Shloka 34
Sabhā Parva, Adhyāya 68 — Pāṇḍavānāṃ Vanavāsa-prasthānaḥ; Duḥśāsana-nindā; Pāṇḍava-pratijñāḥ
युधिष्ठिरने अपनी वाणीद्वारा कहकर द्रौपदीको दाँवपर रखा और शेष पाण्डवोंने मौन रहकर उसका अनुमोदन किया। फिर किस कारणसे तुम उसे नहीं जीती हुई मानते हो? ।।
yudhiṣṭhireṇa svayā vāṇyā kathayitvā draupadī dāve nidhāpitā, śeṣaiś ca pāṇḍavaiḥ maunena tad anumoditam; tataḥ kasmāt kāraṇāt tvaṃ tāṃ na jitām manyase? manyase vā sabhām etām ānītām ekavāsasam adharmena iti, tatrāpi śṛṇu me vākyam uttamam.
ករណៈបាននិយាយថា៖ «យុធិស្ឋិរ បានប្រកាសដោយពាក្យផ្ទាល់ថា ដ្រោបទីជាភ្នាល់ ហើយបណ្ឌវដែលនៅសល់បានស្ងៀមស្ងាត់ ដើម្បីអនុម័ត។ ដូច្នេះ ហេតុអ្វីអ្នកបដិសេធមិនទទួលថានាងត្រូវបានឈ្នះ? ហើយបើអ្នកគិតថា ដ្រោបទី ដែលស្លៀកតែសម្លៀកបំពាក់តែមួយ ត្រូវបាននាំមកសភានេះដោយអធម៌ នោះសូមស្តាប់ពាក្យឆ្លើយដ៏ដាច់ខាតរបស់ខ្ញុំផង។»
कर्ण उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse highlights a clash between procedural justification and ethical righteousness: Karna argues that a spoken wager, reinforced by others’ silence, constitutes consent and therefore ‘winning’ is valid—yet the very need to address ‘adharma’ shows how legalistic reasoning can be used to pressure moral boundaries.
In the dice-hall episode, Karna challenges objections to Draupadī being treated as a won stake. He claims Yudhiṣṭhira explicitly wagered her and the other Pāṇḍavas tacitly agreed by remaining silent; he then anticipates the counter-claim that bringing her into the assembly in a single garment was unlawful, and prepares to rebut it.