This shloka continues Arjuna’s mohaḥ [confusion or delusion].

Arjuna now says, tasmāt — “therefore.” He speaks as though he has already given a complete argument and is now arriving at a proper conclusion. But the conclusion is not coming from clear dharma-vicāra [enquiry into dharma]. It is coming from a clouded mind.

He says, na arhāḥ vayaṁ hantum — “we are not fit to kill” or “we should not kill.” He is saying that the Pāṇḍavas should not kill the Kauravas.

Then he identifies the Kauravas as dhārtarāṣṭrān — the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra. But he does not stop there. He adds svabāndhavān — “our own relatives, our kith and kin.”

That word reveals the confusion.

If the Kauravas were strangers who had committed the same adharma, Arjuna would have been ready to punish them. But because they are svabāndhavān [our own relatives], his judgment changes. The same adharma now feels different because the wrongdoers are “our people.”

This is not dharma. Dharma cannot become different merely because the person is related to us. If the law changes for every person according to family connection, then no law remains. Dharma must remain dharma whether the person is close to us or distant from us.

Arjuna again says svajanam — “our own people.” This word has been repeated many times in this flow. It shows that his mind is not looking mainly at adharma anymore. It is looking at relationship. The central thought is no longer “What is right?” The central thought has become “They are mine.”

Then Arjuna asks, kathaṁ sukhinaḥ syāma — “How can we be happy?” His reasoning has shifted even further. The question is no longer, “What does dharma require?” The question has become, “How can we enjoy happiness after killing our own people?”

This is the indirect conclusion: happiness is being placed above dharma. If dharma obstructs personal happiness, then dharma can be sacrificed. That is the mistake.

The proper order is the opposite: dharma is primary. Happiness that comes by giving up dharma is not real well-being. If one must choose between temporary emotional comfort and dharma, dharma must be chosen.

Arjuna’s sorrow is now speaking like moral reasoning. It says, “They are our relatives. How can we be happy after killing them?” The words sound sensitive, but the understanding is clouded. The real issue is not whether killing relatives gives happiness. The real issue is whether these svabāndhavān [our own relatives] have committed adharma and whether a kṣatriya has a duty to correct it.

This shloka shows how rāgaḥ [attachment] and śokaḥ [sorrow] produce mohaḥ [confusion or delusion]. Attachment says, “They are mine.” Sorrow says, “I cannot bear losing them.” Mohaḥ [confusion or delusion] says, “Therefore dharma need not apply here.”