Once upon a time, there lived a pious old man, renowned for his honesty. One day his neighbor, a rich merchant came to him with a request. The merchant was leaving on a voyage and wanted the old man to safeguard his wealth, until his return. The old man agreed, and with God as his witness promised to protect and safeguard the merchant’s wealth.
The old man then entrusted the safekeep of the merchant’s wealth to his son, from whom he only takes an oath of propriety and honesty.
But, slowly the son starts dipping into the merchants wealth. People noticed this and warned the old man of his son’s misdeeds. The old man asks his son to explain, and reminds him of his oath on following the right path. The son rubbishes the accusations as rumours and the idle gossip of jealous people, who cannot bear to see his prosperity. The old man accepts the son’s explanation and things go on as before.
The merchant returns and demands his wealth. The old man calls his son, who hands over a quarter of the merchant’s wealth saying that is all there was. The merchant realizing that he has been cheated approaches the King. The King listens to the merchant’s complaint and summons the old man. The old man comes to the court with his son and handing him over to the King, and says “Your majesty, the merchant is right. My son has confessed to the crime. Please punish him !”
The king has the son flogged and imprisoned. He then praises the old man’s honesty and dismisses the case.
But the merchant insists that the old man should be punished, saying, “Your majesty, I have still not received justice. I had entrusted my wealth to the old man, which he swore by God to safeguard. The old man’s integrity is intact, but what about me, I have been robbed of most of my life’s savings, and made a pauper. It was the old man’s decision to entrust my wealth to his son for safe keeping that has caused this loss. As far as I am concerned the old man is the real culprit, and should be punished.”
The king is astounded by this demand. The old man, was neither a party to the son’s theft, nor did he benefit from it. In fact, he had sent his son to jail. Yet, the merchant was asking for the old man punishment ?!
...The Betal asked Vikramaditya : “What should be the Kings decision ?!”
Vikramaditya’s replied : “Though the old man is innocent of the actual theft, he is guilty of dereliction of duty. The son’s crime was a straightforward one, the old man’s was a graver crime. He did nothing to protect the merchant’s wealth. Far from being vigilant, he failed to take action even when he was warned of his son’s misdeeds. Because of the old man’s laxity, the trusting merchant is now condemned to a life of penury. So, he should be punished !”
Contributed by Dr Anupam Malhotra
No comments:
Post a Comment