Shloka 4
कुन्ती-युधिष्ठिरसंवादः
Kuntī–Yudhiṣṭhira Dialogue on Bhīma’s Mission
विदिते धृतराष्ट्रस्य धार्तराष्ट्रो न संशय: । दग्धवान् पाण्डुदायादान् न होन॑ प्रतिषिद्धवान्,“इसमें संदेह नहीं कि धुृतराष्ट्रपुत्र दुर्योधनने धृतराष्ट्रकी जानकारीमें पाण्डुपुत्रोंको जलाया है और धृतराष्ट्रने इसे मना नहीं किया
vidite dhṛtarāṣṭrasya dhārtarāṣṭro na saṁśayaḥ | dagdhavān pāṇḍudāyādān na ho na pratiṣiddhavān ||
Vaiśaṃpāyana said: “There is no doubt that Duryodhana, the son of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, burned the heirs of Pāṇḍu with Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s knowledge; and Dhṛtarāṣṭra did not forbid it.” The statement underscores a grave ethical failure: complicity through awareness and silence, where a ruler’s duty to restrain wrongdoing is abandoned.
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
Knowing of wrongdoing and failing to forbid it makes a ruler morally complicit; dharma requires restraint of harm, not passive consent.
The narrator asserts that Duryodhana arranged the burning of the Pāṇḍavas, and that Dhṛtarāṣṭra knew of it and did not stop it—highlighting culpability through silence.