Shloka 20
राजधर्मः, दण्डनीतिः, कर्तृत्व-विचारः च
Royal Duty, Lawful Discipline, and the Question of Agency
(३) नरेश्वर! यदि ऐसा मानते हो कि युद्ध करनेवाले दो व्यक्तियोंमेंसे एकका मरना निश्चित ही है, अर्थात् वह स्वभाववश हठात् मारा गया है, तब तो स्वभाववादीके अनुसार भूत या भविष्य कालमें किसी अशुभ कर्मसे न तो तुम्हारा सम्पर्क था और न होगा ही ।।
nareśvara! yadi evaṃ manyase yuddha-kārayor dvayor madhye ekasya maraṇaṃ niyataṃ, sa svabhāvavaśād haṭhāt hata iti, tadā svabhāvavādināṃ mate bhūta-bhaviṣya-kālayoḥ aśubha-karmaṇā na tava saṃsparśo 'bhūt na ca bhaviṣyati. athābhipatti-lokasya kartavyā puṇya-pāpayoḥ; abhipannam idaṃ loke rājñām udyata-daṇḍanam.
Vyāsa said: “O king, if you hold that in a fight between two combatants the death of one is inevitable—struck down suddenly by mere nature—then, on the naturalist view, you have had no connection with any evil deed in the past, nor will you in the future. But if you say that people’s experiences of pleasure and pain must be traced to merit and demerit—since no effect arises without a cause—then that causal destiny must be understood as taking the form of dharma and adharma, which are determined by scripture. And by that same scriptural standard, it is fully proper for kings to raise the rod and punish the lawless. Therefore, from either standpoint, you have no reason to grieve.”
व्यास उवाच
Educational Q&A
Vyāsa offers a two-pronged argument to dissolve grief: if one adopts strict naturalism (svabhāva), then no moral blame attaches; if one adopts karmic causality, then dharma/adharma—known through śāstra—grounds royal punishment, making the king’s enforcement of order ethically justified.
In Śānti Parva’s instruction to the king, Vyāsa addresses the king’s sorrow and moral doubt about violence and responsibility, arguing that whether one explains death by nature or by karma, the king’s duty to punish the unruly remains proper and grief is unwarranted.