Commentary/T V R Shenoy

Bhima, Kichaka and Bofors

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 things like, say, the names of 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.

Toward 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, Bhihsma 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 Army HQ 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 another way. Nobody believes that Ottavio Quattrocchi was the ultimate recipient of all the Bofors pay-offs. To whom did the Italian transfer the pay-offs?

The answers to all those queries can be summed up in one name. But the best that Congress spokesmen can do is to mumble defensively that the Gandhis and the Congress had nothing to do with Bofors.

(V N 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 Prasenjit was killed while wearing Syamantaka, and the gem itself 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. (Just as the Bofors money was transferred from Quattrocchi's account to someone else?)

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 is to reveal who actually committed the crime. Saying 'I didn't do it!' is just not good enough.

The scriptures of ancient 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!

Tell us what you think of this column