HVK Archives: Epic lessons
Epic lessons - Mid-Day
T V R Shenoy
()
21 February 1997
Title : Epic lessons
Author : T V R Shenoy
Publication : Mid-Day
Date : February 21, 1997
That which is not contained within it does not exist elsewhere."
That is how the ancients described the greatest of all epics, the
Mahabharata.
"Oh yes?!" sneer the sceptics of our 'secular' age. "If it really
has everything, how come it doesn't name those whom Bofors bribed?"
To which I respond, "Read on unbelievers. If ye seek, ye shall
indeed find."
As everyone knows, the Pandavas were asked to spend a year in
disguise in addition to, and following, a dozen in open exile.
They pulled it off by hiding in the court of Virata, king of
Matsya.
Towards the end of the period, Kichaka, Virata's arrogant
brother-in-law, was killed by Vallala (aka Bhima), as punishment
for molesting Sairandhari (aka Draupadi).
Though the identity of the avenger was a secret, the death caused a
sensation.
Duryodhana's spies brought the news to their master.
Instantly, everyone came to the same conclusion: "If Kichaka is
dead, Bhima alone can have done so!"
The logic was that only Balarama and Bhima were strong enough to
beat the mighty Kichaka to pulp.
Vyasa doesn't mention who coined the phrase, but nobody disagreed
with the sentiment (a Malayalam version attributes it to Shakuni).
in fact, Bhishma offered further proof, saying that any kingdom
where Yudhishthira set foot was sure to be blessed with proper rain
and excellent harvests (since Matsya was part of what is now
Rajasthan, such an occurrence was remarkable in itself).
How is all this relevant to Bofors? Simple, Bhima was the only one
who had the strength to kill Kichaka and the need to do so
secretly. Apply the logic in the context of Bofors.
Who was the only man with the clout to force the Army headquarters
to choose Bofors against its better judgement? And also possessed
the power to enforce a cover-up that leashed the bureaucracy?
Let me put it in another way Nobody believes that Ottavio
Quattrocchi was the ultimate recipient of all the Bofors pay-offs?
Answers to all those queries can be summed up in one name. But the
best that Congress spokesman V N Gadgil can do is to mumble
defensively that the Gandhis and the Congress had nothing to do
with Bofors (Gadgil tied himself up in knots over those questions.
After the first proud declaration, someone asked him if he had
discussed it with the Gandhis. He said he hadn't. So how could he
know? No answer).
But let us take that denial at face value. If the Gandhis are
innocent, is a mere declaration of innocence sufficient?
I bow once again to the wisdom of the old tales - the story of the
theft of the Syamantaka jewel. It tells us how VIPs are expected
to behave when suspected of illegality.
The wealth-bestowing gem was the gift of Surya to the Yadava
chieftain Satrajit. Lord Krishna had publicly admired it.
Satrajit's brother Prasenajit was killed while wearing Symantaka,
and the gem disappeared. Public suspicion immediately veered on
the Lord.
"He used to steal butter when he was young, didn't he" was one
sarcastic comment. When the Yadavas, including even Balarama,
refused to accept mere denials, Krishna set out to find proof.
Prasenajit, it turned out, had been killed by a lion, which then
carried away Syamantaka. But the lion in turn was killed by
Jambavan Gust as the Bofors money was transferred from
Quattrocchi's account to someone else's?).
Krishna succeeded in his quest, but that isn't the point of the
story.
The true moral is that men of stature are expected to prove their
innocence. Obviously, the best way to do so it to reveal who
actually committed the crime. Saying "I didn't do it!" is just not
good enough.
The scriptures of ardent India are commonly described today as
monuments to blind faith. That is not true. If interpreted
properly they are just as relevant today as they ever were.
The episode of Kichaka's death is a perfect example of deductive
logic, And please notice too that corroboration was sought and
offered (by Bhishma) after the initial suspicion.
The episode of Syamantaka reminds us that even the greatest are not
above suspicion.
And if they are innocent, they won't rest content in the hope that
proof shall descend from the Heavens!
No, if we are really looking for instances of 'blind faith', we
needn't search the epics. All you need is to look at the Congress
headquarters - which is where the Congress spokesman continues to
spout declarations of faith, all evidence to the contrary!
Back
Top
|
