Shloka 26
Duryodhana-vadha-pratikriyā: Harṣa, Nindā, and Kṛṣṇa’s Nīti-vyākhyā (Śalya-parva 60)
(गत: पुरुषशार्दूलो हत्वा नैकृतिकं रणे । अधर्मो विद्यते नात्र यद् भीमो हतवान् रिपुम् ।।
sañjaya uvāca |
dharma-cchalam api śrutvā keśavāt sa viśāṃpate |
aiva prītamanā rāmo vacanaṃ prāha saṃsadi ||
संजय म्हणाला—हे प्रजानाथ! केशवाकडून धर्माचे हे छलयुक्त विवेचन ऐकूनही राम (बलराम) मनाने प्रसन्न झाला नाही; आणि भर सभेत तो असे बोलला.
संजय उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse highlights a classic Mahabharata ethical problem: an action may be defended as ‘dharma’ through contextual reasoning or strategic necessity, yet a principled observer may still find it morally unsatisfying. It invites reflection on whether righteousness is rule-based or context-based, and who has authority to interpret it.
After Krishna explains (and effectively defends) a controversial act as a form of dharma, Balarama remains displeased and speaks in the assembly. This sets up a debate-like moment where differing moral sensibilities respond to the same wartime event.