Shloka 10
महोदर-वाक्यं कुम्भकर्ण-प्रतिषेधः
Mahodara’s Counsel and the Critique of Kumbhakarna’s Solo Assault
तत्रक्लुप्तमिदंराज्ञाहृदिकार्यंमतं च नः ।शत्रौहिसाहसंयत्स्यात्किमिवात्रापनीयते ।।।।
tatra kluptam idaṃ rājñā hṛdi kāryaṃ mataṃ ca naḥ |
śatrau hi sāhasaṃ yat syāt kim ivātrāpanīyate ||
Entonces el rey ya había resuelto esta acción en su corazón, y nosotros también la aprobamos; así se llevó a cabo. Pues contra un enemigo, ¿qué puede reprocharse a un acto audaz?
" At that time the king intended in his heart (to abduct Sita), and we approved his action, and it was done. What is wrong in doing such a courageous action against an enemy?"
FAQs
The verse presents a political-ethical claim: daring actions against an enemy are not inherently blameworthy. In Dharma terms, it raises the question of whether ‘enemy’ status can excuse adharma; the Ramayana’s larger arc critiques such rationalizations when the original act (abduction) violates righteousness.
Within Rāvaṇa’s courtly deliberations in Laṅkā, Mahodara defends the earlier decision to abduct Sītā, portraying it as a courageous stratagem against an enemy.
From Mahodara’s perspective: sāhasa (bold initiative) and loyalty to the king’s decision; however, the narrative invites scrutiny of courage when detached from Dharma.