Shloka 296
विसृष्टशस्त्रो निहतः कि तत्र क्रूर दुष्कृतम् । ओ क्रूर! मैंने तो पहलेसे ही युद्धके मैदानमें दिव्यास्त्रद्वारा द्रोणाचार्यको मथ डाला था। फिर वे हथियार डालकर मारे गये, तो उसमें मैंने कौन-सा पाप कर डाला
visṛṣṭaśastro nihataḥ ki tatra krūra duṣkṛtam | o krūra! mayā tu pūrvaiva yuddhakṣetre divyāstradvārā droṇācāryo mathito 'bhavat | punaḥ sa śastrāṇi tyaktvā hataḥ, tatra mayā ko nāma pāpaḥ kṛtaḥ ||
Dhṛṣṭadyumna dit : «Si l’on tue un homme qui a jeté ses armes, quelle cruauté ou quel forfait y a-t-il là ? Ô toi le cruel, j’avais déjà écrasé Droṇācārya sur le champ de bataille au moyen d’armes divines. S’il fut ensuite tué alors qu’il avait déposé les armes, quel péché ai-je réellement commis ?»
धृष्टह्युम्न उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse foregrounds the ethical tension of warfare: Dhṛṣṭadyumna argues that once Droṇa had already been overcome in battle, the subsequent killing of a weaponless opponent should not be counted as personal sin. It highlights how combatants rationalize actions under the pressures of kṣatriya-duty, even when those actions sit uneasily with ideals of fair combat.
In the aftermath of Droṇa’s fall, Dhṛṣṭadyumna responds to an accusation of cruelty. He claims he had already subdued Droṇa using divine weapons on the battlefield, and therefore asks what wrongdoing can be attributed to him if Droṇa was later killed after laying down his arms.