त्वं तु केवलबाल्येन धार्तराष्ट्र विदीर्यसे ॥
यद् ब्रवीषि सभामध्ये बालः स्थविरभाषितम् ॥
न च धर्मं यथातत्त्वं वेत्सि दुर्योधनावर ॥
यद् ब्रवीषि जितां कृष्णाम् अजितेति सुमन्दधीः ॥
कथं ह्य् अविजितां कृष्णां मन्यसे धृतराष्ट्रज ॥
यदा सभायां सर्वस्वं न्यस्तवान् पाण्डवाग्रजः ॥
अभ्यन्तरा च सर्वस्वे द्रौपदी भरतर्षभ ॥
एवं धर्मजितां कृष्णां मन्यसे न जितां कथम् ॥
कीर्तिता द्रौपदी वाचा अनुज्ञाता च पाण्डवैः ॥
भवत्य् अविजिता केन हेतुनैषा मता तव ॥
tvaṃ tu kevalabālyena dhārtarāṣṭra vidīryase ||
yad bravīṣi sabhāmadhye bālaḥ sthavirabhāṣitam ||
na ca dharmaṃ yathātattvaṃ vetsi duryodhanāvara ||
yad bravīṣi jitāṃ kṛṣṇām ajiteti sumandadhīḥ ||
kathaṃ hy avijitāṃ kṛṣṇāṃ manyase dhṛtarāṣṭraja ||
yadā sabhāyāṃ sarvasvaṃ nyastavān pāṇḍavāgrajaḥ ||
abhyantarā ca sarvasve draupadī bharatarṣabha ||
evaṃ dharmajitāṃ kṛṣṇāṃ manyase na jitāṃ katham ||
kīrtitā draupadī vācā anujñātā ca pāṇḍavaiḥ ||
bhavaty avijitā kena hetunaiṣā matā tava ||
[Karna:] "You, son of Dhritarashtra, fall to pieces out of sheer childishness, for, a mere boy, you speak amid the assembly what belongs to elders. You do not know dharma as it truly is, O younger brother of Duryodhana, when you, most dim-witted, call the won Krishna unwon. How can you hold her unwon, when the eldest of the Pandavas staked all his possessions in the assembly? And Draupadi is included within that "all possessions," O bull among the Bharatas — so how can you hold the Krishna won by dharma to be not won? She was named in words and assented to by the Pandavas themselves — for what reason, then, do you hold her unwon?"
cbb8d21d9520 · प्रकाशित 16 जुल॰ 2026, 4:12:36 pm UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
Karna turns dharma into a weapon of the letter: 'all possessions' was staked — therefore the queen too is within it, a thing among things. Here the root of the wrong is laid bare — a living soul, a chaste wife, is taken for property, an item on the list of stakes. The verse teaches how to recognize that casuistry which, clinging to the word, loses the substance: the truth of dharma lies not in whether a wife can be subsumed under 'possessions,' but in the fact that a wife is not possession. Contempt for Vikarna's youth only masks the weakness of the argument: where there is no truth, one strikes instead at the speaker's age. And this very reduction of Draupadi to a thing is what prepares the outrage soon to break forth.