Shloka 53
Vyāsa’s Vision, the Power of Bhāgavatam, and the Arrest of Aśvatthāmā
श्रीभगवानुवाच ब्रह्मबन्धुर्न हन्तव्य आततायी वधार्हण: । मयैवोभयमाम्नातं परिपाह्यनुशासनम् ॥ ५३ ॥ कुरु प्रतिश्रुतं सत्यं यत्तत्सान्त्वयता प्रियाम् । प्रियं च भीमसेनस्य पाञ्चाल्या मह्यमेव च ॥ ५४ ॥
śrī-bhagavān uvāca brahma-bandhur na hantavya ātatāyī vadhārhaṇaḥ mayaivobhayam āmnātaṁ paripāhy anuśāsanam
ശ്രീഭഗവാൻ പറഞ്ഞു—ബ്രഹ്മബന്ധുവിനെ കൊല്ലരുത്; എന്നാൽ അവൻ അതതായിയായാൽ വധാർഹനാണ്. ഈ രണ്ടും ശാസ്ത്രങ്ങളിൽ തന്നെ ഉപദേശിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു; അതിനാൽ ശാസ്ത്രാനുശാസനം പാലിക്കൂ. ഭാര്യയെ ആശ്വസിപ്പിക്കുമ്പോൾ നൽകിയ സത്യപ്രതിജ്ഞ നിറവേറ്റുക; ഭീമസേനനെയും പാഞ്ചാലിയെയും എന്നെയും സന്തോഷിപ്പിക്കൂ।
Arjuna was perplexed because Aśvatthāmā was to be killed as well as spared according to different scriptures cited by different persons. As a brahma-bandhu, or a worthless son of a brāhmaṇa, Aśvatthāmā was not to be killed, but he was at the same time an aggressor also. And according to the rulings of Manu, an aggressor, even though he be a brāhmaṇa (and what to speak of an unworthy son of a brāhmaṇa ), is to be killed. Droṇācārya was certainly a brāhmaṇa in the true sense of the term, but because he stood in the battlefield he was killed. But although Aśvatthāmā was an aggressor, he stood without any fighting weapons. The ruling is that an aggressor, when he is without weapon or chariot, cannot be killed. All these were certainly perplexities. Besides that, Arjuna had to keep the promise he had made before Draupadī just to pacify her. And he also had to satisfy both Bhīma and Kṛṣṇa, who advised killing him. This dilemma was present before Arjuna, and the solution was awarded by Kṛṣṇa.
FAQs
This verse shows that even if an aggressor deserves death, the Lord’s dharma includes nuanced restraint—especially when the offender is a brahma-bandhu—so justice must be applied with discrimination, not blind anger.
Kṛṣṇa guides the Pāṇḍavas to balance two scriptural principles—punishing wrongdoing and honoring the sanctity associated with brāhmaṇa lineage—so the response remains dharmic and not merely retaliatory.
When dealing with harm, seek accountability without cruelty—apply consequences wisely, considering context and higher principles rather than acting from vengeance.