Shloka 4
Kośa, Bala, and Maryādā: Treasury, Capacity, and Enforceable Limits (कोश-बल-मर्यादा)
असंविहितराष्ट्स्य देशकालावजानत: । अप्राप्यं च भवेत् सान्त्वं भेदो वाप्पतिपीडनात् । जीवित त्वर्थहेतुर्वा तत्र कि सुकृतं भवेत्
asaṁvihita-rāṣṭrasya deśa-kālāvajānataḥ | aprāpyaṁ ca bhavet sāntvaṁ bhedo vā pīḍanāt | jīvita-tv-artha-hetur vā tatra kiṁ sukṛtaṁ bhavet ||
قال يودهيشثيرا: «من أخفق في صون مملكته، ولم يعرف موضع الأمر وزمانه، ومن—بسبب قهرٍ بالغ—لم يعد يستطيع أن يستعمل سياسة الملاينة (sāma) ولا حتى التفريق (bheda)، فأي طريق هو الحق حقًا؟ أيسعى إلى حفظ الحياة أم إلى تأمين أسباب المال؟ في مثل هذه الحال، أي فعل يُعدّ خيرًا وأقومَ في الدharma؟»
युधिछिर उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse frames an ethical dilemma in rājadharma: when governance has failed and standard diplomatic tools (conciliation and division) are no longer workable due to severe oppression, one must discern what truly counts as ‘sukṛta’—the most right and welfare-producing action—balancing survival (jīvita) against material means and state-interest (artha).
In Śānti Parva’s discourse on kingship and conduct, Yudhiṣṭhira raises a practical question about policy under extreme duress: if a ruler has lost control and cannot apply sāma or bheda, should he prioritize protecting life or securing resources, and which choice is ethically preferable.