A deposit that supposedly disappeared
Naduk has lost his money and decides to travel abroad to rebuild his position. Before leaving, he places an inherited iron balance-beam with the merchant Lakshman. When he eventually returns and asks for it, Lakshman claims that mice have eaten it.
Naduk does not immediately argue about the impossibility. He appears to accept that possessions are impermanent, then asks Lakshman to send his son Money-God along to carry his bathing things to the river. The other merchant agrees, uneasy about his own dishonesty. The apparent absence of a quarrel creates the opportunity for a response that will force the excuse into a different setting.
Source: Panchatantra, Book 1: The Loss of Friends · Panchatantra, Book 1, The Mice That Ate Iron, pp. 192–197
A second disappearance
After bathing, Naduk confines the boy in a cave and blocks its entrance. Returning alone, he tells Lakshman that a hawk carried the child away. Lakshman protests that a bird could not abduct such a large boy. Naduk replies by connecting that impossibility with the earlier claim about the iron.
They bring the dispute to the authorities. When ordered to restore the child, Naduk repeats the hawk story. The judges also reject it, whereupon he explains that in a place where mice consume a massive iron balance-beam, even an extraordinary bird’s carrying capacity should not astonish anyone. The point of the parallel is to make the first falsehood as visible as the second.
Source: Panchatantra, Book 1: The Loss of Friends · Panchatantra, Book 1, The Mice That Ate Iron, pp. 192–197
Restitution and an uncomfortable method
After hearing the full account, the officials laugh and arrange for the balance-beam and the boy to be restored to their respective households. Naduk recovers his property; Lakshman cannot retain the benefit of his lie while demanding ordinary standards of plausibility for the response.
The story’s ingenious symmetry does not make the child’s confinement harmless. Money-God has not committed the theft and is used as pressure against his father. The narrative privileges effective recovery, allowing a reader to examine the gap between a successful strategy and a wholly just action. Within the surrounding conversation, the episode belongs to arguments about deceptive associates and the need to understand how an adversary’s stated reasoning can be turned against him.
Source: Panchatantra, Book 1: The Loss of Friends · Panchatantra, Book 1, The Mice That Ate Iron, pp. 192–197
- Period / witness
- Pūrṇabhadra recension dated 1199 CE; Arthur W. Ryder translation, 1925. The tales have differing earlier histories.
- Recording context
- Original synopsis and commentary on Ryder’s translation of the Pūrṇabhadra recension, edited by Johannes Hertel. This selected literary witness does not represent all Indian traditions.
A recording location is not necessarily a story’s origin. Dates of texts, copies, and translations answer different questions.
Explore time & place →Read the sources
These references support the explanation above. Rights and edition notes are recorded individually.
Panchatantra, Book 1: The Loss of Friends ↗
Pūrṇabhadra recension (1199 CE); English translation by Arthur W. Ryder (1877–1938), based on Johannes Hertel’s Sanskrit edition · Pūrṇabhadra recension 1199 CE; Hertel edition 1908; Ryder translation 1925
Edition & rights note