Shloka 34
Sabhā Parva, Adhyāya 68 — Pāṇḍavānāṃ Vanavāsa-prasthānaḥ; Duḥśāsana-nindā; Pāṇḍava-pratijñāḥ
युधिष्ठिरने अपनी वाणीद्वारा कहकर द्रौपदीको दाँवपर रखा और शेष पाण्डवोंने मौन रहकर उसका अनुमोदन किया। फिर किस कारणसे तुम उसे नहीं जीती हुई मानते हो? ।।
yudhiṣṭhireṇa svayā vāṇyā kathayitvā draupadī dāve nidhāpitā, śeṣaiś ca pāṇḍavaiḥ maunena tad anumoditam; tataḥ kasmāt kāraṇāt tvaṃ tāṃ na jitām manyase? manyase vā sabhām etām ānītām ekavāsasam adharmena iti, tatrāpi śṛṇu me vākyam uttamam.
Karna sprach: „Yudhiṣṭhira selbst hat mit seinem eigenen Wort Draupadī als Einsatz benannt, und die übrigen Pāṇḍavas haben durch Schweigen zugestimmt. Aus welchem Grund weigerst du dich also, sie als gewonnen anzuerkennen? Und wenn du meinst, Draupadī — nur in ein einziges Gewand gehüllt — sei wider den Dharma in diese Versammlung gebracht worden, so höre auch dazu meine entscheidende Antwort.“
कर्ण उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse highlights a clash between procedural justification and ethical righteousness: Karna argues that a spoken wager, reinforced by others’ silence, constitutes consent and therefore ‘winning’ is valid—yet the very need to address ‘adharma’ shows how legalistic reasoning can be used to pressure moral boundaries.
In the dice-hall episode, Karna challenges objections to Draupadī being treated as a won stake. He claims Yudhiṣṭhira explicitly wagered her and the other Pāṇḍavas tacitly agreed by remaining silent; he then anticipates the counter-claim that bringing her into the assembly in a single garment was unlawful, and prepares to rebut it.