1.37
तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान्स्वबान्धवान् ।
स्वजनं हि कथं हत्वा सुखिनः स्याम माधव ॥
tasmān nārhā vayaṃ hantuṃ dhārtarāṣṭrān svabāndhavān
svajanaṃ hi kathaṃ hatvā sukhinaḥ syāma mādhava
The conclusion of the sin argument, in the first person plural. He pulls his brothers in.
The verse
Therefore we should not kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra (धृतराष्ट्र), our own kinsmen. How could we be happy, Mādhava (माधव), having killed our own people?
नेपालीमा
त्यसैले हामीले धृतराष्ट्रका छोराहरू, आफ्ना आफन्तलाई मार्नु हुँदैन। हे माधव, आफ्ना मानिसहरूलाई मारेर हामी कसरी सुखी हुन सक्छौं।
Where it sits
vayam (वयम्) and syāma (स्याम) are new. Until now the suffering body was mama (मम), mine. The moral subject is now "we," the brothers. He is speaking for Yudhiṣṭhira (युधिष्ठिर) and Bhīma (भीम) and the twins, who have not spoken. That presumption is part of the despair. He has made a private collapse into a family position.
tasmāt (तस्मात्) pretends the conclusion follows. From the joyless, sinful picture of 1.36, "therefore we ought not." The logic is only as strong as the picture. It feels strong because the body in 1.28–1.30 already agreed.
Split: तस्मात् + न + अर्हाः + वयम् + हन्तुम् + धार्तराष्ट्रान् + स्व-बान्धवान् + स्वजनम् + हि + कथम् + हत्वा + सुखिनः + स्याम + माधव
tasmāt + na + arhāḥ + vayam + hantum + dhārtarāṣṭrān + sva-bāndhavān + svajanam + hi + katham + hatvā + sukhinaḥ + syāma + mādhava
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| देवनागरी | Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|---|
| तस्मात् | tasmāt | ablative of tad (तद्) | from that. Therefore. |
| अर्हाः | arhāḥ | nominative plural | fit, entitled, the ones who ought. |
| वयम् | vayam | nominative | we. |
| हन्तुम् | hantum | infinitive | to kill. |
| स्व-बान्धवान् | sva-bāndhavān | accusative plural | our own kinsmen. |
| कथम् | katham | indeclinable | how. |
| सुखिनः | sukhinaḥ | nominative plural | happy ones. |
| स्याम | syāma | optative, 1st plural | we would be. |
| माधव | mādhava | vocative | Mādhava (माधव). Kṛṣṇa (कृष्ण). |
The phrases
tasmāt na arhāḥ vayam hantum (तस्मात् न अर्हाः वयम् हन्तुम्) is the conclusion. Therefore we are not the ones who ought to kill. तस्मात् + न tasmāt + na becomes tasmān na (तस्मान् न). arhāḥ (अर्हाः) before v (व्) drops its visarga: arhā vayam (अर्हा वयम्).
dhārtarāṣṭrān svabāndhavān (धार्तराष्ट्रान् स्वबान्धवान्) is the object, said twice. The sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra (धृतराष्ट्र), our own kinsmen. The second noun removes any comfort the patronymic still had.
svajanaṃ hi katham hatvā (स्वजनं हि कथम् हत्वा) presses it. For how, having killed our own people. hi (हि) means he thinks this should be obvious.
sukhinaḥ syāma (सुखिनः स्याम) is the optative question. How would we be happy. mādhava (माधव) at the end, the name from the conch verse, 1.14, now on a man asking about happiness.
Sanskrit in this line
tasmāt (तस्मात्) is the ablative of tad (तद्) used as "therefore." Literally "from that." English "therefore" hides the "from." When a verse opens with tasmāt (तस्मात्), it is leaning on the previous verse. Do not start a new topic under it.
arhāḥ (अर्हाः) plus an infinitive means "fit to, obliged to, one who may." With na (न), "we are not the people who should." It is a judgment of fitness, not a future tense.
syāma (स्याम) is syāt (स्यात्) in the first person plural. "We would be." The optative, once you have syāt (स्यात्), is worth meeting in vayam (वयम्) as well, because he has changed the person who is imagining the result.
Say it back
Therefore what, and how would we be what. arhāḥ (अर्हाः) and syāma (स्याम).