Congress overrode Truman's veto of the Taft-Hartley Act on June 23, 1947, and the bill became law.[86]

text: The Taft-Hartley Act fundamentally changed the nature of federal labor law, but it also seriously hindered the NLRB's ability to enforce the law. The loss of the mediation function left the NLRB unable to become involved in labor disputes, a function it had engaged in since its inception as the National Labor Board in 1933. This hindered the agency's efforts to study, analyze, and create bulwarks against bad-faith collective bargaining; reduced its ability to formulate national labor policy in this area; and left the agency making labor law on an ineffective, time-consuming case-by-case basis.[67] The separation of the General Counsel from supervision by the national board also had significant impact on the agency. This separation was enacted against the advice of the Justice Department, contradicted the policy Congress had enacted in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, and ignored Millis' extensive internal reforms. The change left the NLRB as the only federal agency unable to coordinate its decision-making and legal activities, and the only agency exempted in this manner under the Administrative Procedure Act. The separation of the General Counsel was not discussed by the committee or by any witnesses during the legislation's mark-up. Indeed, there was no basis for it at all in the public record.[62] It was, in the words of sociologist Robin Stryker, "little-noted" and "unprecedented".[20]

text: The anti-communist oath provisions generated extensive public debate, and generated disputes before the Supreme Court several times. The Taft-Hartley oath first reached the court in American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950), in which the court held 5-to-1 that the oath did not violate the First Amendment, was not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10, and was not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six. The issue again came before the court in Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716 (1951), in which the court unanimously held that a municipal loyalty oath was not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder. It came before the court yet a third time in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952). This time, the outcome was radically different. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state loyalty oath legislation violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1965, the Supreme Court held 5-to-4 that the anti-communist oath was a bill of attainder in United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).[87] The Supreme Court essentially overturned Douds, but did not formally do so.[88]

text: The board itself (as an adjudicating body distinct from the functions separated as a result of Taft-Harley) has a fixed seating which is assigned based on the names of [89] 5 original members.

text: 2007–2013: Lack of quorum[edit]

text: From December 2007 until June 2010, the five-person Board had only two members, creating a legal controversy. Three members' terms expired in December 2007, leaving the NLRB with just two members—Chair Wilma B. Liebman and Member Peter Schaumber.[90] President George W. Bush refused to make some nominations to the Board and Senate Democrats refused to confirm those which he did make.[90][91][full citation needed][92]

text: On December 28, 2007, just before the Board lost its quorum, the four members agreed to delegate their authority to a three-person panel per the National Labor Relations Act.[92][93] Only Liebman and Schaumber remained on the Board, but the Board concluded that the two constituted a quorum of the three-person panel and thus could make decisions on behalf of the Board.[92][93] Liebman and Schaumber informally agreed to decide only those cases which were in their view noncontroversial and on which they could agree, and issued almost 400 decisions between January 2008 and September 2009.[90][91][92][94][full citation needed][95][full citation needed]

text: The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits upheld the two-member NLRB's authority to decide cases, while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not.[90][91][full citation needed][94][full citation needed][95][full citation needed] In September 2009, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately hear arguments concerning the dispute, given the high stakes involved.[91] The Supreme Court granted certiorari in October and agreed to decide the issue.[96]

text: In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB that the two-member Board had no authority to issue decisions, invalidating all rulings made by Liebman and Schaumber.[97][full citation needed] In 2013, the question of a legitimate quorum on the NLRB surfaced again, when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Obama had "violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill three board vacancies".[98][full citation needed]

text: Structure[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In 1947, the Taft–Hartley Act created a formal administrative distinction between the Board and the General Counsel of the NLRB. In broad terms, the General Counsel is responsible for investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice claims and for the general supervision of the NLRB field offices.[99] The General Counsel is appointed by the President to a four-year term and independent from the Board; it has limited independence to argue for a change in the law in presenting cases to the Board. The General Counsel oversees four divisions: the Division of Operations Management, the Division of Administration, the Division of Advice, and the Division of Enforcement Litigation.

text: The Board, on the other hand, is the adjudicative body that decides the unfair labor practice cases brought to it. Once the Board has decided the issue, it is the General Counsel's responsibility to uphold the Board's decision, even if it is contrary to the position it advocated when presenting the case to the Board. The Board is also responsible for the administration of the Act's provisions governing the holding of elections and resolution of jurisdictional disputes.

text: The Board has more than thirty regional offices. The regional offices conduct elections, investigate unfair labor practice charges, and make the initial determination on those charges (whether to dismiss, settle, or issue complaints). The Board has jurisdiction to hold elections and prosecute violations of the Act in Puerto Rico and American Samoa.

text: Jurisdiction[edit]

text: The Board's jurisdiction is limited to private sector employees and the United States Postal Service; other than Postal Service employees, it has no authority over labor relations disputes involving governmental, railroad and airline employees covered by the Adamson Railway Labor Act, or agricultural employees. On the other hand, in those parts of the private sector its jurisdictional standards are low enough to reach almost all employers whose business has any appreciable impact on interstate commerce.

text: Processing of charges[edit]

text: Charges are filed by parties against unions or employers with the appropriate regional office. The regional office will investigate the complaint. If a violation is believed to exist, the region will take the case before an Administrative Law Judge who will conduct a hearing. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge may be reviewed by the five member Board. Board decisions are reviewable by United States Courts of Appeals. The Board's decisions are not self-executing: it must seek court enforcement in order to force a recalcitrant party to comply with its orders. (For greater detail on this process see the entry for unfair labor practice).

text: General Counsel[edit]

text: Lafe Solomon was named Acting General Counsel on June 21, 2010. His nomination was sent to the U.S. Senate on January 5, 2011. Solomon's authority came into question on August 13, 2013 when Judge Benjamin Settle for the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a petition for injunctive relief, ruling that Solomon had not been properly appointed under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA).[100] Although other district courts had enforced Solomon's requests, Judge Settle's decision called into question all of Solomon's activity since June 21, 2010, focusing on subsections (a)(1) and (2) of the FVRA; some pundits claimed that Solomon's appointment was allowed under subsection (a)(3).[101] President Obama withdrew Solomon's nomination.

text: On July 31, 2013, President Obama nominated former NLRB nominee Richard Griffin as General Counsel—"a kind of prosecutor at the board" and "one of the most critical roles at the agency."[102] Solomon's nomination was withdrawn.[103] The Senate approved Griffin's nomination on October 29, 2013, by a vote of 55 to 44.[104]

text: Board members[edit]

text:
Seat[105]

Member

Entered office

Term expires

Carmody(Term expires in years ending 8 and 3)

Mark Gaston Pearce (D)

April 7, 2010[106]

August 27, 2018

Gray(Term expires in years ending 9 and 4)

Lauren McFerran (D)

December 17, 2014

December 16, 2019

Smith(Term expires in years ending 6 and 1)

William Emanuel (R)

September 28, 2017

August 27, 2021

Murdock(Term expires in years ending 7 and 2)

John F. Ring (R)

April 16, 2018

December 16, 2022

Madden(Term expires in years ending 5 and 0)

Marvin Kaplan (R)

August 10, 2017 [107]

August 27, 2020

text: 2007–2013: Unoccupied board seats[edit]

text: In April 2009, President Obama nominated Craig Becker (Associate General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union), Mark Gaston Pearce (a member on the Industrial Board of Appeals, an agency of the New York State Department of Labor), and Brian Hayes (Republican Labor Policy Director for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) to fill the three empty seats on the NLRB.[90]

text: Becker's nomination appeared to fail on February 8, 2010, after Republican Senators (led by John McCain) threatened to filibuster his nomination.[92][108][109] President Obama said he would consider making recess appointments to the NLRB due to the Senate's failure to move on any of the three nominations.[108] On March 27, 2010, Obama recess appointed Becker and Pearce.[110]

text: On June 22, 2010, a voice vote in the Senate confirmed Pearce to a full term, allowing him to serve until August 27, 2013. The same day, the Senate confirmed Republican nominee Brian Hayes of Massachusetts by voice vote. Hayes' term ended on December 16, 2012.[111] Becker's term, as a recess appointee, ended on December 31, 2011.[112] Effective August 28, 2011, Pearce was named chairman to replace Democrat Wilma Liebman, whose term had expired.[113]

text: On January 4, 2012, Obama announced recess appointments to three seats on the board: Sharon Block, Terence F. Flynn, and Richard Griffin.[114] The appointments were criticized by Republicans, including the House Speaker John Boehner, as unconstitutional and "a brazen attempt to undercut the role of the Senate to advise and consent the executive branch on appointments".[115] Although made as recess appointments, critics questioned their legality, arguing that Congress had not officially been in recess as pro forma sessions had been held.[116] Former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese stated that in his opinion, since the appointments were made when the Senate was "demonstrably not in recess" they represented "a constitutional abuse of a high order".[117] On January 12, 2012 the U.S. Justice Department released a memo stating that appointments made during pro forma sessions are supported by the Constitution and precedent.[118]

text: On January 25, 2013, in Noel Canning v. NLRB, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Obama's recess appointments were invalid as they were not made during an intersession recess of the Senate, and the President moved to fill them during the same recess.[119] On May 16, 2013, in National Labor Relations Board v. New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit became the second federal appellate court to rule that the recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. In a split decision, it also found that the March 27, 2010 recess appointment of Craig Becker was unconstitutional.[120] On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.[121][122]

text: Between January 2008 and mid-July 2013 the agency never had all five members, and not once did it operate with three confirmed members.[123] On July 14, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened to exercise the "nuclear option" and allow a simple majority (rather than a supermajority) of the Senate to end a filibuster. This threat to end the filibuster's privileged position in the Senate was intended to end Republican filibustering of NLRB nominees.[124] On July 16, 2013, President Obama and Senate Republicans reached an agreement to end the impasse over NLRB appointees. Obama withdrew the pending nominations of Block and Griffin, and submit two new nominees: Nancy Schiffer, associate general counsel at the AFL-CIO, and Kent Hirozawa, chief counsel to NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce. Republicans agreed not to oppose a fourth nominee, to be submitted in 2014.[125]

text: On July 30, 2013, the Senate confirmed all five of Obama's nominees for the NLRB: Kent Hirozawa, Harry I. Johnson III, Philip Miscimarra, Mark Gaston Pearce and Nancy Schiffer. Johnson and Miscimarra represented the Republican nominees for the board.[126] Pearce was confirmed for a second five-year term.[127]  Nancy Schiffer's term ended on December 15, 2014. She was succeeded by Lauren McFerran on December 16, 2014. Harry I. Johnson III's term ended on August 27, 2015.[128]

text: 2017 appointments[edit]

text: On January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump appointed Philip Miscimarra the acting chairman of the NLRB.[129] Miscimarra retired on December 16, 2017. Marvin Kaplan succeeded him as NLRB chair on December 21, 2017.[citation needed]


document_title: Karna

question_text: who is the guru of karan in mahabharat

question_tokens: who is the guru of karan in mahabharat

text: Karna

text: Etymology

text: The name he became renowned for in the epic was "Karna", meaning the cutter/peeler of his own skin/natural armor.

text: Karna's other names are:

text:
Radheya - (Sanskrit: राधेय, IAST: rādheya, lit. son of Radha).
Vaikartana - (Sanskrit: वैकर्तन, IAST: vaikartana, lit. he who belongs to solar race).
Rashmirathi - (Sanskrit: रश्मिरथी, IAST: raśmirathī, lit. he who rides the chariot of light).
Vasusena - (Sanskrit: वासुसेन, IAST: vāsusena, lit. he who is born with wealth).
Suryaputra - (Sanskrit: सूर्यपुत्र, IAST: sūryaputra, lit. son of Surya).
Parashuramashishya - (Sanskrit: परशुरामशिष्य, IAST: paraśurāmaśiṣya, lit. disciple of Parashurama).
Angaraja - (Sanskrit: अङ्गराज, IAST: aṅgarāja, lit. king of Anga).
Vijayadhari - (Sanskrit: विजयधारी, IAST: vijayadhārī, lit. one who wields Vijaya bow).
Adhirathi - (Sanskrit: आधिरथी, IAST: ādhirathī, lit. son of Adhiratha).
Danavira/Danashura - (Sanskrit: दानवीर/दानशूर, IAST: dānavīra/dānaśūra, lit. the hero of charitable nature).
Vrisha - (Sanskrit: वृष, IAST: vṛṣa, lit. warrior like a bull).
Souta/Sutaputra - (Sanskrit: सौत/सूतपुत्र, IAST: sauta/sūtaputra, lit. son of a charioteer).
Kaunteya - (Sanskrit: कौन्तेय, IAST: kaunteya, lit. son of Kunti).

text: Story

text: Birth, education and curses

text: As a young woman Kunti, the princess of the Kunti Kingdom, had been granted a boon by sage Durvasa to be able to invoke any deity to give her a child. Eager to test the power, while still unmarried, she called upon the solar deity Surya and was handed a son Karna wearing armour (Kavacha) and a pair of earrings (Kundala). Afraid of being an unwed mother and having an illegitimate son, Kunti placed the baby in a basket and set him afloat on a river. The child was found by Adhiratha, a charioteer of King Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur. Adhiratha and his wife Radha raised the boy as their own son and named him Vasusena. He also came to be known as Radheya, the son of Radha.

text: Karna became interested in the art of warfare and approached Dronacharya, an established teacher who taught the Kuru princes. But he refused to take Karna as his student, since Karna was not a Kshatriya. However, according to some versions of the tale, appreciating Karna's boldness, Drona tells Adhiratha to call his son "Karna".[6] After being refused by Drona, Karna wanted to learn advanced skills of archery and hence he decided to learn from Parashurama, Drona's own guru.[7]

text: As Parashurama only taught Brahmins, Karna appeared before him as such. Parashurama accepted him and trained him to such a point that he declared Karna to be equal to himself in the art of warfare and archery. On a day towards the end of his training, Karna happened to offer Parashurama his lap so his guru could rest his head and take a nap. While Parashurama was asleep, a bee stung Karna's thigh. Despite the pain, Karna did not move, so as to not disturb his guru. In some versions, Lord Indra became afraid of the fighting prowess of Karna and he himself took the form of a bee and stung Karna's thigh in order to benefit his son Arjuna.[8] When Parashurama woke up and saw the blood oozing from Karna's wound, he at once deduced that Karna was not a Brahmin. Enraged, Parashurama accused Karna of stealing knowledge, and laid a curse upon Karna that he would forget all the knowledge required to wield the Brahmanda astra.

text: Upon Karna's pleading, Parshurama relented and modified his curse, saying that Karna would only lose the knowledge when he needed it most while fighting against an equal warrior.[9] This curse would come to haunt him in his final fight against Arjuna. Rewarding Karna's diligence, Parashurama gave him his personal celestial weapon Bhargavastra which no one else possessed. Repenting over a curse made in anger, and in order to nullify said curse, Parashurama also gave Karna his personal bow Vijaya to be ever victorious in battle and blessed Karna with greatness.[9]

text: Second Curse

text: Karna was also cursed by a Brahmin for killing his cow while practising his skills with bow and arrow. The Brahmin got angry and cursed him that he would die helpless in the same way that his innocent cow had died.[10]

text: Meeting Duryodhana

text: To display the skills of the Kuru princes, their guru Dronacharya arranged a friendly tournament. His student Arjuna, third of the Pandava brothers, was a gifted archer. Karna arrived at this tournament, uninvited, and surpassing Arjuna's feats, challenged him to a duel. Kripacharya refused Karna his duel, asking first for his clan and kingdom; for according to the rules of duelling, only a prince could challenge Arjuna to a duel. Due to his low standing, Karna was not allowed to fight Arjuna. He was further insulted by Bhima who compared him to a stray dog, for his mixed caste and lineage. This incident marks the beginning of a feud between Karna and the Pandavas.[11][12] Duryodhana, the eldest of the one hundred sons of the king Dhritarashtra, was envious of the martial prowess of his cousins, the Pandavas. Seeing Karna as a chance to get on even terms with them he immediately offered Karna the throne of the kingdom of Anga, making him a king and hence eligible to fight a duel with Arjuna.[13] Neither of them knows that Karna was in fact Kunti's eldest son, born to the Sun God Surya. When Karna asked him what he could do to repay him, Duryodhana told him that all he wanted was his friendship.[14] Karna later married Vrushali belonging to the Suta caste, as per the wishes of his foster father Adiratha.

text: Fight with Jarasandha

text: Karna helped Duryodhana marry the Princess Bhanumati of Kalinga. Duryodhana abducted Princess Bhanumati from her Swayamvara ceremony in a chariot and Karna fought with the rest of the suitors. Many legendary rulers like Shishupala, Jarasandha, Bhishmaka, Vakra, Kapotaroman, Nila, Rukmi, Sringa, Asoka, Satadhanwan etc. were defeated by Karna. The ashamed Jarasandha, the king of Magadha later challenged Karna to a one-on-one fight. Karna and Jarasandha fought continuously with different weapons until Karna defeated Jarasandha by trying to tear him apart during a wrestling fight. Jarasandha conceded defeat and Karna spared his life. Jarasandha gifted the city of Malini to Karna as a token of appreciation. The victory over Jarasandha made Karna famous. Later following his accession to the throne of Malini, Karna took an oath that anyone who approached him with a request, when he worshipped the sun, would not leave empty-handed.[15]

text: Hostilities with the Pandavas

text: Upon prodding by his uncle Shakuni, Duryodhana goes forward with a plot to kill the Pandavas through treachery, apparently succeeding. Throughout the planning and execution, Karna tries to convince his friend to call it off, desiring to defeat the Pandavas with honor on the battlefield. However, Duryodhana is unmoved and apparently succeeds in his plot.[16]

text: Though a monogamist, Karna was a suitor for Draupadi at her Swayamvara, attempting to win her for Duryodhana. Unlike most other contenders, he was easily able to wield and string the bow, but Draupadi refused to allow him to take part, rejecting him for being a "suta-putra". Many kings and the assembled nobles insulted Karna for his low birth; only Duryodhana supported and argued for Karna, saying Great Sages, Philosophers, and Warriors have no source. They are made great, not born great. Having escaped Varnavat, the Pandavas were also present in the Swayamvara, disguised as Brahmins. Following the failure of the other princes, Arjuna stepped into the ring and successfully hit the target, winning Draupadi's hand. The assembled kings in the Swayamvara argued that a Brahmin was ineligible and they took their weapons and attacked the disguised Arjuna. Arjuna fought with all the assembled kings and defeated them with ease. Karna entered the battle to protect his friend Duryodhana; a terrible battle was fought between Karna and Arjuna. In some versions of the story, Arjuna manages to disarm Karna, causing Karna to withdraw and wonder on the Brahmin's schooling and identity. In other versions, Karna is distracted by the news that his son Sudama has died, and withdraws from the fight; he later learns that Arjuna's arrow had wounded Sudama. In either case, Karna's rage towards Arjuna intensifies once the Pandavas' identities are revealed.

text: After Shakuni won a game of dice by trickery, Draupadi, now queen to all five Pandavas, was dragged into the court by Dushasana. Duryodhana and his brothers attempted to strip her. Karna insulted Draupadi by saying that a woman with more than four husbands is nothing but a whore. Arjuna subsequently swore to kill Karna for that insult.[17]

text: Conquering the world

text: Later after the Pandavas were in exile, Karna took up the task of establishing Duryodhana as the Emperor of the World. Karna embarks upon a worldwide military campaign, otherwise called Digvijaya Yatra, conquering kings in every direction and subjugating their kingdoms and making them swear allegiance to Duryodhana as the king of Hastinapur.

text: In this military adventure, Karna waged wars all over the world and made submission of entire kingdoms in the world. Among these include the Panchals, the kings of the Himalayas, the Angas, the Kalingas, the Magadhas, Chedi, Yavana, etc. Having thus conquered and brought under his subjection the entire world, Karna came back to Hastinapura with immense wealth and power the world had never witnessed before.[2][18][19]

text: King Dhritarashtra praised Karna, comparing him favourably to those like Bhishma and Drona, who had never returned such tribute. Bringing tribute and allegiance from all the world's kings, Karna helped Duryodhana to perform the Vaishnava yagna to please Vishnu and crown Duryodhana as "Emperor of the World", as Yudhisthira did with the Rajasuya Yagna. No person in the entire universe, except Lord Vishnu and Indrajit, the son of Ravana had performed this Vaishnava sacrifice before. Duryodhana thus become the most powerful and the most wealthiest man in the world. Duryodhana even made plans and preparations to conquer Indra, the lord of the heavens and the father of Arjuna with the help of Karna in order to become the sovereign ruler of both heaven and earth.[20]

text: Prelude to war

text: The Pandava elder brother Yudhisthira always considered Karna as the foremost warrior in the world and worries about this fact in the prelude to the war.[21]

text: Indra realized that Karna would be invincible in battle and unable to be killed as long as he had his Kavach and Kundal. He approaches Karna as a poor Brahmin during Karna's sun-worship. Surya warned Karna of Indra's intentions, but Karna thanked Surya and explained that he was bound by his word and could not send anyone from his door empty-handed. When Indra approached Karna in the form of a Brahmin beggar and asked his Kavach and Kundal as alms, Karna reveals that he knew the Brahmin's true identity but assured that he would never turn anyone away. Indra became ashamed and took his normal form. Cutting the armor and earrings off his body, Karna handed them to Indra. As he does so, heavens opens up and all the gods and celestial beings in all realms appeared in sky and showered flowers on Karna. They praised that it was the greatest charity the world have ever witnessed. In order to escape from such severe shame Lord Indra asked Karna to accept a gift in return. Karna rejected this offer telling that he didn't give charity expecting anything in return. All Gods, Deva's, sages and celestial beings requested Karna to accept any gift in return in order to save them from the insult that was caused by Indra upon them. Obeying the celestial beings and as per the request of Lord Indra, Karna, as his father had instructed him, asked for the Vasavi Shakti. Indra granted the boon, with the stipulation that Karna could only use the weapon once. In some versions of the story, Indra gives Karna the name "Karna" for this great act.[22]

text: Following failed peace negotiations with Duryodhana, Krishna is driven back to the Pandavas by Karna. Krishna then revealed to Karna that he is the eldest son of Kunti, and therefore, technically, the eldest Pandava. Krishna implored him to change sides and assures him that Yudhishthira would give the crown of Indraprastha to him; Draupadi who rejected him earlier will become his wife; even Duryodhana will happily see his friend get the crown. Shaken from the discovery, Karna still refuses these offers over Duryodhana's friendship. Krishna is saddened, but appreciating Karna's sense of loyalty, accepted his decision, promising Karna that his lineage would remain a secret. In addition, Karna was elated to learn that his true father was none other than Surya.[23]

text: Krishna went to Kunti and asked her to emotionally blackmail Karna by revealing the truth about his birth. According to Krishna when Karna knows about his real identity it will emotionally weaken him and Kunti can manipulate Karna. Krishna told Kunti that it is up to her to make a decision to choose between Karna and her 5 other son. As the war approached, Kunti met Karna and in desperation to keep her children alive asked Karna to join the Pandavas. Kunti revealed the truth about Karna's birth. Surya Deva also validated the words of Kunti and Karna was emotionally weakened. His hatred against Pandavas become weakened.[24][25] But Karna rejects the offer of Kunti again. Knowing that Karna will fight against Arjuna with a motive to kill, Kunti extracted couple of promises from Karna that he will not kill any of the Pandavas except Arjuna and against Arjuna he will not use a same celestial weapon twice. This particular request by Kunti as suggested by Lord Krishna led to the death of Karna in the war as he did not use Nagastra and Rudraastra twice against Arjuna. Lord Krishna knew that Lord Parashurama gifted entire celestial weapons to Karna and Arjuna don't have any counter to many of these weapon. Karna requested his mother to keep their relationship a secret till the end of the war, as pandavas will not fight against their own brother in the Dharma Yuddha if she reveals the truth to them, due to dharma against fighting a brother/father figure. After the end of the war she is supposed to reveal his birth identity to everyone and also promised that at the end of the war she would still have five sons, the fifth one be either Arjuna or Karna himself.[26]

text: Kurukshetra war

text: Sitting out

text: Bhishma is appointed as the commander-in-chief of the Kaurava army. But giving the reason that Karna had humiliated Draupadi and disrespected their shared guru, Parashurama, Bhishma refuses to take him in the Kaurava army. Secretly, he knows of Karna’s lineage and doesn't want Karna to fight his own brothers. At the tale of Rathi's and Atirathi's, Bhishma further insults Karna and declares him as just an Ardha Rathi(Half a Rathi) warrior.[27] Duryodhana wants Karna to fight in the war from the beginning, but Bhishma threatens that he will not fight if Karna is in the army. Duryodhana considers instead installing Karna as the commander, but due to Karna's low birth, he knows that many kings would threaten not to fight under Karna when people like Bhishma and Dronacharya are present. So Karna decides that he will not fight until the fall of Bhishma. Knowing the Karna's situation on Kurukshtra war that Karna will not fight till Bhishma was present, Lord Krishna requested Karna to stay with him and Pandavas in Pandavas camp and insists Karna that he may join Kaurava side whenever the Bhishma has slain. But Karna politely dismissed Lord Krishna's appeal that he has dedicated his life to fight for his friend Duryodhana and will not do anything that is unpleasant to him.[28] Only after Bhishma falls on the eleventh day did Karna enter the war. After the fall of Bhishma, Karna visits him on the bed of arrows and Bhishma reveals his knowledge about Karna's birth. He then explains his previous attitude, praises Karna's prowess, relates Karna's exploits, and gives Karna his blessings.[29]

text: Joining the battle

text: On the morning of 11th day of battle, Surya offered his invincible chariot and his charioteer Aruṇa to Karna, just like Lord Indra who gave his chariot to Arjuna. The chariot of Surya was brilliant as the sun, yoked with 7 horses of different colors [30][31] and only a person with divine vision could look into it. Confident in his own skills, Karna rejects this offer, saying he didn't want to be remembered as a person who depended upon others strength to gain victory, indirectly referring to Arjuna who depended upon Lord Krishna. Drona took the commander-in-chief position.

text: Killing Ghatotkacha

text: Uncharacteristically, the battle on fourteenth day extended into the dark hours. Taking advantage of that was Ghatotkacha, Bhima’s half-Asura son, as asuras gained extraordinary power at night time. Ghatotkacha’s destroyed the Kaurava force and also injured Dronacharya. Seeing the desperate situation, Karna used his Vasava Shakti against Ghatotkacha, killing him. Krishna is pleased with the fact that Karna could no longer use the weapon against Arjuna. Lord Krishna told Satyaki that he had applied his maya or illusion on Karna in order to protect Arjuna from Karna's celestial weapons, preventing them from engaging in direct combat.[32]

text: Karna Parva

text: Karna Parva, the eighth book of the Mahābhārata, describes sixteenth and seventeenth days of the Kurukshetra war where, post-Drona’s death, Karna took over as the commander-in-chief. Karna took his Vijaya bow for the first time in battle. As Karna drew the Vijaya bow, a terrible twang was produced because of the immeasurable energy of this bow and it silenced all other loud sounds.[33] Hearing this and anticipating a likely battle to the death between Karna and Arjuna, Krishna warned Arjuna calling Karna to be the foremost of the heroes.[34]

text: According to Krishna, Karna had all the qualities of the five Pandavas - the righteousness of Yudhisthir, strength of Bhima, archery skills of Arjuna, handsomeness of Nakula and wisdom of Sahadeva. A concern for the Kaurava forces is the perceived favour Arjuna has because of the skills of his charioteer, Krishna. To balance this, Duryodhana requests that the talented Shalya, the king of Madra and the Pandavas' maternal uncle, be Karna's charioteer. Though disconcerted over serving a warrior of lesser rank as Karna being a charioteer's son, Shalya agrees to the task. Prior to the war's start, when tricked on to the Kauravas' side, Shalya promised Yudhishthira that he would demoralize and frustrate Karna.

text: Sixteenth Day

text: As promised to Kunti, Karna aimed at killing only Arjuna. On the sixteenth day, he fought with all the Pandava brothers but Arjuna, defeated them all in direct combat and spared each one of them after insulting them with harsh words. After the terrible death of Dussasana, he ordered his charioteer Shalya to move towards Arjuna, Karna deciding to finish him off for once and all. So violent and offensive were Karna's attacks that Arjuna's defenses soon crumbled before it. Karna then moved in for the kill. He arms his Nagastra, the same celestial weapon that was used by Indrajit against Rama in Ramayana. Intervening, Shalya tells him to aim at Arjuna's chest. Frustrated at Shalya's constant insults, Karna believes that the advice must be bad, and instead aims at Arjuna's head. Krishna saved Arjuna from certain death by lowering their chariot wheel into the earth; the arrow strikes Arjuna's helmet instead of his head. Karna and Arjuna then waged a rough war against each other. As promised to Kunti, Karna used a celestial weapon only once against Arjuna. Regaining the upper hand, Karna has a chance to kill Arjuna but spares the latter as the sun was about to set. In some versions, Lord Krishna realized that only miracles can save his ward Arjuna from death and caused the Sun to set prematurely.[35]

text: Later Lord Krishna made plans to kill Karna by cheating and revealed his plan to Arjuna. Lord Krishna told Arjuna that there will come a time where Karna would be defenseless and unarmed; that was the time for Arjuna to strike.[36]

text: Seventeenth Day

text: On the seventeenth day of the war, Karna defeated Yudhishthira[37] and Bhima[38] in duels. Later on the day, when the Kaurava troops were hard-pressed by their opponents, Karna used Bhargavastra against the Pandava army. As a result, heavy casualties were inflicted on the Pandava army.[39] Arjuna was unable to counter this weapon and so Krishna caused him to desist and retreat temporarily. Then they visited Yudhisthira who was outside the battlefield, having been badly wounded by Karna's weapons. However, Yudhisthira insulted Arjuna for retreating.[40]

text: After the Bhargavastra was withdrawn, the battle resumed. Insulted by Yudhisthira, Arjuna returned to battle field. The two foes, Karna and Arjuna faced each other once more. To witness this great battle between the greatest of all the heroes, heavens opened up. All beings from all the higher realms appeared in the sky. There appeared all the Devas, celestial Rishis, Apsaras, Gandarva and all the beings in the higher realms and they offered flowers to these great warriors. The asuras and beings from all the lower realms also appeared and assembled to witness the battle. Both Pandava and Kauvarava forces stopped their fight and assembled on their respective sides to witness the battle. All the Kauvarva's and Pandava's cheered their side and awaited the eagerly for witnessing the battle between Karna and Arjuna. As the battle started, the warriors on the battlefield and the Devas in heaven watched the battle in speechless amazement and terrified admiration of the strength and skill of these greatest of warriors. Karna cut the string of Arjuna’s bow many times. As the battle intensified, Arjuna pushed back Karna's chariot 10 steps backward every time by the energy of the arrows, but Karna was only able to push Arjuna's chariot 2 steps backward. Seeing this Lord Krishna praised Karna and admired the skill of Karna. When questioned by Arjuna, Krishna said it is impossible for any human ever to push his chariot backwards because the chariot of Arjuna contains both Hanuman and Krishna, thus holding the entire weight of the universe. Even to shake the chariot is an impossible task, and Karna is pushing it 2 feet (0.61 m) every time by the energy of his arrows. Krishna said no human ever had or ever will attain this feat as it is impossible even to shake the chariot containing Maha Vishnu.[41] The epic states that initially, the battle was even between the two foes, but then Karna's chariot wheel was trapped in the mud as a result of the curse he had received earlier from a Brahmin. He still defended himself, but at the crucial moment, forgot the incantations to invoke Brahmanda astra, as a result of his guru Parashurama's curse. Karna got down from his chariot to free the wheel and asked Arjuna to pause, reminding him of the etiquette of war. But Krishna spurred Arjuna to attack Karna against the rules of engagement of the war, and the enraged Arjuna attacked Karna while he was trying to lift his sunken chariot wheel. Karna defended himself and invoked Rudraastra, hitting Arjuna on his chest.[42] Swooning, Arjuna lost his grip on his Gandiva, which fell down from his hand for the first time. Following the rules of engagement of war, Karna did not try to kill the unconscious Arjuna but instead tried to utilize the time in extracting the wheels of his chariot. Arjuna recovered and using the Anjalika weapon, decapitated the weaponless Karna, who was still trying to lift the sunken chariot wheel. Though it was highly forbidden according to the rules of engagement of the war to attack a weaponless warrior or to attack an enemy from the back, Arjuna attacked Karna from the back and killed him as suggested by Krishna. It was later revealed that Karna could be killed only when all the 3 curses acted together upon him, and this made Krishna employ deceit to kill Karna.

text: It is said that, Duryodhana never shed a single tear drop for any of his real brothers who were killed in the battlefield, but when his beloved friend Karna was slain, he was inconsolable.

text: Cremation

text: Following the end of the war, Tarpan vidhi were performed for all the fallen. Kunti then requested her sons to perform the rites for Karna and revealed the truth of his birth. The brothers were shocked to find that they had committed fratricide. Yudhishthira in particular was furious with his mother, and laid a curse upon all women that they should never thereafter be able to keep a secret.[43] In some versions it is said that right after the death of Karna, Kunti revealed the truth about Karna to her sons and the world, just as she promised to Karna. Yudhishthira went to Duryodhana and told that being the second eldest brother, only he owned the right to cremate Karna. Duryodhana protested and Krishna verified that Duryodhana had the highest right over Karna. Hence, Karna’s final ceremony was performed by Duryodhana, reducing the Pandavas to mere spectators of this event.[44] Karna's wife Vrushali committed sati on Karna's pyre after his death. A play is staged in South India known as Kattaikkuttu which is based on the events that occurred in Karna's life on the day of his death.[citation needed]

text: Later, Arjuna built the Aranmula Parthasarathy Temple during his conquest for Ashvamedha in South India.[45] Legend has it that Arjuna built this temple to expiate for the sin of having killed Karna against the Dharma of killing an unarmed enemy. The temple is dedicated to Parthasarathy (Lord Krishna's role as Arjuna's charioteer in the war).

text: Ascension to svarga

text: The Mahabharata mentions that after his death in the Kurukshetra war, Karna's soul ascended to Suryalok (the abode of his father, Sun god), and along with his sons and "attained" the "state" of a god.[46][47]

text: Other stories

text: The Superior Son

text: One tale relates that as Karna lays dying on the battlefield, his father Surya and Arjuna's father Indra fall into a debate as to who among their sons is superior. They decide to test Karna's generosity and appear before him as Brahmins asking for alms. Karna says that at this point he had nothing to give them while one of the Brahmins remarks that he has some gold in his teeth. Realizing this, Karna promptly takes a stone and breaks his teeth, handing them over to the Brahmins, thus proving his superiority.[48]

text: Dharma-Devata's protection

text: In other versions of the epic, when Arjuna used the Anjalika astra on the weaponless Karna, Krishna found that Karna was still alive even though seriously wounded. Krishna found that Dharma-Devata, the Goddess responsible for protecting Dharma, was guarding Karna from death and resisting every arrows sent by Arjuna. Krishna explained to Arjuna that the Dharma-Devata herself was protecting Karna from death because of the massive good merit Karna earned by giving charity during his lifetime. Krishna said wherever Dharma is present there is victory and this time Dharma was with the side of Karna. So Krishna went down from his chariot and appeared as a Brahmin and asked for Karna's punya or merit, to him as charity. Karna gave his entire merits as charity to the Brahmin in the form of his blood and once Karna gifted his life's merit to him, Krishna rewarded Karna with the view of Krishna's Vishwaroopa. Krishna told that only this way it was possible to kill Karna and when Karna gave away his life's merit to Krishna, Dharma-Devata disappeared. Karna asked Krishna to cremate him in a virgin land where nobody else is present. Then Krishna went back to his chariot and asked Arjuna to take the kill shot on Karna. Later Krishna himself spread the cremations of Karna at Karnaprayag.[49]

text: Parasurama's command

text: In some versions, during the night of 15th day of battle, Karna had a dream in which he envisioned his guru Parashurama and asked him to take back the curse he had placed years back. Parashurama revealed that he had known all along Karna was a Kshatriya, but because he was a worthy student Parashurama had instructed him regardless. The avatar explained to Karna that the Brahmanda astra had to fail him when he needed it most. If he killed Arjuna, Duryodhana would be king instead of Yudhishthira and chaos would ensue. Parashurama asked Karna to accept his curse and asked him to die at the hands of Arjuna, so that the world might live in peace. Karna accepted his guru's words and in return the grateful guru, Parashurama blessed Karna with immortal glory and everlasting fame.[50][51]

text: Family

text: According to the Mahabharata, Karna was married to Vrushali. He had ten sons: Vrishasena, Sudama, Vrishaketu, Chitrasena, Satyasena, Sushena, Shatrunjaya, Dvipata, Banasena, and Prasena; eight of them took part in the Kurukshetra war. Prasena was killed by Satyaki. Shatrunjaya, Vrishasena, and Dvipata were slain by Arjuna. Bhima killed Banasena; Nakula killed Chitrasena, Satyasena, and Sushena.[52][53] Vrishakethu was his only son who survived the war.After the war when Pandavas were made aware of Karna's lineage, Vrishakethu was under the patronage of Arjuna and took part in various battles that preceded the Ashvamedha yagna. Vrishakethu was killed by Arjuna's son Babruvahana during the battle fought during Ashvamedha Yagna.[54]

text: In addition, in the original sentence is described as "bhāryāś", which is plural, meaning "wives" (Mahābhārata: Udyogaparvan/05139010c).[55]

text: Themes and analysis

text: Within the various Hindu legends, Karna draws resemblance with various other characters. The attributed author of Mahabharata, sage Vyasa, is also noted to be born from an unwed union of Satyavati and sage Parashara, just the way Karna is born before Kunti's marriage.[56] Philologist Georges Dumézil also compares him with his father Surya in the sense that he too has two mothers, Kunti and Radha, just the way Surya in Vedas has two mothers, the night and the dawn.[57] German indologist Georg von Simson, notes the similarities in the names of Karna and of the Kumbhakarna, the demon brother of the main antagonist Ravana of the epic Ramayana. He also notes that both Karna and Kumbhakarna did not take part in the great wars of their respective epics at the start.[58] Scholars internationally have also drawn parallels with various European mythologies. Karna's kawach (armour) has been compared with that of Achilles's Styx-coated body and with Irish warrior Ferdiad's horny skin that could not be pierced. He has been compared to the Greek character Achilles on various occasions as they both have powers but lack status.[59]

text: Secondary literature and media

text: Literature

text: Rabindranath Tagore wrote a poem, "Karna Kunti Sangbad" based on the meeting of Karna and Kunti before the war. Karna also has been topic of various contemporary literary works. The marathi books of Radheya (1973) authored by Ranjit Desai and Mrityunjay (1967) authored by Shivaji Sawant bring forth a fictionalized account of Karna's private and personal life.[60] Sawant also received Moortidevi Award, instituted by Bharatiya Jnanpith, for his work[61] and was translated into nine languages.[62] Ramdhari Singh Dinkar in 1978 published an epic poem Rashmirathi (translation: One who rides the Chariot of light, 1952) which narrates Karna's life.[63] The poem has later also been adapted as play.[64]

text: In the Japanese light novel Fate/Apocrypha Karna makes an appearance as one of the "Servants" being the "Lancer of Red".

text: Film and theater

text:
Sivaji Ganesan played the role of Karna in Karnan (1964).
N. T. Rama Rao played the role of Karna in Daana Veera Soora Karna (1977).
Rebel Star Krishnam Raju played the role of Karna in Kurukshetram (1977).
Shyam Benegal's 1981 film Kalyug adapted the Mahabharat as a conflict between rival business houses with Shashi Kapoor playing Karan, the character based on Karna.[65]
1991 Tamil film Thalapathi, directed by veteran director, Mani Ratnam chronicles the friendship between Karna and Duryodhana. Here, the character based on Karna, named Surya, was played by Rajinikanth and Duryodhana by Mammotty.[66] One of the songs from Thalapathi has been voted number 4 in the BBC's 'World's Top Ten Revealed' worldwide music poll.[67]
Ajay Devgan played a character based on Karna in the 2010 Bollywood film Raajneeti.[68]
South Indian film actor Mohanlal performed Karna on the stage in Karnabharam, a Sanskrit play that was premiered in New Delhi in 2001 as part of the Bharat Rang Mahotsav directed by Kavalam Narayana Panicker. The play depicts Karna's mental agony a day before the Kurukshetra War, as he thinks about his past and his faith.[69]
Bala Devi Chandrashekar plays the character of Karna in the 2015 Bharatanatyam production Karna – Destiny's Child.[citation needed]

text:
Year
Name
Channel
Played by

1964
Karnan
N/A
Sivaji Ganesan

1977
Daana Veera Soora Karna
N/A
N. T. Rama Rao

1977
Kurukshetram
N/A
Krishnam Raju

1988
Mahabharat
DD National
Harendra Paintal/Pankaj Dheer[70]

1989
The Mahabharata
N/A
Lou Bihler/Jeffrey Kissoon

1993
Krishna
DD Metro
Govind Khatri

2013
Mahabharat
STAR Plus
Gananay Shukla/Vidyut Xavier/Aham Sharma[71]

2015–2016
Suryaputra Karn
Sony Entertainment Television
Vishesh Bansal/Vasant Bhatt/Gautam Rode

text: Notes

text:
Jump up ^ Ganguli, Kisari Mohan. The Mahabharata, Book 7: Drona Parva. Netlancers Inc, 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Kisari Mohan Ganguli (1896). "Mahabaratha ,Digvijaya yatra of Karna". The Mahabharata. Sacred Texts. Retrieved June 11, 2015.
Jump up ^ Ganguli, Kisari Mohan. The Mahabharata, Book 3: Vana Parva. Netlancers Inc, 2014.
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896)The Mahabharatha Book 7: Drona Parva SECTION I. Karna is equal to 2 Maharatha warriors, October 2003
Jump up ^ "Karnal". District of Karnal. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
Jump up ^ Mahabharata: The Philosophy of Humanity. Srimath Swami Chidbhavananda. Taponavam Series 90. Seventh Edition, 1999.
Jump up ^ Website dedicated to the story of Karna
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896) Karna to Salya about the cheating of Lord Indra for benfiting Arjuna October 2003,Retrieved 2015-03-08
^ Jump up to: a b "Curse and blessing of Parashurama". The Mahabharata. 1896. Retrieved June 9, 2015.
Jump up ^ James L. Fitzgerald (2003). The Mahabharata, Volume 7: Book 11: The Book of the Women Book 12: The Book of Peace. University of Chicago Press. p. 173. ISBN 0-226-25250-7.
Jump up ^ THE MAHABHARATA, BOOK1, ADI PARVA: SAMBHAVA PARVA, translated by KM Ganguli :......"Vaisampayana said, 'After this, with his sheet loosely hanging down, Adhiratha entered the lists, perspiring and trembling, and supporting himself on a staff. Seeing him, Karna left his bow and impelled by filial regard bowed down his head still wet with the water of inauguration. And then the charioteer addressed Karna crowned with success as his son. And the charioteer embraced Karna and from excess of affection bedewed his head with tears, that head still wet with the water sprinkled over it on account of the coronation as king of Anga. Seeing the charioteer, the Pandava Bhimasena took Karna for a charioteer's son, and said by way of ridicule, 'O son of a charioteer, thou dost not deserve death in fight at the hands of Partha. As befits thy race take thou anon the whip. And, O worst of mortals, surely thou art not worthy to sway the kingdom of Anga, even as a dog doth not deserve the butter placed before the sacrificial fire.' Karna, thus addressed, with slightly quivering lips fetched a deep sigh, looked at the God of the day in the skies.".......
Jump up ^ Ganguli, KM. THE MAHABHARTA, BOOK1, ADI PARVA, SAMBHA PAVA CONTINUED. Retrieved 4 January 2015.
Jump up ^ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01139.htm
Jump up ^ Text Archive, Internet Sacred. "Mahabharat : Adi Parva-Sambhava Parva; SECTION CXXXVIII". Internet Sacred Text Archive. Evinity Publishing INC.
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896) Karna defeating Jarasandha and becoming king of malini October 2003,Retrieved 2015-04-08
Jump up ^ Bowker, John (2000). "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions". Oxford Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780192800947.001.0001. (Subscription required (help)).  (subscription or UK public library membership required)
Jump up ^ "The Mahabharata, Book 2: Sabha Parva: Section LXII". Sacred-texts.com.
Jump up ^ MBH 8.8.18–20.
Jump up ^ Ganguli, Kisari Mohan. The Mahabharata, Book 3: Vana Parva. Netlancers Inc, 2014.  Accessed 8 April 2015.
Jump up ^ Kisari Mohan Ganguli (1896). "Mahabharata - Karna conquering the entire world". The Mahabharata. Sacred Texts. Retrieved June 11, 2015.
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896 The Mahabharatha Book 3: Vana Parva SECTION XXXVI Yudishtira explains the might of Karna to Bhima,October 2003,Retrieved 2015-03-08
Jump up ^ Sayantan Gupta (2014). The Karna Pages. Authorspress. p. 400. ISBN 978-81-7273-922-5.
Jump up ^ http://www.pushti-marg.net/bhagwat/Mahabharata/Krushna-Karna.htm
Jump up ^ Hiltebeitel Alf (2005). Mahabaratha. MacMillan.
Jump up ^ Witzel Michael (1995). "Early Sanskritization: Origin and Development of the Kuru state" (PDF). EJVS. 1 (4). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 June 2007.
Jump up ^ Phillip B. Zarrilli;Kattaikkuttu: The Flexibility of a South Indian Theatre Tradition, and: Karna's Death: A Play by Pukalentirrulavar (review);Asian Theatre Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2003, pp. 100-102
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896)The Mahabharatha Book 7: Drona Parva SECTION I Karna is equal to 2 Maharatha warrior,October 2003,Retrieved 2015-04-11
Jump up ^ Lord Krishna request Karna to sit with Pandavas http://sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06043.htm
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896)The Mahabharatha Book 6: Bhishma Parva SECTION CXXIV Bhishma speaks to Karna on the bed of arrows,October 2003,Retrieved 2015-04-11
Jump up ^ Surya-Siddhant [12.12-29]
Jump up ^ Rig Veda 1.35,1.164.1-5
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896)The Mahabharatha Book 7: Drona Parva SECTION CLXXXII Lord Krishna talk to Satyaki about the usage of his Maya on Karna,October 2003,Retrieved 2015-03-08
Jump up ^ Kisari Mohan Ganguli, tr (1896). "Vijaya bow". The Mahabharata. Retrieved June 8, 2015.
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896 texts.com/hin/m08/m08072.htm The Mahabharatha Book 8: Karna Parva Section72 Lord Krishna explains the might of Karna,October 2003,Retrieved 2015-10-08
Jump up ^ "Karna Parva,Battle between Karna and Arjuna". Retrieved 23 May 2015.
Jump up ^ "Plans to cheat and kill Karna". Retrieved July 7, 2015.
Jump up ^ http://sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08049.htm
Jump up ^ http://sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08051.htm
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896)The Mahabharatha Book 8: Karna Parva 64. Karna invoking Bhargavastra, January 2016
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly(1883-1896)The Mahabharatha Book 8: Karna Parva 64. Yudishtira chastises Arjuna for running away from the battlefield, January 2016
Jump up ^ Pattanaik, Devdutt. Jaya: An Illustrated Retelling of the Mahabharata. Penguin Books India, 2010.  Accessed 10 April 2015.
Jump up ^ K M Ganguly (1883-1896). The Mahabharatha Book 8: Karna Parva. Section 91. Karna ivoking Rudrastra against Arjuna. October 2003. Retrieved 2014-08-11.
Jump up ^ "The Mahabharata, Book 12: SANTI PARVA: Section VI". Sacred-texts.com.
Jump up ^ "Argument over the cremation of Karna". Retrieved June 14, 2015.
Jump up ^ David Abram; Nick Edwards (2004). The Rough Guide to South India. Rough Guides. p. 348. ISBN 1-84353-103-8.
Jump up ^ The Mahabharat:BOOK 8-KARNA PARVA : Thus cut off with that Anjalika, the trunk of Karna fell down on the earth. The head also of that commander of the (Kaurava) army, endued with splendour equal to that of the risen sun and resembling the meridian sun of autumn, fell down on the earth like the sun of bloody disc dropped down from the Asta hills. Indeed, that head abandoned with great unwillingness the body, exceedingly beautiful and always nursed in luxury, of Karna of noble deeds, like an owner abandoning with great unwillingness his commodious mansion filled with great wealth. Cut off with Arjuna's arrow, and deprived of life, the tall trunk of Karna endued with great splendour, with blood issuing from every wound, fell down like the thunder-riven summit of a mountain of red chalk with crimson streams running down its sides after a shower. Then from that body of the fallen Karna a light passing through the welkin penetrated the sun. This wonderful sight, O king, was beheld by the human warriors after the fall of Karna.
Jump up ^ Ganguli, Kisari Mohan. "The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa; Book 8- KARNA PARVA". Internet Sacred Text Archive. Evinity Publishing INC,. Archived from the original on 2 January 2015. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
Jump up ^ http://www.saigan.com/kattaikkuttu05/gp22.html
Jump up ^ M.P. Veerendra Kumar. Haimavatabhoovil. Mathrubhumi Books. p. 734. ISBN 978-81-8264-560-8.
Jump up ^ Mehrotra NC (1999). Shahjahanpur Etihasik Evam Sanskritik Dharohar'. Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh: Pratiman Prakashan 30 Kucha Ray Ganga Prasad.
Jump up ^ Parkhe B (1975). Ramayashogatha.
Jump up ^ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08082.htm
Jump up ^ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08048.htm
Jump up ^ http://ritsin.com/when-arjuna-was-killed-defeated-mahabharata.html/
Jump up ^ http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/text/UR/MBh05.txt
Jump up ^ Brockington 1998, p. 23.
Jump up ^ Brockington 1998, p. 70.
Jump up ^ Brockington 1998, p. 71.
Jump up ^ McGrath 2004, p. 4.
Jump up ^ Indian Literature, Issues 225-227. Sahitya Akademi. 2005. p. 132.
Jump up ^ "Moortidevi Awards for two writers". New Delhi: Times of India. 24 February 2003. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
Jump up ^ Date, Vidyadhar (23 September 2002). "Shivaji Sawant’s historical novels are a separate class". Mumbai: Times of India. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
Jump up ^ Ambika Chaudhary. "‘Dinkar’s portrayal of Karna changed my way of looking at public affairs’". Tehelka. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
Jump up ^ Chaturvedi, Devika (14 December 2010). "'Rashmirathi' takes audienc to another plane of thoughts". Daily News and Analysis. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Vote! The Best Shashi Kapoor Film". rediff.com. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
Jump up ^ R, Narendran. "Vintage Movie Review: A Review on Thalapathi". Behindwoods.com. Behindwoods.com. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
Jump up ^ Steve Wright page at bbc.co.uk
Jump up ^ "Ajay Devgan had doubts about his role in 'Raajneeti'". New Delhi: The Economic Times. 4 June 2010. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
Jump up ^ "Mohanlal's new obsession". rediff.com. 13 Mar 2001. Retrieved 3 Dec 2011.
Jump up ^ Olivera, Roshni K. (30 July 2010). "It’s a scary scenario: Pankaj Dheer". Times of India. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
Jump up ^ River, Trending. "13th Indian Telly Awards 2014- Nominees & Winners List Gallery". Retrieved 15 October 2014.

tag: ol

text: Bibliography

text:
Bowles, Adam, 2006. Mahābhārata: Karna. Published by NYU Press. ISBN 0-8147-9981-7.
Brockington, J. L. (1998). The Sanskrit Epics. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-10260-4. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
Buitenen, Johannes Adrianus Bernardus, 1978. The Mahābhārata. 3 volumes (translation / publication incomplete due to his death). University of Chicago Press.
Kamala Chandrakant (2009). Karna. Amar Chitra Katha. ISBN 81-89999-49-4.
Desai, Ranjit. Radheya. ISBN 81-7766-746-7
Dinkar, Ramdhari Singh. The Sun Charioteer: a poetic rendering of Karna's life, his dharma, his friendship and tragedies. Rashmirathi; रश्मिरथी / रामधारी सिंह "दिनकर (in Hindi)
McGrath, Kevin (2004). The Sanskrit Hero: Karna in Epic Mahābhārata. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-13729-7. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
Sawant, Shivaji. Mrityunjaya, the death conqueror: the story of Karna. ISBN 81-7189-002-4
Subramaniam, Kamala, Smt. The Mahabharata. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Press.
Winternitz, Maurice (1996). A History of Indian Literature, Volume 1. Motilal Banarsidass Publication. ISBN 81-208-0264-0. Retrieved 25 November 2013.

text: Further reading

text: Kisari Mohan Ganguly (2008). The Mahabharata, Book 8 of 18: Karna Parva (English translation). Forgotten Books. ISBN 1-60506-618-4.