Setting Hanuman free I
‘He is a messenger and he should not be killed,’ is the argument of Vibishana. But this argument has been answered even before it was advanced.
No doubt Ravana had goodness in him. Not a single character is shown as devoid as goodness for that matter, be it Ramayana or be it Mahabharata. The characters in the epics closely resemble the characters that live with us even this day. Nobody is a one-hundred-percent hero nor is anyone a villain, out and out. When Ravana ordered for the killing of Hanuman, Vibishana intervened. “Be propitiated, O lord of Lanka, O ruler of ogres! (Pray) listen to my appeal embodying the essence of righteousness and worldly fortune. Messengers, O king, are undeserving of death at all times and at all places; so declare the virtuous.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto LII, Sloka 13)
‘vEdham utru iyangu vaippin vEru vEru idaththu vEndhar,’ (There are) kings of various countries who follow the Holy Books, ‘maadharaik kolai seidhaargaL uLar,’ who have killed even women (for the sake of Dharma) ‘ena varinum’ given that, even then, ‘vandha thoodharaik kolai seidhaargaL yaavarE thollai nallOr?’ tell me, can you point out a single king, who has come of a good and reputed lineage, who killed a messenger that came with the message of someone. Killing is a messenger is such a dreaded sin, than killing a woman.
‘He is a messenger and he should not be killed,’ is the argument of Vibishana. But this argument has been answered even before it was advanced. ‘If you are a messenger, you should have come here. Instead you perpetrated destruction and killed my men in their thousands,’ was what Ravana had alleged. Vibishana softens that.
“Undoubtedly this monkey is a formidable adversary. Indeed incalculable harm has been done by him. (Nevertheless), the wise do not sanction the killing of a messenger; for numerous (other) punishments are found recommended (in the scriptures) with regard to a messenger. Mutilation of any of his limbs, flogging, shaving of the head and branding: indeed the wise recommend (any of) these punishments with regard to a messenger; the killing of a messenger has, however, never been heard of by us.” (Ibid, Sloka 14 and 15)
Vibishana knew that this argument is not sufficient for Ravana to be prevented from withdrawing his order to kill Hanuman. He tries flattery. “And indeed how can one like you, whose mind has penetrated into the realms of righteousness and worldly prosperity and who has determined his duty by discriminating between what is noble and what is ignoble, remain swayed by anger? For the powerful never give way to anger.” (Ibid, Sloka 16) Ravana’s ‘ability’ to get caught by instant fire of anger is very well-known; Vibishana knows that.
“No one is your equal in discussing virtue, nor in observing the worldly usage, nor even in grasping the import of scriptures by means of your intellect, O hero! Indeed you are the foremost of the gods and the demons.” (Ibid, Sloka 17) The virtue of falling head over heels in unworthy love with the wife of another man need not be discussed. It is also well known. Vibishana knows that. There should have been instances when he must have objected this, though there is no direct evidence in the Book of Vibishana expressing his unhappiness over Ravana’s act. The culmination of his vexatiousness that found expression in his quitting Ravana could not for certain have been the one and only instance when Vibishana asked Ravana to send Sita back.
The words of Hanuman, the way he presented his case, the way he argued and persuaded Ravana to tread the path of rectitude had really struck a chord somewhere deep in his heart. He even mentions this openly when he meets Rama and seeks refuge in him. ‘I was impressed by what Hanuman did and said,’ he says ‘and that is one of the reasons why I decided to come to you.’
Vibishana knows that his arguments would not convince Ravana. And he knows that the flattery that he adopted might serve to pacify him a little. He brings Ravana to a state in which he might be believed to be in a mood to listen. And then, when Ravana’s mind is properly prepared, he puts forth his final argument.
Setting Hanuman free II
It can be seen that this is a skilful interpretation. When Lakshmana severed Surpanakha’s limbs, his first intention was to stop her from carrying Sita away.
‘It is essential to see that a messenger goes back to his side. If at all he commits harm, punish him by all means. But do not kill him,’ Vibishana continues. “Nor do I perceive any good whatsoever in taking the life of this monkey. Let this punishment (in the form of death) descend on them by whom this monkey has been sent. Whether he is good or bad, he has been sent by our enemies. Advocating others’ interests, dependent as he is on them, an envoy does not merit death.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto LII, Sloka 20 and 21)
‘That is not the only reason for my pressing for his being sent back, alive. Consider this. If you kill him here, then who can go there and inform them of our superiority of might, preparedness and how difficult it is to penetrate this country?’ “Moreover, once this monkey is killed, O king, I see no other sky-ranger who can come once more to the opposite shore of the vast sea on this side. Therefore, O conqueror of hostile citadels, no attempt should be made to take the life of this monkey.” (Ibid, Sloka 22) There cannot be any other monkey who is endowed with such ability to cross the ocean. I therefore do not think any further intrusions from their side into our country.
‘He has seen all the fortifications that we have. He has for himself seen at least a part of our vast army. Whoever that had sent him must be acquainted with this information. It is particularly for this reason that Hanuman should be sent back alive.’
‘You must also consider this. We would not have come to know of their strength, however little it might be, had Surpanakha not come back to us alive. Just think of what they did. ‘ilayavaL thannaik kollaadhu,’ They did not kill our younger sister. ‘iru sevi mUkOdu iirndhu,’ They simply severed her earlobes and nose. ‘viLaivu urai endru vittaar,’ and they sent her back to us so that we be cautioned about their strength. ‘kaLaidhiyEl, aavi’ if you kill him now, ‘nam paal ivan vandhu kaNNin kaNda aLavu uraiyaamal seydhi’ you will prevent the information of your greatness that this monkey has collected here from reaching them.
It can be seen that this is a skilful interpretation. When Lakshmana severed Surpanakha’s limbs, his first intention was to stop her from carrying Sita away. He used minimum violence against Surpanakha simply because she was a woman. It was not his or Rama’s intention to ‘send’ her back with severed limbs as a matter of warning or to announce who they are and what they are capable of. Vibishana knows this. It is not possible to infer that he was not aware of what had actually happened because he was the minister of Ravana and was aware of every small development.
But his immediate purpose is to set Hanuman free. He wants Hanuman to go back to Rama and Lakshmana. It cannot however be said that his loyalty to Ravana has taken a back seat now. However, he has clearly seen what Rama and Lakshmana represent, what they stand for and the seed for his thought process on the futility of remaining with Ravana is most obviously sown at this moment.
Ravana was more than pleased with Vibishana. ‘nalladhu uraithaai nambi,’ he applauded. What you said is correct. ‘ivan navayE seydhaan aanaalum,’ Though this monkey has caused untold harm to us, ‘kollal pazuhdhE’ it is not right to kill him. And then he turned to Hanuman and said, ‘avaraik kUrik koNardhi kadidhu,’ you go back, inform them of what you saw and heard here and bring them here, quickly.
Ravana listened to Vibishana and agreed to set Hanuman free with what he considered as ‘minimum punishment,’ just because Vibishana was careful to prepare his mind adequately with flattery. This very same incident is seen in a different light in the war council, when Vibishana draws the attention of Ravana to the harsh realities and admonishes him.
The good, bad and the ugly
Ravana speaks on values and on the three kinds of persons and how they are judged…
The opening speech of Ravana at the War Council, in Valmiki Ramayana, is quite impressive. Ravana crystallises all his erudition into excellent words. But erudition is one thing and wisdom is quite another thing. Learning endows a person with all the resources needed for conducting his life; and in the case of a king or leader, conducting the destiny of the land. Wisdom is that which is distilled from what has been learnt by one’s own desire and determination to stand for that which is good, sieved through good counsel, the ability to weigh and judge what is right and what is not, and the humility to accept such good counsel.
Ravana’s opening speech in Valmiki starts with the painful remarks of a humbled giant of a leader, whose pride about his impregnable defence system has been slighted by a monkey. His country could be penetrated unnoticed; his prisoner could be spoken to even when guarded by the most terror striking of ogresses and finally a punishment that he ordered could be thrown back on him and his country. If he sets fire to the tail of the monkey, the monkey sets fire to his country.
‘Tell me, what I am supposed to do now!’ he implores his counsellors. “May good betide you, what shall I do (next)? What appeals to you as advisable to do next? (Please) suggest what is equal to what, and us if attempted, will be well executed? The wise declare victory as dependent on good counsel. I, therefore, prefer to take your counsel with regard to Rama, O ogres of extraordinary might!” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto VI, Sloka 4 and 5)
Ravana then talks about three kinds of men. ‘There are three kinds of men the good, bad and the mediocre,’ he says. He goes on to define who is a good person. “The wise declare him to be the foremost of men, whose counsel is actually endowed with the following three characteristics, who prosecutes his undertakings after deliberation with his friends who are capable of deciding a point at issue or with relations having common interests or even with his superiors and exerts himself, depending on Providence.” (Ibid, Sloka 7 and 8)
A person should first consult with his friends, well-wishers, superiors and relatives who are capable of giving him good advice and should pursue the appropriate course of action, setting his mind on action alone and leaving the result to Providence. If he does so, he is known as a good person.
“They call him mediocre, who ponders his interests by himself, sets his mind on virtue all by himself and executes his designs single-handed.” (Ibid, Sloka 9) The mediocre person, though his mind is set on virtues, does not seek the counsel or guidance of others; he does not seek the help and assistance of others and does not believe in teamwork. He thinks for himself, decides for himself and acts on his own, all by himself.
“Failing to ascertain the advantages and the disadvantages of a scheme (nay) renouncing his dependence on Providence and (merely) saying ‘I shall do it’, he who neglects his duty is the vilest of men.” (Ibid, Sloka 10)
The detestable, the loathsome creature, does not understand anything. He does not see what is good and what is not. He is unable to spot either the advantages or the disadvantages of a scheme. He does not trust Providence as well. He simply states that he would do such-and-such a thing. This person is the stoutest fool of all. I therefore seek your advice. Please tell me what I should do. And as if that is not enough, Ravana goes on to define what kind of counsel is really good, bad and mediocre!
A good beginning indeed. Well begun is half-done. But a lot depends on how the second half is done!
Words, words, words…I know not what they mean!
What kind of a sagacious mind should have spelt such an idea out! Ravana must have been a very good king. His words are suffused with wisdom!
Anyone who reads these lines uttered by Ravana in Valmiki Ramayana would naturally form a very high opinion of him. At the very beginning of his opening address in the War Council, he gave a definition of who is a good person, a bad person and who is mediocre. Now he goes on to define what is a good decision, a bad decision and what is mediocre.
“(Even) as the aforementioned people are ever (either) good, bad, or mediocre, so the conclusion arrived at (by them) is also good, bad or mediocre. The wise declare that conclusion to be excellent, in which the counsellors feel specially interested after reaching an agreement based on a point of view supported by the scripture.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto VI, Sloka 11 and 12)
A wise person is one who seeks the advice of his friends, like-minded relatives and superiors – Guru – is what has already been defined by Ravana in his opening part of the speech. He now defines what a good decision is; what the wise men consider to be really good and acceptable decision. The counsellors should have debated the question in hand that requires the decision; they should have gone into it thoroughly and examined it threadbare. After such a detailed and extensive decision, they all should come to an agreement of what is to be done. Most important. What they agree upon should have the sanction of the scriptures. What they concluded at the end of their scholastic exercise must be based on scriptures. They should recommend only such decision – a well discussed and debated decision – that is based on what the scriptures lay down.
Then there is the mediocre decision. Listen to Ravana. “That conclusion is declared to be mediocre, in arriving at which the judgement of the counsellors with regard to the point at issue reaches unanimity only after meeting with different angles of vision.” (Ibid, Sloka 13)
In the case of the ‘excellent’ conclusion that is offered for decision-making, the scholars debate, no doubt. But they do not have any difference of opinion on any aspect of the question in hand. In the second case, they are not very clear. They express widely varying views and after a long discussion, they see light at the end of the tunnel. And now, there is a third variety.
“That conclusion (again) is declared to be third-rate, in arriving at which, speeches and counter-speeches are made upholding different points of view and from which good fortune does not follow even in the event of unanimity being arrived at (anyhow).” (Ibid, Sloka 14)
This is a kind of a situation where the counsellors hold different points of view about what is to be done and do not come to agreement at all, each one holding his own view as the best of panaceas for the malaise that is impending. They do not agree at all on anyone’s point of view. The discussion does not produce anything worthwhile. And even if it does, even if all of them arrive at a conclusion, the decision that is recommended does not lead to the desired object or even to the direction in which one should move to reach the object that is desirable.
Ahaha! What kind of a sagacious mind should have spelt such an idea out! Ravana must have been a very good king. His words are suffused with wisdom! He seeks the good counsel of his ministers and tells them that a person in his position – if he is to be a good king – should first consult his ministers on any important (?) issue. And he also suggests that they, the ministers, should examine the issue in hand in a very detailed manner and tell him what is to be done. And such recommendation should have the sanction of the Holy Books as well!
These words sound heroic indeed. But, whatever be the word, it is the action, the conduct of the person who utters it, turns it either into tinsel or a treasure house of gold. Let us see what happens in the council.
Advice made to order
That one is remarkable, Ravana! All along you have been maintaining that these two were ‘puny’ creatures that have joined hands with ‘monkeys’…
‘I have described to you the different types of men and also the different kinds of conclusions that counsellors advance for decision-making. Having heard that, it is now for you to guide me,’ said Ravana.
“Therefore, determine you, who are foremost in point of intelligence, a course of conduct which is well-deliberated and (therefore) right. This (alone) is reckoned by me as worth adopting.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto VI, Sloka 15)
‘Tell me what is the right thing to do. I consider your well-thought out words as invaluable indeed. I will follow your advice. Please therefore do not hesitate to show me the right path to tread.’ A noble appeal indeed! At the end of his speech, Ravana adds a few words that sound rather strange to anyone who knows his character. He speaks in a completely different language.
“Surrounded by thousands of heroic monkeys, Rama is actually advancing towards the city of Lanka in order to besiege us. Clearly enough, by virtue of his might, which is worth of him, Rama (a scion of Raghu) will cross the sea with ease along with his younger brother as well as with his force and entourage. He will (either) dry up the sea by dint of his prowess or do something else (to bridge the sea). The aforesaid work of invading Lanka having commenced in this way and antagonism with the monkeys having been set on foot advice may be tendered to me on whatever is good for the city and the army.” (Ibid, Sloka 15-18)
That one is remarkable, Ravana! All along you have been maintaining that these two were ‘puny’ creatures that have joined hands with ‘monkeys’ and that the defence of Lanka is impregnable. This kind of topsy-turviness in your tone does not gel with your real self that seeks to masquerade itself behind a spotlessly white curtain and tries to project a ‘glorious’ image! If you are convinced that Rama would march on Lanka, if you are convinced he is so powerful as either to dry up the sea or to build a bridge over it, if you are really convinced that the monkeys – going by what Hanuman had perpetrated on your land – are really powerful indeed, then why would you need the counsel of your ministers at all!
Those last lines are added very deftly to evoke a kind of response that Ravana desires. You know, when the school-going kid of yours is in tears and says that he or she is afraid of his or her teacher because the homework has not been completed, you know that the kid is really seeking your support and is not really afraid of the teacher. Was he or she really afraid of the teacher, the homework would have been completed in time! What is expected, as you know, is a sort of conditioned-response. ‘Don’t worry. I will give you a letter of excuse. Or I will speak to your school authorities. Or I will accompany you to your school and speak to your teacher.’
Ravana is that schoolboy now. We – as do his ministers – know that Ravana is not really afraid of Rama and the monkeys crossing the ocean. He needs the unconditional support that is stated overtly in the council. That’s what actually happens. Not a single minister speaks about sending Sita back. Their attention is diverted beautifully to the one and only question of their country being invaded by Rama and Lakshmana.
Right Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar very beautifully captures the result of a three-canto long discussion in a few lines. He says, “Ravana tells his ministers how he got hold of Sita and also how he got cursed over other women. ‘Tell me,’ he says, ‘what I am to do, but do not say that I should yield up Sita. I have not put myself to all this trouble, disgraced all my character and lost my reputation, in order to give her back. Advise me so that I may retain her.’ That is the advice he wanted, an advice subject to that very hard condition.”
Who is the real enemy?
And if a leader is surrounded by advisors who prefer to play it according to his or her likes and dislikes, he does not need enemies to destroy him…
The opening speech of Ravana in the war council in Kamba Ramayana does not vary much, excepting that Kamban drops this particular portion where Ravana is depicted as seeking good advice from his ministers and exhorting them to give out what is right and what has the sanction of scriptures. We have studied this portion earlier and even compared the way Sri Rama and Dasaratha conducted their meetings. It may be recollected that how Sri Rama seeks the opinion of his team with a simple two line address, not expressing his opinion at all, so that he can listen to what his followers actually think. (See: Of councils and counsels – Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V.)
Ravana’s opening speech is so very eloquent. He expresses his shame, the way their race has been slighted et al. Ravana sounds very genuine in his feelings. It cannot be denied. But any leader who wants to bring out what really resides in the minds of his advisors will prefer to postpone the expression of his feelings till he listens to their opinion. If he does so, he would for sure colour their opinion showing his own true colours and would only be sending a silent message to them as to what would please him.
And if a leader is surrounded by advisors who prefer to play it according to his or her likes and dislikes, he does not need enemies to destroy him, says Valluvar.
‘idippaarai illaadha Emaraa mannan
keduppar ilaanum kedum.’ (Kural 448)
“The king, who is without the guard of men who can rebuke him, will perish, even though there be not one to destroy him.” (Tr. by Rev. Drew and John Lazarus) Why should he need an enemy! What can be the poison worse than flattery! Who can be more cursed than that king or leader whose counsellors that carefully select only such words and ideas that would please him or her! And yet, if such a situation exists, it is the leader who is to take the blame for such a situation for it is his or her failure to show a genuine interest in genuine counselling.
And here was our Ravana who sought advice that had the sanction of scriptures. But we see a long list of his advisors speaking endlessly about the supremacy of their race and the prowess of their leader and the needlessness of thinking of any other course of action excepting to reach the other side of the ocean and kill Rama and Lakshmana in their own territory. It is really a long list with Nikumbha, the son of Kumbakarna, Rabhasa, Suryasatru, Suptaghna and Yajnakopa, Mahaparswa, Mahodara, Vajaradamstra, to name a few. Ravana is pleased with what his advisors express.
Vibishana intervenes here and stops all of them. He has heard his brother for the first time seeking their advice, that too ‘that which has the sanction of the scriptures and that which is really for the good of the country and its people.’ He has had innumerable occasions of his advice being turned down. But this was a rare opportunity for him. He happily feels that he can do something now to turn Ravana to the path of rectitude, as he feels that he is in a receptive frame of mind.
There is a minor difference between Kamban and Valmiki here. The speech of Kumbakarna precedes that of Vibishana – as Kamban worked the character of Kumbakarna laying stress on his nobler side.
Let’s now listen to what Vibishana has to say and how Ravana reacts to it. This is the first speech depicted in Valmiki and not the one that pushed Ravana into kicking Vibishana away from his court.
A brother protests
The entire tone of argument takes a diagonally opposite direction! This was not the Vibishana that we saw in that earlier instance! He speaks very firmly now!
On a previous occasion we have heard Vibishana speaking very high of the prowess of Ravana. He was motivated by his sincere desire to see Hanuman out of danger at that time. ‘Leave this poor monkey. He cannot be blamed. He is the messenger of someone after all! What you have to do now is to think of ways of vanquishing that person who had sent him. Direct your energies to achieve that purpose and devote your attention to what has actually to be done,’ Vibishana advised at that time. ‘Who can think of scoring a victory against you!’ was what Vibishana told Ravana at that time.
“If this monkey is put to death, I do not really perceive any other created being who can incite those two insolent human princes, who are hostile to you, to wage war against you O bellicose king! For you who are difficult to conquer even for high-minded gods and demons endowed with prowess and martial ardour, O delight of ogres, it is not meet to crush the ardour of those ogres (the progeny of Nirrti) for war.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto LII, Sloka 24 and 25)
‘If you kill this monkey, who would go there and tell those two human beings of what was seen here? And if that message is not conveyed to them, how do you expect them to come in war against you? And if they come, would it be difficult for you to defeat them, for you have defeated even the gods when they are nothing other than humans.’ That Vibishana did not really mean what he said the other day and his sole intention was to free Hanuman from the death-sentence that Ravana pronounced on him is apparent when one compares these lines with what he sincerely advises his brother in the war council. (Whether execution of death-sentence on Maruti would have been possible is another question.) Listen to him now.
“How do you seek to overcome the celebrated Rama, who is on the contrary, watchful, is keen to conquer, is supported by divine power, has subdued anger, and is difficult to overpower? Who in the world can know or even conceive the speed of Hanuman, who for his part came over to Lanka, leaping across the sea, the formidable lord of rivers and streams? Inestimable are the troops at the disposal of Rama and so is his power, O ranger of the night! Underestimation should not be precipitately made in any case in respect of enemies.” (Ibid, Yuddha Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 10-12)
There is at last someone in the court of Ravana who can speak for what is right. Vibishana very skilfully breaks the earlier claim of Ravana, justifying his capturing of Sita. ‘I captured her in Janasthana, an area that comes under our jurisdiction. That area is my outpost. My brothers ruled that place. I brought her here to avenge for the wanton death of my brothers at the hands of Rama and Lakshmana.’ Listen to Vibishana.
“Moreover, what offence was given to the ruler of ogres y the illustrious Rama, whose consort the former bore away from Janasthana? (If it is urged in reply that Ravana abducted Rama’s wife because Rama had killed Khara, our half-brother, my rejoinder is that) Khara was made short work of by Rama in an encounter because the former had for his part gone beyond his limits in that he had attacked Rama in the latter’s own hermitage. Life needs must be protected by living beings according to their might.” (Ibid, Sloka 13 and 14)
The entire tone of argument takes a diagonally opposite direction! This was not the Vibishana that we saw in that earlier instance! He speaks very firmly now. He does not seem to be afraid of the consequences. Perhaps that was the reason why he did not say anything all these long ten months against his brother!
Accolades for sin
‘You asked us to give you the right advice. You wanted us to you what is right in the circumstances. What I am doing is precisely that.’
‘You say your brothers were killed,’ Vibishana continued. ‘But why are you not able to see what your brothers did? He marched in on Rama and challenged him in his own territory. And with a vast army! A terrifying army against a single man! You know what happened in the end. Anyone would retaliate! He has to protect himself and his wife after all! What living being would not do that! Rama is therefore justified in what he did. It is for us to understand that it is not possible to make him bend before insolent might.’
‘Now you will say that bearing Sita away was a matter of settling scores with Rama. I would say that she should be sent back. She would bring great harm to us and to our race. Be forewarned. Send her back.’ I quote that portion of Vibishana’s speech from Valmiki. Notice how within a matter of five Slokas the idea is emphasised again and again.
“If Sita (a princess of the Videha territory) was borne away because of this (grudge), she deserves to be yielded up inasmuch as she may prove to be a peril to us. What on earth will be gained if anything is done which has strife for its object? It is not at all desirable to make enmity without any purpose with that powerful prince, who follows the moral code. Sita (a princess of Mithila) may (therefore) be restored to him. Let Sita (a princess of Mithila) be made over to him before he tears asunder with his arrows Lanka, full of many precious stones, with its elephants and horses. Let Sita be given back (to Rama) before the huge army of monkeys, which is most formidable and difficult to overpower, besieges Lanka. If the beloved consort of Rama is not restored of your own accord, the city of Lanka as well as all the heroic ogres will surely perish. I seek to propitiate you because of your being my relation; (pray) follow my counsel. I suggest only that which is true and conducive to your good; let Sita (a princess of Mithila be surrendered (to Rama). (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 16-20)
We have already pointed out that the tone of Vibishana is totally different from the one that he adopted when he attempted to set Hanuman free from the death penalty. ‘You asked us to give you the right advice that has the sanction of the Vedas. You wanted us to deliberate deeply and suggest to you what is right in the circumstances and what is good for the country and the race as a whole. What I am telling you is precisely that. Send Sita back. Her retention any further would bring us untold harm.’
The speech of Vibishana follows that of Kumbakarna, in Kamba Ramayana. Kumbakarna expresses his dissatisfaction over what Ravana had done. ‘You have been telling again and again that the Rakshasa pride is slighted by the act of the monkey that burnt the entire country down. It was not that the Rakshasa pride was slighted now. It has been humiliated the day when you brought Sita here,’ says Kumbakarna. This is how he chides Ravana.
‘endru oruvan il urai thavaththiyai,’ (it was on that) day when you brought a woman (who is immersed deep in the penance of chastity) belonging to another house ‘irangaai,’ without any sympathy ‘van thozhilinaai,’ by a violent act, ‘marai thurandhu’ violating all the codes of conduct specified in the Vedas, ‘sirai vaithaahi’ (brought here and) kept her in prison, ‘andru ozhivadhu aayina arakkar pugazh ayaa!’ it was on that day that the reputation of the race was brought down to the dust (by you), Sire! ‘pun thozhilinaal isai poruththal pulamaithO?’ Are we not seeking to win accolades (by committing an offence first in coveting Sita and now by planning to kill her husband, instead of restoring her to him) by acts of sin? Are we wise?
Hari Krishnan