First Story: A Firm Decision
A venomous snake has taken the lives of many citizens across the kingdom. The soldiers capture it and present it before the king.
They ask, “Your Majesty, this snake has killed many. What should we do?”
Without hesitation, the king replies, “What’s there to think? Crush it.”
The soldiers obey command and kill the snake.
Second Story: A Clash of Ideas
Again, the same snake, the same crime. But this time, the king doesn’t decide immediately. He seeks advice from his ministers.
First Minister:
“Your Majesty, the snake is dangerous. Keeping it alive invites future trouble. It must be killed.”
Second Minister:
“Your Majesty, the snake’s nature is venomous. It bites—that’s instinct. We are civilized. Taking a life without reflection is unjust.” The king is thoughtful. He consults a committee of respected citizens—wise, artistic, and progressive thinkers.
Committee’s Advice:
“The snake is not guilty. It acted according to its nature. Punishing it is denying its existence. Instead, keep it in a golden cage and offer milk on Nag Panchami.” The king agrees. The snake is caged in gold. Every year, milk is offered. One day, during Nag Panchami, the snake bites the king. The king dies.
Now the question arises—who is responsible for the king’s death? The snake? Or the committee that advised mercy?
Sheltering a venomous enemy within the kingdom leads to consequences borne by the king and the entire populace.
No comments:
Post a Comment