brahmanaih ksatra-bandhur hi
sa katham tad-grhe dvah-sthah
sabhandam bhoktum arhati
brahmanaih—by the brahminical order; ksatra-bandhuh—the sons of the ksatriyas; hi—certainly; grha-palah—the watchdog; nirupitah—designated; sah—he; katham—on what grounds; tat-grhe—in the home of him (the master); dvah-sthah—keeping at the door; sa-bhandam—in the same pot; bhoktum—to eat; arhati—deserves.
The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate?
The inexperienced brahmana boy certainly knew that the King asked for water from his father and the father did not respond. He tried to explain away his father's inhospitality in an impertinent manner befitting an uncultured boy. He was not at all sorry for the King's not being well received. On the contrary, he justified the wrong act in a way characteristic of the brahmanas of Kali-yuga. He compared the King to a watchdog, and so it was wrong for the King to enter the home of a brahmana and ask for water from the same pot. The dog is certainly reared by its master, but that does not mean that the dog shall claim to dine and drink from the same pot. This mentality of false prestige is the cause of downfall of the perfect social order, and we can see that in the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brahmana. As the dog is never allowed to enter within the room and hearth, although it is reared by the master, similarly, according to Srngi, the King had no right to enter the house of Samika Rsi. According to the boy's opinion, the King was on the wrong side and not his father, and thus he justified his silent father.
Link to this page: https://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/1/18/34