Drawing an analogy from Indian epics or mythologies to explain the significance of a current issue can get policy-makers catchy newspaper headlines. Whether that is a prudent strategy, however, is debatable. For, the use of such an analogy can turn out to be a double-edged sword.
Last week, Reserve Bank of India Governor Duvvuri Subbarao used Chakravyuh (an army formation used by the Kauravas in their battle against the Pandavas in Mahabharata) to explain the difficulties inherent in expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. It is important to remember that Subbarao used that analogy to explain the risks associated with exiting from such policies, in effect likening that to the difficulties Abhimanyu, son of Arjun, faced while he unsuccessfully tried to get out of the Chakravyuh in Mahabharata.
Did the Governor then compare himself with Abhimanyu? It is reasonable to conclude that he would not have liked to compare himself with Abhimanyu. In Mahabharata, Abhimanyu failed to come out of the Chakravyuh alive. So, why should the Governor even think of comparing his own attempts at exiting from expansionary policies with the fate of Abhimanyu? Most probably, he used Chakravyuh to allude to the difficulties of an exit from expansionary policies, without necessarily trying to highlight or refer to Abhimanyu’s tragic end.
That allusion, though, had its own flaws. Chakravyuh as an army formation was reputed to be difficult for most warriors to penetrate, but it is not that able warriors could not challenge it successfully. Mahabharata mentions five such stalwarts who could have fought a Chakravyuh and come out of it victorious. They were: Bhishma, Krishna, Pradyumna (Krishna’s son by Rukmini), Arjun and Dronacharya, who taught both the Pandavas and Kauravas. Abhimanyu was the sixth warrior, who knew how to enter Chakravyuh, but was unaware of how to exit it.
So, even if Subbarao did not wish to compare himself with a tragic hero, his analogy of Chakravyuh couldn’t have made sense without a comparison with what happened to Abhimanyu. This is because the difficulties of exiting a Chakravyuh (or expansionary policies) arose only for Abhimanyu, and not for other famous warriors like Arjun or Bhishma. Indeed, the reference to Chakravyuh comes in the Mahabharata only once and in the context of Abhimanyu’s unsuccessful foray.
More From This Section
Several other problems of interpretation arise from Subbarao’s analogy. Consider the following. Abhimanyu’s fall is attributable to three clear factors. One, the young man had learnt the technique of entering a Chakravyuh, but did not know what all had to be done to get out of it. Just valour was not enough.
Two, the Pandavas whose job it was to keep Abhimanyu’s path of exit free from trouble were defeated by the Kauravas. Thus, even as Abhimanyu went right into the heart of the Chakravyuh, he realised that his return path was no longer secure and he had to use all his might to move on and create a new path of exit. In the end, of course, he failed.
Three, and most importantly, the Kauravas broke the code of conduct in a war by deciding to send all their top warriors to form a group and then attack Abhimanyu who was virtually on the rampage, having already killed many Kaurava stalwarts including Duryodhana’s son.
Do the factors leading to Abhimanyu’s defeat have a message for the RBI headquarters on Mint Road and for the finance ministry in North Block? Let it not be forgotten that the current round of expansionary policies was an outcome of a considered strategy adopted by both the central bank and the finance ministry. Thus, by talking about Chakravyuh and Abhimanyu, who was Subbarao referring to? To himself or to those at the helm at North Block? Similarly, what factors were responsible for Abhimanyu’s failure? Mind you, Abhimanyu’s problems arose from the Pandavas’ failure to guard his path successfully as the young warrior rode into the Chakravyuh. Has something similar happened after the finance ministry and the central bank rolled out the stimulus measures?
More interestingly, the Chakravyuh and the killing of Abhimanyu also signified the beginning of the breakdown of the code of conduct in the war in Kurukshetra. What codes of conduct or governance norms were flouted after the roll-out of the expansionary policies? And should the Chakravyuh analogy remind policy-makers in North Block and the central bank of the need to ensure observance of those governance norms once again?
In September 2004, Yashwant Sinha, leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, had described Manmohan Singh as Shikhandi, a character from Mahabharata, who became a man after being born a woman and was used by Arjun to kill Bhishma. Sinha’s description of Singh as Shikhandi received general disapproval from several political leaders as a distasteful way of attacking political rivals. (www.business-standard.com/162786/)
Subbarao’s Chakravyuh analagoy is not distasteful, but finance ministry mandarins may start wondering whether it was a self-goal or a strike against North Block.