Shloka 59

अनीश्वरश्व पृथिवीं कथं त्वं दातुमिच्छसि । त्वयेयं पृथिवी राजन्‌ किन्न दत्ता तदैव हि

anīśvaraś ca pṛthivīṁ kathaṁ tvaṁ dātum icchasi | tvayeyaṁ pṛthivī rājan kiṁ na dattā tadaiva hi ||

Yudhiṣṭhira said: “If you are not the sovereign owner of the earth, how can you wish to give it away? O king, if this earth truly belonged to you, why was it not given at that very time?”

अनीश्वरःnot being the lord (not having authority)
अनीश्वरः:
Karta
TypeAdjective
Rootअनीश्वर
FormMasculine, Nominative, Singular
and
:
TypeIndeclinable
Root
पृथिवीम्the earth/kingdom
पृथिवीम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootपृथिवी
FormFeminine, Accusative, Singular
कथम्how
कथम्:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootकथम्
त्वम्you
त्वम्:
Karta
TypePronoun
Rootयुष्मद्
FormNominative, Singular
दातुम्to give
दातुम्:
TypeVerb
Rootदा
Formतुमुन्, Parasmaipada (usage-neutral in infinitive)
इच्छसिyou desire/wish
इच्छसि:
TypeVerb
Rootइष् (इच्छ्)
FormPresent (Lat), Second, Singular, Parasmaipada
त्वयाby you
त्वया:
Karana
TypePronoun
Rootयुष्मद्
FormInstrumental, Singular
इयम्this
इयम्:
Karta
TypePronoun
Rootइदम्
FormFeminine, Nominative, Singular
पृथिवीthe earth/kingdom
पृथिवी:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootपृथिवी
FormFeminine, Nominative, Singular
राजन्O king
राजन्:
TypeNoun
Rootराजन्
FormMasculine, Vocative, Singular
किम्what?/why?
किम्:
TypePronoun
Rootकिम्
FormNeuter, Nominative, Singular
not
:
TypeIndeclinable
Root
दत्ताgiven
दत्ता:
TypeVerb
Rootदा
Formक्त (past passive participle), Feminine, Nominative, Singular
तदाthen/at that time
तदा:
Adhikarana
TypeIndeclinable
Rootतदा
एवindeed/just
एव:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootएव
हिfor/indeed
हि:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootहि

युधिछिर उवाच

Y
Yudhiṣṭhira
P
pṛthivī (the earth/kingdom)

Educational Q&A

A gift is ethically valid only when the giver has rightful authority over the object. Yudhiṣṭhira challenges the morality of “donating” the earth/kingdom without true sovereignty, stressing that legitimacy and ownership are prerequisites for righteous giving.

In the aftermath of the great war, Yudhiṣṭhira interrogates a claim about granting the earth/kingdom. He points out a contradiction: if the speaker was not truly the lord of the land, the intention to give it is improper; and if it really belonged to him, it should have been granted earlier—exposing inconsistency and questioning the ethical basis of the claim.