Shloka 87
Kṛṣṇa at Duryodhana’s House: Refusal of Hospitality and Departure to Vidura (कृष्णस्य धार्तराष्ट्रनिवेशनगमनम्)
स्त्रीधर्मिणी वरारोहा क्षत्रधर्मरता सदा । नाभ्यगच्छत् तदा नाथं कृष्णा नाथवती सती,“सदा क्षत्रियधर्ममें अनुराग रखनेवाली मेरी सर्वांगसुन्दरी बहू कृष्णा उस समय रजस्वला थी। वह सनाथ होती हुई भी वहाँ किसीको अपना नाथ (रक्षक) न पा सकी
strīdharmiṇī varārohā kṣatradharmaratā sadā | nābhyagacchat tadā nāthaṃ kṛṣṇā nāthavatī satī |
Vaiśampāyana sprach: „Draupadī — der Frauenpflicht treu, von edler Gestalt und stets dem Dharma der Kṣatriya ergeben — befand sich damals in ihrer Monatszeit. Obwohl sie Beschützer hatte, fand sie in jenem Augenblick niemanden, der als ihr Herr und Verteidiger auftrat.“
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse highlights a dharmic tension: even a virtuous person who is socially ‘protected’ can be left without effective protection when those responsible fail to act. It implicitly critiques the collapse of kṣatriya-duty (to defend the vulnerable) and underscores the ethical demand that guardianship be real, not merely nominal.
Vaiśampāyana describes Draupadī at a moment of vulnerability (she is said to be in her menstrual period). Despite having husbands/guardians, she is unable to find anyone who will stand as her immediate defender, emphasizing her abandonment in a crisis.