Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 83

धृष्टद्युम्नस्य द्रोणरथारोহণं सात्यकेः प्रतिरक्षणं च | Dhrishtadyumna Boards Droṇa’s Chariot; Sātyaki’s Counter-Protection

आहोस्विद्‌ भूषणार्थाय वर्म शस्त्रायुधानि व: । वाचस्तु वक्तुं संसत्सु मम पुत्रमरक्षताम्‌

āhosvid bhūṣaṇārthāya varma śastrāyudhāni vaḥ | vācās tu vaktuṁ saṁsatsu mama putram arakṣatām ||

Sañjaya said: “Were your coats of mail and weapons meant only for ornament? For your words—your ability to speak in the assemblies—did not protect my son.”

आहोor else; perhaps
आहो:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootआहो
स्वित्indeed? (interrogative particle)
स्वित्:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootस्वित्
भूषणार्थायfor ornamentation (for adornment)
भूषणार्थाय:
Sampradana
TypeNoun
Rootभूषणार्थ
FormMasculine, Dative, Singular
वर्मarmor
वर्म:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootवर्मन्
FormNeuter, Nominative, Singular
शस्त्रायुधानिweapons and arms
शस्त्रायुधानि:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootशस्त्रायुध
FormNeuter, Nominative, Plural
वःof you; your
वः:
Sambandha
TypePronoun
Rootयुष्मद्
FormGenitive, Plural
वाचःwords; speeches
वाचः:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootवाच्
FormFeminine, Nominative, Plural
तुbut; however
तु:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootतु
वक्तुम्to speak
वक्तुम्:
TypeVerb
Rootवच्
FormTumun (infinitive)
संसत्सुin assemblies
संसत्सु:
Adhikarana
TypeNoun
Rootसंसद्
FormFeminine, Locative, Plural
ममmy
मम:
Sambandha
TypePronoun
Rootअस्मद्
FormGenitive, Singular
पुत्रम्son
पुत्रम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootपुत्र
FormMasculine, Accusative, Singular
अरक्षताम्they protected
अरक्षताम्:
TypeVerb
Rootरक्ष्
FormImperfect (Lan), 3rd, Plural, Parasmaipada

संजय उवाच

S
Sañjaya
D
Duryodhana (implied as 'my son')
A
armor (varma)
W
weapons (śastra/āyudha)
A
assemblies/councils (saṁsads)

Educational Q&A

The verse contrasts outward power (armor and weapons) and social power (eloquence in assemblies) with real protection and responsibility. It implies that mere display—whether martial equipment or persuasive speech—cannot substitute for effective action, prudent counsel, and ethical leadership when consequences arrive.

Sañjaya, reporting the war’s grim developments, speaks in a tone of bitter irony: he questions whether the Kauravas’ arms were only decorative, since their influence and speech in courtly councils failed to safeguard ‘my son’—i.e., the king’s son—amid the calamities of battle.