Bhīṣma’s Fall, the Arrow-bed (śara-talpa), and the Establishment of Guard
अमड्ल्यध्वजश्नैव याज्ञसेनिर्महाबल: । न चामड्लिके तस्मिन् प्रहरेदापगासुत:,“इसके सिवा द्रुपदका यह महाबली पुत्र अपनी ध्वजामें अमंगलसूचक चिह्न धारण करता है। अतः इस अमांगलिक शिखण्डीपर गंगानन्दन भीष्म कभी प्रहार नहीं करेंगे
amaṅgala-dhvajaś caiva yājñasenir mahābalaḥ | na cāmaṅgalike tasmin prahared āpagā-sutaḥ ||
قال سانجيا: «وفوق ذلك، فإن ابن دْرُوبَدا الجبار—شيخاندين—يحمل على رايته علامات تُعَدّ مشؤومة. لذلك لن يضرب بِهِيشْما، ابن الغانغا، ذلك الشيخاندين المشؤوم.»
संजय उवाच
Even amid war, conduct is shaped by vows, codes of honor, and perceived dharmic restraints. Bhīṣma’s refusal to strike Śikhaṇḍin highlights how personal ethics and social-religious notions (such as auspiciousness/inauspiciousness and propriety of targets) can limit violence even on the battlefield.
Sañjaya explains to Dhṛtarāṣṭra that Śikhaṇḍin, Drupada’s child, bears an inauspicious emblem on his banner; consequently Bhīṣma (Gaṅgā’s son) will not attack him. This sets up a tactical and moral constraint affecting Bhīṣma’s actions in the Kurukṣetra war.