Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 15

Chapter 81: Trust, Allies, and the Qualifications of the King’s Artha-Secretary (अर्थसचिव)

तथैवात्युदकाद्‌ भीतस्तस्य भेदनमिच्छति । यमेवंलक्षणं विद्यात्‌ तममित्र विनिर्दिशेत्‌

tathaivātyudakād bhītastasya bhedanam icchati | yam evaṃlakṣaṇaṃ vidyāt tam amitraṃ vinirdiśet ||

Bhīṣma dijo: «Del mismo modo, el hombre que, atemorizado porque el agua excesiva se ha acumulado en su campo, desea romper el dique para dejarla salir, a ése—por tales señales—debes reconocerlo y señalarlo como enemigo. Pues si el mismo guardián de la frontera de un reino quebranta la frontera, el peligro puede caer sobre el dominio; por ello también debe ser tenido por enemigo.»

तथाthus, in the same way
तथा:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootतथा
एवindeed, just
एव:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootएव
अति-उदकात्from excessive water
अति-उदकात्:
Apadana
TypeNoun
Rootअति-उदक
FormNeuter, Ablative, Singular
भीतःafraid
भीतः:
Karta
TypeAdjective
Rootभीत
FormMasculine, Nominative, Singular
तस्यof that (embankment/thing)
तस्य:
TypePronoun
Rootतद्
FormNeuter, Genitive, Singular
भेदनम्breaking, breach
भेदनम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootभेदन
FormNeuter, Accusative, Singular
इच्छतिdesires, wishes
इच्छति:
TypeVerb
Rootइष्
FormPresent, Third, Singular, Parasmaipada
यम्whom
यम्:
Karma
TypePronoun
Rootयद्
FormMasculine, Accusative, Singular
एवम्-लक्षणम्having such a mark/characteristic
एवम्-लक्षणम्:
TypeAdjective
Rootएवम्-लक्षण
FormMasculine, Accusative, Singular
विद्यात्should know, would recognize
विद्यात्:
TypeVerb
Rootविद्
FormOptative, Third, Singular, Parasmaipada
तम्him
तम्:
Karma
TypePronoun
Rootतद्
FormMasculine, Accusative, Singular
अमित्रO enemy (address)
अमित्र:
TypeNoun
Rootअमित्र
FormMasculine, Vocative, Singular
विनिर्दिशेत्should point out/declare
विनिर्दिशेत्:
TypeVerb
Rootनि-√दिश्
FormOptative, Third, Singular, Parasmaipada

भीष्म उवाच

B
Bhishma
E
embankment/boundary (āḍ/setu/saṃdhi as implied)
F
field (kṣetra as implied)
E
excess water/flooding (ati-udaka)

Educational Q&A

A person entrusted with protecting boundaries or safeguards becomes especially dangerous if he himself breaches them; betrayal by a guardian is a clear sign of enmity and must be treated as a security threat.

Bhishma uses a practical agrarian analogy: when a field floods, a frightened farmer may want to break the embankment to release water. He applies this to governance—if a kingdom’s boundary-keeper breaks the boundary, it invites peril, so such a person should be identified as an enemy.