Thanks Saurabh for your perspective.
If I understood Saurabh correctly, he meant that it's safer to follow what traditional moral tales teach. I think his view is shared by a number of people.
I too had similar views till sometimes, may be till my late teens....
Moral tales taught me that if you are good to people and don't harm them, they too will not. If you help someone, he will always be obliged to reciprocate. If you speak truth, you will be favoured and loved by all. If you forgive your enemy, he will so indebted that he will be your slave for life.
Most of these turned out to be incorrect. Being nice with people can be perceived as weekness. Most people do not reciprocate your goodness which you displayed towards them in past, but will behave only based on their judgement about what you can do for them in future. The truth is favoured not by all, but by only a set of people who find it convenient. Forgiving the enemy doesn't make a friend out of him, but gives him time to recover from his injuries, andattack with more venegence......
My views may seem negative, but I find them realistic........
Somehow I am more inclined to let my children read "The 48 Laws of power", than the Moral Tales of Amar Chitra Katha. Both contradict one another (mostly), and you needs to choose only one. The choice is yours.
Alternatively, one may choose to keep one set of values for display (the traditional moral ones), while actually acting as per "The 48 Laws of Power". That too is an option.
Machiavelli would do that...