Shloka 4
Adhyāya 20 — Rājadharma Argument for Paternal Inheritance and Timely Conciliation
धृतराष्ट्रश्न पाण्डुश्व सुतावेकस्य विश्रुतौ । तयो: समान द्रविणं पैतृकं नात्र संशय:
dhṛtarāṣṭraś ca pāṇḍuś ca sutāv ekasya viśrutau | tayoḥ samaṃ draviṇaṃ paitṛkaṃ nātra saṃśayaḥ ||
Vaiśampāyana said: Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu are the renowned two sons of one and the same father. Therefore, the ancestral wealth belongs equally to both—there is no doubt about this. If Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s sons have already taken possession of the patrimony, on what grounds should the Pāṇḍavas be denied their rightful share? The statement frames the dispute as a matter of justice and dharma: equal birthright demands equal inheritance, and withholding it is an ethical wrong that fuels conflict.
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse asserts a dharmic principle of equal birthright: since Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu are sons of the same father, their paternal inheritance is equally shared. Denying the Pāṇḍavas their portion is presented as unjust and ethically indefensible.
In the Udyoga Parva’s lead-up to war, the speaker underscores the legitimacy of the Pāṇḍavas’ claim to ancestral property. This frames the political dispute not merely as power struggle but as a violation of rightful inheritance that intensifies the crisis between Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas.