Shloka 33
Sabhā Parva, Adhyāya 68 — Pāṇḍavānāṃ Vanavāsa-prasthānaḥ; Duḥśāsana-nindā; Pāṇḍava-pratijñāḥ
कीर्तिता द्रौपदी वाचा अनुज्ञाता च पाण्डवै: । भवत्यविजिता केन हेतुनैषा मता तव
kīrtitā draupadī vācā anujñātā ca pāṇḍavaiḥ | bhavaty avijitā kena hetunaiṣā matā tava ||
Karna disse: “Draupadī foi declarada por palavras como aposta, e os Pāṇḍavas também deram seu consentimento. Por quem, então, ela seria tida como ‘não vencida’? Por que razão sustentas essa opinião?”
कर्ण उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse highlights a contested ethical-legal question: whether verbal declaration and the consent of the gamblers is sufficient to make a person a legitimate stake. It frames the tension between procedural consent and deeper dharma concerning personal autonomy and the dignity of a woman.
In the dice-hall dispute, Karna challenges the objection that Draupadī has not been ‘won.’ He argues that she was verbally staked and that the Pāṇḍavas assented, and he demands the rationale for claiming she remains unwon.