Shloka 37
आपद्धर्मे वैश्यवृत्तिः, विक्रय-निषेधाः, तथा ब्रह्म-क्षत्र-सम्बन्धः
Emergency Livelihood, Prohibited Trade, and Brahman–Kshatra Regulation
कार्य कुर्यान्न वा कुर्यात् संवार्यो वा भवेन्न वा । तस्माच्छस्त्रं ग्रहीतव्यमन्यत्र क्षत्रबन्धुत:,युधिष्ठिरने पूछा--पितामह! नृपश्रेष्ठ!ी यदि डाकुओंका दल उत्तरोत्तर बढ़ रहा हो, समाजमें वर्णसंकरता फैल रही हो और क्षत्रियके प्रजापालनरूपी कार्यके लिये समस्त वर्णोके लोग कोई उपाय न हढूँढ़ पाते हों, उस अवस्थामें यदि कोई बलवान ब्राह्मण, वैश्य अथवा शाद्र धर्मकी रक्षाके निमित्त दण्ड धारण करके लुटेरोंके हाथसे प्रजाको बचा ले तो वह राजशासनका कार्य कर सकता है या नहीं। अथवा उसे इस कार्यसे रोकना चाहिये या नहीं? मेरा तो मत है कि क्षत्रियसे भिन्न वर्णके लोगोंको भी ऐसे अवसरोंपर अवश्य शस्त्र उठाना चाहिये
kāryaṁ kuryān na vā kuryāt saṁvāryo vā bhaven na vā | tasmāc chastraṁ grahītavyam anyatra kṣatrabandhutaḥ ||
Yudhiṣṭhira said: “Whether one should act or should refrain from acting; whether one ought to be restrained or not—therefore, except in the case of a mere ‘kinsman of kṣatriyas’ (a kṣatriya only in name), the taking up of weapons is to be accepted as necessary. In a time when robbers multiply, social order collapses, and no remedy is found for the protection of the people, even those outside the kṣatriya class may rightly bear arms to defend dharma and safeguard the community.”
युधिछिर उवाच
Educational Q&A
In crisis conditions where public safety and dharma are threatened, the ethical priority becomes protection of society; taking up arms can be justified beyond strict varṇa-role boundaries, while those who are kṣatriya only in name (kṣatrabandhu) are excluded from being treated as proper agents of righteous force.
Yudhiṣṭhira questions Bhīṣma about governance and emergency ethics: if banditry grows and social disorder spreads, can a strong brāhmaṇa, vaiśya, or śūdra wield punitive force to protect people when kṣatriyas fail? This verse frames the dilemma—act or refrain, restrain or allow—and leans toward permitting arms for protection in exceptional circumstances.