The sal tree proposal

Habits die hard. You are not able to trust your God when he promises to stand by your side. You are not able to believe that he is prepared take over from you and help you root out the cause of all troubles from your life. You are not able to accept the fact that he is strong enough, powerful enough and superior enough to wrench you from the hands of the misery that has been haunting you for years. That was precisely the condition in which Sugriva was.

“Obstinate are my trammels,” sang Rabindranath Tagore in Gitanjali, “but my heart aches when I try to break them. Freedom is all I want, but to hope for it I feel ashamed. I am certain in that priceless wealth is in thee, and that thou art my best friend, but I have not the heart to sweep away the tinsel that fills my room. The shroud that covers me is a shroud of dust and death; I hate it, yet I hug it in love.”

Tagore wrote these lines in an entirely different context. But don’t they describe Sugriva’s state of mind perfectly and precisely? He is not able to accept the fact that his Lord has come to him as his friend and he is not able to express his fears neither to Him nor to his followers and ministers. Such was the fear he had for Vali. Hanuman understood what was running in Sugriva’s heart.

‘piridhum annavan peru vali aatralai periyOy aridhi enninin uNdu ubaayam.’ If at all you want to ascertain his might, there is a way to find it out. ‘ahdhu aru marangaL neriyin nindrana Ezhil ondru uruva in nediyOn pori koL venjaram pOvadhu kaaN.’ There are seven sal trees (known as maraa maram in Tamil) on the way. You will see Rama’s arrow, spitting fire, would bore through one of them.

Look at the confidence with which Hanuman beams. He has not spoken to Rama about his proposal. There was no indication to show that this great prince would accept to undergo a test of strength, to prove himself fit enough to kill Vali, in return for a favour to be done much later after Sugriva assumes power. There was no assurance of any kind from him as yet. Even if he organises a search, where, how and in what length of time would he be able to locate the whereabouts of Sita? Nobody knew for sure. In fact, Valmiki’s Sugriva says, “I do not know at all the abode or strength or prowess or even the pedigree of that sinful ogre (Ravana) of vile birth.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto VII, Sloka 2)

This was not true at all. Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar says, “Of course if the Uttara Kanda be taken into account, this is a very clear violation of conscience. There it is distinctly stated that Ravana stayed for one month in Vali’s place, just like Sugriva as a member of the family. Then it would be incredibly wrong. But I would hesitate a lot before I brought a charge against Sugriva of infidelity at the beginning of the contract…. Sugriva is unable to talk clearly. So he is not likely to launch at once into a piece of falsehood…”

It was at such a time that Hanuman comes forward and commits Sri Rama, on his behalf, without consulting him and says ‘you will see one of his arrows drilling through a sal tree. That would be sufficient to prove that it is powerful enough to bury itself deep into Vali’s chest and drink his blood.’

Faith. Faith is the difference. Not that Sugriva did not have faith. Hanuman’s faith was of a different kind, grade and strength. Sugriva’s faith was not that stronger, at least for now.

The examiner examined

When the Lord puts everyone to test, Sugriva had the luxury of putting Him to test…

The suggestion to test Rama’s strength and be satisfied for himself comes from Hanuman. As we saw earlier, the ‘maraa mara pareekshai’ or the sal tree test was the second test that Sugriva asked Sri Rama to go through, in Valmiki Ramayana. When Sugriva expresses his misgivings about Rama’s ability to kill Vali, “Lakshmana heartily laughing, said, ‘On what feat being accomplished should you believe that Vali can be disposed of (by Sri Rama)?” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 11, Sloka 69) Valmiki’s Sugriva starts by saying, “In the past Vali pierced these seven sal trees one after another and he did so more than once (even) later. If Sri Rama too should (be able to) split one of these trees with a single arrow, I shall consider Vali killed on witnessing Sri Rama’s prowess. I shall deem him killed even if lifting with his single foot the bones of the buffalo made short work of by Vali, Sri Rama should (be able to) throw them by his might to a distance of two hundred bows (or eight hundred arms) length, O Lakshmana!”

Do either this or that was the first request. Either you pierce one of the sal trees with a single arrow or kick the skeleton of Dundhubhi as Vali did. When Sri Rama kicked the skeleton of Dundhubhi, he was still not satisfied. That was because Vali could do so when he was drunk, the drink taking a considerable portion of his strength away. Rama was sober. And drinking could never be attributed to Rama; but that is a different question altogether. More over, when Vali kicked the mortal remains of Dundhubhi, it was a freshly killed buffalo, full of warm blood and flesh, the rigor mortis not having been set in as yet. Therefore, the carcass that Vali kicked was undoubtedly heavier than what Rama kicked, a mere heap of bones.

Therefore Sugriva wants Rama to prove himself by undergoing the second test as well. Even a school student of these days would resist his teacher if he goes back on his words uttered in the beginning that it would be sufficient to undergo either one of the tests and on successful completion of the first, the teacher expresses dissatisfaction and asks the student to undergo the second one as well. But Rama didn’t mind. He did that too.

But the way Kamban builds up the relationship between Sri Rama and Sugriva doesn’t allow him these choices. He makes Hanuman therefore to suggest to Sugriva that if at all he wanted to see for himself, he could ask Rama to perform the ‘maraa mara pareekshai’ that is the second and accepted test that Valmiki’s Sugriva asked Rama to go through. That is the first test in Kamban. Okay. If only that satisfies your mind, why unnecessarily ask Him to undergo two tests? Give him the test on whose result you think you can rely on.

On Hanuman’s suggestion, Sugriva returned to Rama and told him. ‘Ega veNdum in neri.’ Please go with us this way. ‘ena inidhu koNdu Egi,’ so saying he took Rama (to the seven trees). ‘maagam neendana kurugida nimirndhana marangaL aaga aindhinodu irandin ondru uruva nin ambu pOgave,’ If only your arrow pierces through one of these seven trees whose branches vie with the sky, ‘endhan manathu idar pOm enap pugandraan’ it would set my mind at rest.

The condition that it should be pierced with a single arrow is not explicit. That reduces the tone of the demand and makes it sound like a humble request instead, just for the sake of putting his own mind at rest. Rama smiled. ‘anantha sakthikku kattup paduvadhilE varuthamillai,’ said Bharati. The Infinite Might (Omnipotent) is only too ready to be bound down.

Was he selfish?

‘Rama had to do that because Sugriva was supposed to help him in turn.’ Yes. That was doubtless the position. ‘Does it not sound selfish?’

‘maru ilaan adhu kooralum’ When Sugriva the unblemished uttered these words,
‘vaanavarkku iraaivan muruval seidhu,’ the Lord of all celestials smiled. ‘avan munniya muyarchiyai unni,’ thought (and understood) why he ventured upon (such a request). ‘eruzh valith thadandh thOLkaLaal silayai naaN Etri,’ strung his massive bow with his strong, muscular and pillar like shoulders ‘arivinaal aLappa ariyavatrukku arugu sendru aNaindhaan’ and went near those trees that (are so massive that they) defy all known standards of measurement.

The point here is, Rama smiled at the request to prove his strength and without a word strung his bow and went to the location. Who else could! Just think of it. Somebody who is very rich comes forward to help a poor man. He draws a cheque for five lakhs and hands it over to this unfortunate creature. How will the philanthropist – however good he may be – react, if the poor man instead of thankfully accepting the cheque says, ‘Er… I am sorry sir…is there sufficient money left in your bank account…I am afraid it may bounce…’ Well, Sugriva was doing almost the same. Though in his case Sugriva was justified – as he was afraid that if this attempt failed, there was nobody to save him from the clutches of Vali – it indeed takes a great soul to react the way that Rama did.

‘But Rama needed the support of Sugriva. That’s why he did that,’ could be the doubt lurking in the minds of our readers. ‘He had to do that because Sugriva was supposed to help him in turn.’ Yes. That was doubtless the position. ‘Does it not sound selfish?’ Does it? Was Rama really selfish? One of our readers writes, “In your column - Superior Among Equals, you quote Kamban as follows - "theeyare eninum unnodu utraar enakkum utraar.' Whoever is your friend, even if they are bad (and of questionable character) is my friend.

This is a bit disconcerting to me in that when discussing Vibishana, you clearly pointed out how he stood by the side of dharma and defended his action. Now in this column Rama's above mentioned words give me the impression that Rama was willing to compromise on dharma, so that he can get Sugriva to help him. This sounds selfish to me....”

We will answer this question in one of our later instalments as this involves a comparison with Vibishana. But Rama, if he were so selfish, would have approached Vali, instead of Sugriva, after coming to know that Vali was so powerful than Sugriva. Vali had all the necessary infrastructure with him. He was the king. He was powerful. He had the Vanara army at his disposal. Sugriva had none of these.

Moreover, Vali had already established his victory over Ravana. Just seek his ally and put in a word to him. He jumps over from Kishkindha to Lanka and speaks with Ravana, brings back Sita and there ends the matter. Why should Rama undergo all this trouble? Does it not ring a bell and sound so familiar to us who see a change of ally every other day! Unfortunately this Rama was so totally different from all the Ramas of our times!

That is what the Poet wants us to understand. He is ever so ready to reach out and help him who seeks his protection, even though the devotee is a little suspicious. ‘Have a open mind and reach me with open hands,’ is what He says. For after all, how much can one receive from him though he is prepared to shower his blessings, if one goes and stands before him with clenched fists!

Go through seven

Rama bent his bow and shot his arrow and we know that it bore through all the seven trees. Sugriva asked him to shoot an arrow through a single sal tree. Rama shot a single arrow that went through all the seven trees and it returned to the arrow case by itself.

Kamban adds his own touch of humour. ‘Go through all the seven,’ ordered Rama when shooting the arrow. It went through all the seven trees, and the seven under worlds also. That caused fear in the minds of all groups of seven – the seven seas, seven hills, seven sages (Rishis), seven maidens, etc. They were afraid that since seven was the target for the arrow, it might wipe them off too!

For the first time, we see happiness in the face of Sugriva. When Kamban chose to reverse the order of events – that is, the tests that Sugriva held – and started with Sugriva’s request to shoot through the tree, the need for the other test – kicking of the mortal remains of Dundhubhi – does not arise. But the Poet decides to portray that event as well. He does so in a different way. Kamban shows the team seeing the massive skeleton of Dundhubhi lying in their way, while they come back after the sal tree event. Rama enquires about the heap of bones that is lying there and Sugriva narrates the entire incident and tells Sri Rama that this carcass of Dundhubhi was kicked by him to this distance.

‘kEtanan amalanum kiLandhavaaru elaam.’ Rama heard the story as it happened. ‘vall thozhil iLavalai, idhanai maindha nee Ottu ena,’ He turned towards Lakshmana and told him, ‘kick this away, child.’ ‘avan kazhal viralin undhinaan.’ Lakshmana kicked it with his toe. ‘adhu virinjan naadu utru meendadhE.’ That (skeleton of Dundhubhi) rose up into the sky and fell down.

Now, the very same incident is utilised to demonstrate the prowess of Lakshmana. Any lesser poet would have either skipped it or overplayed it by making Rama undergo this test. Architectonics of Kamban. He has reconstructed the entire structure, without in any way altering the essential elements, without compromising on characterisation, without going astray from the main story and without in any way affecting the beauty of the original. In fact, he has added to its beauty.

Now that Sugriva regaining his composure, he remembers something very important that did not occur to him at all. Sita, when she was carried away by Ravana spotted these monkeys moving down on the ground, from the Pushpaka vimana, wrapped her jewels in a piece of cloth and dropped the bundle to fall close to them. Sugriva orders that bundle to be fetched from their hideout.

Once again, the order of this event is repositioned. This happens right in the first scene in Valmiki Ramayana, immediately after solemnisation of friendship between Sri Rama and Sugriva before fire. That is, the bundle of ornaments was presented before Rama was put to test. Kamban has, on purpose reordered the events and makes his Sugriva show the ornaments, after Rama went through the test.

There must be some purpose behind this. Let’s discuss this .

The case restated

Restating preliminaries before we take up the actual issue in hand, namely, the killing of Vali…

We have been discussing the preliminaries to the Vali Episode this long. We have not even touched the fringe of the issue. Nor can we do so for a couple of days more until we see the complete background as shown by the two Poets and the deviations that Kamban makes so that these can be reviewed in full when we reach the actual scene, when Vali argues his case against Sri Rama and how Kamban justifies the act of Rama. I am stating this here because several readers – or that is the impression I get from their mails – seem to believe that we are discussing the justifications in favour of or against Rama, in this particular instance. No. We have not yet entered into the subject. We are just looking at how it started and how it develops. Because this forms the basis of Kamban’s portrayal, it is important to see them as elaborately and as minutely as possible before we discuss the actual issue and try to find answer to the other major criticisms.

Yesterday, we saw Kamban making another deviation from Valmiki. The ornaments of Sita are shown to Rama immediately after Sugriva and Rama became friends. Here in Kamban, the ornaments are shown after the test. Kamban has built the drama and rearranged the events so carefully to emphasise the fact that it was Saranagathi that was granted to Sugriva, rather than a you-do-this and I-do-that pact. By this reordering of events, Kamban suggests that Rama did not know the existence of such valuable evidence available with Sugriva.

Let us recapitulate the events thus far. Rama approached Sugriva for his help in his search for Sita. Sugriva had a grievance and he wanted the protection of Rama. Sugriva, without answering Rama or assuring him that he would do whatever he could in assisting him in his efforts, sought his protection. ‘saran unaip pugundhEn enaith thaangudhal dharumam endraan.’ I am seeking refuge unto you. It is your Dharma to protect me. Though they become friends, Rama still plays the role of a protector only. Neither Sugriva nor Hanuman who speaks on his behalf make an open request to Rama to kill Vali, though when they are alone Hanuman comforts Sugriva that Vali will be killed by Rama.

Another thing to be observed is that neither Sugriva nor Hanuman have given any open commitment about their help to be rendered to Sri Rama in return for his help in killing Vali. In the first instance, they did not ask for the killing of Vali. It was Sri Rama who assured protection to Sugriva.

Kamban is eliminating the least little possibility here in showing the ornaments to Rama, after he accomplished what was required of him. So, till Rama made a promise to dispatch Vali and till he proved his strength to Sugriva, he was not promised of anything nor was he aware of the fact that Sugriva possessed any knowledge about Sita or Ravana who took her by force. The promise to kill Vali was therefore done not in return for a favour. It was an act of benevolence that a protector is supposed to show to the one who has surrendered unto him.

Then what is the difference between these two versions? How does this Saranagathi serve the purpose? Saranagathi shows the entire episode in a different light. But that can be elaborated only after we discuss the killing of Vali.

The decision takes shape

Now that everything is settled, Hanuman feels that this is the time to press for the demand. Remember. Rama has already promised and even asked them to show where Vali resided, so that he could be killed. ‘avan uraividam kaatu,’ was what Rama told Sugriva before he was put to the sal tree test. After Rama sees the ornaments of Sita and after he is consoled, Hanuman makes the plea, half hesitating and half negotiating. This is the first time that such a plea is made after they have met. That is 165 verses after Hanuman’s meeting with Rama and 128 verses after Sugriva met Rama.

‘kodun thozhil vaaliyaik kondru,’ (unless) the cruel natured Vali is killed, ‘kOmagan kadung kadhirOn Magan aakki’ and the sun of Son (Sugriva) is made the emperor, ‘kai vaLar nedum padai kootinaal andri’ (thus enabling him to) call the Vanara army forth, ‘nEdal aridhu’ it is difficult to search ‘adum padai arakkar tham irukkai aaNayaai’ the whereabouts of the ogres (who have Sita in their possession).

In short, ‘if Sugriva has to help you, you have first to empower him by killing Vali and making him the king. Only that would give him access to an enormous Vanara army of 70 vahinis. Do you know why I ask for this? Because it is not possible to know in which corner of the world Ravana has kept Sita imprisoned. If our search is to be effective, it should be undertaken on a massive scale, at the same time. ‘oru murayE parandhu ulagam yaavayum thiru urai vEru idam thEra veNdumaanaal’ If we have to undertake a global search to find out where she is hidden, ‘varan murai naadida varmbu indraal ulagu,’ the area to be sieved is so large, (because we have to scour the entire globe) ‘arumai uNdu, aLappa arum aaNdum vENdumaal’ not only will it be difficult; but also will take a number of years to achieve success in our endeavours.

Okay. Where are you coming to? ‘We need resources. But the resources are not at our disposal now. Kill Vali and make this Sugriva the king so that we can do our job properly.’

Hanuman simply excels in communication and negotiation skills. We have seen his role as a trusted deputy, already in our earlier instalments. (Hanuman the Trusted Deputy) But see how he waits for the right moment to press for the demand. Now, it was Rama who first gave his word for killing Vali without Sugriva or Hanuman asking for it explicitly. It is another matter that when they were discussing aside Hanuman tells Sugriva that this was the right person to kill Vali. After Rama gave his word and gladly went through the tests to prove himself and everything is settled, Hanuman makes the request.

Hanuman is playing his role as the minister of Sugriva to whom he owes his responsibility and allegiance in the present situation. He is discharging his duty and doing it very ably and admirably too.

Let’s now see how the decision to kill Vali from behind the tree is made and conveyed. And let’s discuss why this decision was made, in our later instalments, after Vali is killed.

It was his decision

Both the poets, Valmiki and Kamban agree on one point. It was Rama who decided that he would stand behind the cover of a tree and kill Vali while he was engaged in a battle with Sugriva. Valmiki indicates this suggestively. “Embracing Sugriva of pleasing aspect, Sri Rama, who was exceptionally wise, thereupon replied as follows to Sugriva who was dear as Lakshmana (to him). ‘Let us proceed, O Sugriva, to Kishkindha from this mountain; depart you ahead without delay and, going there, challenge to a duel Vali, who bears the name of a brother!’ Reaching with hasty steps to Kishkindha, the capital of Vali, and hiding themselves behind trees, they all halted in a dense forest. Tightly girdled (about his loins) even Sugriva roared frightfully by way of a challenge to Vali, rending the air as it were by his shouts uttered with vehemence.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto XII, Sloka 12-14)

The decision to kill Vali when he and Sugriva are engaged in a duel is mentioned directly by Rama. It is the poet who says that they stood ambushed behind the trees while Sugriva alone leaped forward throwing a challenge to Vali.

Kamban does not deviate from what Valmiki says. ‘av idathu iraaman nee azhaithu vali aanadhu Or vev vidathin vandhu pOr viLaikkum Elvai’ Rama then told Sugriva, ‘You call Vali for a duel and fight with him. (When you are thus engaged in a fight) ‘nindru’ standing (aside) ‘evvidath thuNindhu amaindhadhu en karuthu.’ I will shoot my arrow (and kill Vali). This is how I propose to do it. This is my idea.

Clearly it was Rama’s decision to kill him not in a straight encounter. It was he who decided that Vali be dispatched in this manner. Though stalwarts like Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar feel that Rama initially thought of a single combat with Vali and how he had used the words ‘arrows’, instead of ‘arrow’ implying that he would have to spend more than a single arrow to kill him, this later took shape of dispatching with a single arrow. (See: The point of ambush)

We are not going to judge the correctness or otherwise of the decision. We are just nobody to pass judgements on what Rama did. We are going to see how the poets saw the act and how they portrayed it and learn from their mouth how the characters around felt about it and how Rama himself felt about it. After all, the Lord is strong enough to stand any amount of critical analysis and does not need our no more than twig thick defences. The story itself has its own reasons. Some are explicit and several of them are implied and must be distilled, interpolated from within the poet’s own work so that we see this episode in a proper light.

When such a study is made, it is desirable and indeed preferable that we confine ourselves to the source material itself, rather than bringing extraneous evidence from other Puranas and stories of the lore in support of arguments. It is not our purpose to argue against or in favour of any particular character. What we seek is the Truth and truth does not require any props.

Vali and his regard for Rama

Sugriva challenged Vali from the outskirts of Kishkindha. ‘idithu urappi vandhu pOr edhirthiyEl adarppen endru’ ‘If you come out and fight with me, I will kill you,’ he boomed in a voice like thunder ‘adithalangal kotti’ thumped his feet (on the earth) ‘vaai madithu’ pouted his lips ‘alangu thOl pudaithu’ drummed on his shoulders with his paw. Vali was sleeping and when he heard this shout, he was angered beyond control and jumped to his feet to kill Sugriva the very same moment. As far as Vali was concerned, it was long overdue. He jumped up from his bed with shouts of ‘Here I come’ and was about to rush out to meet Sugriva.

Tara, wife of Vali, stopped him for she had the intelligence report on the alliance between Rama and Sugriva. Valmiki defers this to a later scene. That is, Sugriva was overpowered by Vali in the first encounter and escaped from him. He was so upset with Rama (in Valmiki Ramayana) that he did not keep his word. Kamban cuts all arguments of Sugriva short at that stage. We will see how it is dealt with by Kamban, a little later.

Rama pacified him saying that he could not distinguish between the two of them and asks Lakshmana to pluck a Gajapushpi creeper and makes a garland of it for Sugriva to wear and sends him back to challenge Vali once again. It is when Sugriva calls Vali for a second encounter that Tara lets out the information that she has reliable report from Angada. “I shall communicate (to you) today the useful report which has already been heard by me from the mouth of Prince Angada speaking (on one occasion), O gallant one! The aforesaid Prince Angada for his part had (once) gone to the interior of the forest. The following news which was broken (to him) by spies conveyed by him (to me). (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto XIV, Sloka 15-16)

Now if such intelligence was available, no woman would allow her husband to go for what she considers to be potentially risky right in the first instance. Kamban shifts the scene to its appropriate place and Tara tells Vali, ‘My dear king, Sugriva is no match to you and has been beaten by you times without number. If he comes back and challenges you without fear, there must be some strong reason behind this. It is not logical to think that he became so powerful overnight. There must therefore be some powerful ally that he has obtained. That is why he is challenging you. Please think over it.’

Vali patiently listed his past exploits and tried to pacify her. She persisted. ‘annadhu kEttavaL’ She who listened to the Vali’s words ‘arasa, aayavarkku in uyir natpu amaindhu iraaman enbavan’ My King, (I hear that) a person by name Rama has ‘un uyir kOdalukku udan vandhaan’ come to take your life away ‘ena thunniya anbinar sollinaar endral’. I was informed thus by reliable sources who love us.

Notice the use of the word iraaman enbavan a person by name Rama. Or in the modern journalistic usage, one Mr. Rama. That shows Tara was not aware who Rama was. But not Vali. He knew who Rama was. He knew what he did. He had great regards for him.

A look before the leap

It was a look before the leap all right. But what can a person see when the eyelids are closed?

‘Do not think of Rama that way’ Vali told Tara. ‘He so gladly gave his kingdom to his younger brother just because his stepmother demanded him to do so. You have to praise him for his qualities. Instead you are talking ill of him. ‘thambiyar alladhu thanakku vEru uyir imbarin iladhu ena eNNi Eyndhavan’ He lives on this earth with the sole thought that his younger brothers are his very soul. His quality is such. ‘embiyum yaanum utru edhrindha pOrinil’ (when such being the case) in the battle between my brother and me, ‘ambu idai thodukkumO aruLin aazhiyaan’ Do you think that such a person who is like the very ocean of mercy would shoot his arrow on me?

He cannot live without his brothers because his younger brothers are like his very breath. When such is the case, how do you think that he would interfere between my brother and me and aim his arrow at me? He is an ocean of mercy and would not do so. The reasoning of Vali is moving. The regard he has for Rama is moving.

Or it seems to be so. It is a deceptive argument. It actually serves to mislead the listener. In fact Vali himself must have been so charmed with his own words to have been carried away by its seeming strength. You see. Rama considered his younger brothers as his very own life and he would not live without them. Agreed. But what does Vali consider of his younger brother? He was not even prepared to listen to his younger brother and allow him an opportunity to be heard. He did not give an opportunity at all for Sugriva to explain under what circumstances he happened to assume the kingship of Kishkindha.

And he feels that Rama would not (or should not for that matter) intervene between him and his brother while he would batter him, thrash him, and take his wife away for no fault of his. Where does the common and unifying thread lie between Rama and Vali, on this score? How and on what basis does Vali expect the sympathy of Rama in this respect? Vali was cheating himself with all kinds of such deceptive and false notions. I reserve all the other arguments for a later day. Let me confine myself with the narration of events for the present.

In the parallel scene in Valmiki – that is just before the second challenge by Sugriva for a single-combat – Tara goes to the extent of advising Vali to live in peace with Sugriva and install him as the Prince Regent. Srinivasa Sastriyar observes here thus. “She advises her husband to make peace with his brother. ‘Don’t go and punish Sugriva; make peace with him.’ And then she says: ‘Appoint him Yuvaraja.’ Apparently therefore he has not been Yuvaraja before, though he had been king himself in the supposed absence of Vali. He had not been Yuvaraja. She says for the first time, ‘You appoint him Yuvaraja.’ But there is one thing she does not advise him………Tara who was advising her husband might have added, ‘Give back to Sugriva Ruma also because he makes a great grievance of it. The kingdom is one source of vexation to him. But this Ruma business is also a great trouble. If you want to pacify Sugriva fully, you must not only install him as Yuvaraja, but you must also restore his wife to him………Why didn’t Tara, so wise, so circumspect, why didn’t she advise him then to do so? I cannot make it out.”

Strange pairs of brothers

The scene had a strange combination of brotherhood. One fighting the other and the other so ready and happy to serve his elder brother.

Yes, it was quite surprising that Tara (of Valmiki Ramayana) who went to the extent of advising Vali to install Sugriva as the Prince Regent did not advise him to return Ruma to her rightful husband. To think of it, even Mandodhari could not do so. At least she had an opportunity to give vent to her feelings when lamenting over the dead body of Indrajit in the presence of Ravana. ‘anjinEn anjinEn ach-Seethai ennum amudhaal seydha nanjaal ilangai vEndhan naaLai ith thagayan andrO?’ I am afraid that the king of Lanka would meet such an end tomorrow because of that Sita, poison made out of manna.

Tara or Mandodhari. They had the first right to stop their husbands when they violated natural laws in coveting the wife of another person. But they could not do so. Agreed that in those days people had more than one wife. But a civilised society did not approve of coveting another man’s wife, ever. I can see a wry smile over there. Vali was not a human being. He was an animal. A monkey. And therefore these laws would not apply to him…Please bear with me for a while. Let us see the drama as it develops. The point I wanted to make here is that even Tara who should have been the first to feel offended and affected by her husband’s act in violating his younger brother’s wife, despite her wisdom, despite her love for Vali could not advise him on this. Obviously. Vali would not have tolerated such an advice!

Vali then leapt forward and dashed towards Sugriva. They fought each other with such fierceness that even Lakshmana was awe struck. ‘Look at them brother,’ he told Rama. ‘Leave alone the Devas and Asuras. ‘ev vElai em mEgam ek kaala ven thee vev vEru ulagathu ivar mEniyai maanum?’ Which sea, which clouds, which wind or which fire would match their body (in swiftness and speed).

And here occurs the famous observation of Rama. Lakshmana could not see two brothers warring among themselves. It was so totally alien to his nature. He could not even think of arguing against the views of Rama. That had been his nature throughout. He could not believe that two brothers could kick, punch, bite and roll over and over with anger seething out like fire. ‘If Sugriva fights his own brother so furiously, how would he move with strangers? How far can we trust him?’ He asked Rama anxiously.

Rama smiled. ‘Do not go by the animal instincts that guide these two. ‘eth thaayar vayitrinum pin pirandhaargal ellam,’ If all the sons born of any mother, as younger brother, ‘oththaal Bharathan peridhu uthaman aadhal uNdO?’ behave lovingly, affectionately and amiably, how can Bharata be called the best among brothers? Not all brothers behave like Bharata. There is nobody equal to him in love and brotherly affection.

These are the words uttered to another younger brother, who is the very alter ego of Rama, who has sacrificed his own life in the service of Rama, who is happy at his happiness, who is able to nurse him out of bouts of depression, who is the very epitome of love. Normally such a remark should have offended any younger brother in the position of Lakshmana. Lakshmana was not offended. He did not feel bad at all that Rama did not mention his name instead of Bharata’s. But this is a different kind of brotherhood altogether. The scene had a strange combination of brotherhood. One fighting the other and the other so ready and happy to serve his elder brother.

Let us come back to these two brothers who were bent upon taking the life of the other.

Unable to distinguish

As could be expected Vali soon beat Sugriva to a pulp. Sugriva could not take it any more and he ran back. Vali chased him. “Exhausted and battered with the blows (of Vali) his (whole) body bathed in blood, and chased in anger by Vali, he entered the large forest (occupied by sage Matanga). Seeing him having penetrated into the forest and saying ‘Indeed you are spared’ the aforesaid Vali, even though possessed of extraordinary might, desisted from the pursuit due to fear of the curse.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto XII, Sloka 23-23).

On seeing Rama, Sugriva could not hold it any more. He gently upbraids Rama. “Having demonstrated your prowess and saying to me ‘Challenge Vali (to a duel), what have you done now by getting me smitten by the enemy? In all faith it should have been pointed out by you that very moment: ‘I am not going to kill Vali.’ Then I would not have moved from this place.’ (Ibid, Sloka 26-27)

Valmiki’s Sugriva has a genuine reason to speak these words to his ally. Rama was his ally and he could speak those words freely. ‘You came to me. You wanted some help from me and you promised some help in return. You went to the extent of proving your prowess. But when it came to the actual battle, you failed me. You let me down. You did not keep your word.’

And Rama had his reason. We all know the reason. Let’s hear it through Valmiki’s verse. “Sugriva, dear brother, let anger be banished (from your mind) and the reason why this deadly arrow was not discharged by me be heard. You, O Sugriva, and Vali resemble each other in personal embellishment, costume, stature and gait too. I do not perceive any distinction between you in voice as well as in splendour, in look, and in prowess as well as in speech. Puzzled as I was by the likeness of your features, O jewel among the monkeys, I did not let fly the deadly and terrible arrow possessed of great velocity and capable of destroying the enemy.” (Ibid, Sloka 29-31)

‘I did not discharge my arrow lest by accident I kill you instead of Vali. And if I did so, what happens to the search of Sita and the mission. “You are our refuge in this forest,” (Ibid, Sloka 35) ‘and therefore go once again and challenge him for a single combat again.’ So saying, Rama told Lakshmana to pluck a gajapushpi creeper and make a garland of it for Sugriva to wear it during his second combat with his brother, for the sake of distinction.

Some are not able to accept this explanation of Rama. ‘If he could not distinguish, he could have asked Hanuman who was standing by his side,’ they argue. The fact that Rama did not kill Vali in the first instance indicates a conflict in his mind, they contend. Though we have no right to doubt the words of Sri Rama and are bound to accept his reason for it, the greatest of Ramayana scholars and commentators and one of the greatest of Rama bhaktas, Govindaraja has something else to mention here. Srinivasa Sastriyar quotes Govindaraja expounding a conflict in the mind of Rama at the moment.

Was it a dilemma?

Here is how Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar quotes the great and revered commentator of Valmiki, Govindaraja. “Govindaraja really says that Rama certainly could have known who was Vali and who was Sugriva but he did not care for the moment to do so. So says a great commentator. Rama had some other thing in his mind. We do not know exactly what. We are unable to define it. But he gave this excuse that he was unable to distinguish the brothers. It was a false excuse. So say both the commentators and it was an extraordinary thing that that should be done. As a matter of fact, to ascribe to Sri Rama this inability to distinguish the two brothers one of whom was so much stronger that he always beat the other hard is difficult no doubt. But at the same time, ladies and gentlemen, I have a suggestion to make. It is bold of me to make it but I believe it is supported by the words of the Poet. When the brothers were first locked in combat, Rama had not finally made up his mind whether he would go out and have a straight fight with Vali or whether he would from his place of covert position attack. Perhaps he hesitated at the last moment, “Am I going to do this wrong thing, this unchivalrous thing?” He might have hesitated thus.”

Most likely. We cannot impute motives to Sri Rama. There is absolutely no reason as to why we should do so. There is an answer given by Valmiki, through Rama himself, as to why he did not let his arrow loose, even though he had promised that Vali would be dispatched the very same day. ‘That is not convincing,’ feels the greatest of commentators and is coming out with an explanation, which reads far deeper into the text, reaches beyond it and touches the heart of Rama. When the Poets have not given any clue as to why this happened, the only other course left is to go by what the great stalwarts have to say.

The person who feels that Rama had a conflict in his mind and that was why he could not kill Vali in the first encounter, is the most respected of all commentators. And the person who quotes it is considered to be one among the best of orators that the country has produced. Above all, the audience. Srinivasa Sastriyar delivered these lectures under the auspices of the Madras Sanskrit Academy, in the Sanskrit College grounds, in the august presence of scholars of Valmiki Ramayana. That cannot go wrong. There is reason to accept this notion. We will take it up for discussion a little later.

Coming back to Kamban. As we have already seen, Kamban puts Rama in the role of a protector. Sugriva has sought asylum in him. It is not possible for one who has sought his protection to speak in the language of an ally. We saw earlier how even the doubts lurking in the mind of Sugriva were not expressed by him explicitly anywhere and Hanuman, reading his mind suggested that his mind would be set at rest when he sees Rama shooting his arrow through one of the sal trees. Therefore, Kamban restricts himself to just one verse when he describes the plight of Sugriva who came running to Rama, beaten by Vali.

Think of it. Kamban wrote his Ramayana in 10500 verses. He showed all his skills in portraying the human mind elaborately in hundreds of instances. Why should he restrict himself to a single verse – just two lines of a four-line verse to be precise – when speaking of how Sugriva came back to Rama?

Walking on the sword’s edge. That is it. We will see the verse in question, in detail .

In silence I stand before you…

He was crest-fallen and went before Rama and bowed to him. He did not say anything. That silence was more eloquent…

Kamban puts the scene thus. ‘malaindha pOdhu’ When Vali fought (with Sugriva and beat him to a pulp) ‘iravi sEi’ Sugriva son of Sun god, ‘ayyan maadu aNugi’ went before Rama ‘ulaindha sindhayOdu uNanginaan’ withered and worn-out, with a heavy heart, full of sorrow, ‘vaNangida’ and bowed (before Rama). Just two lines. No accusations, no finding fault, no reproach or recrimination. He was crest-fallen and went before Rama and bowed to him. He did not say anything. That silence was more eloquent. More expressive than any words that could be spoken. ‘Did I not take refuge in you? Did you not promise to save me?’ You may attribute as many words as possible to express what Sugriva’s withered looks and war-worn psyche are expressing through this silent gesture. But the Poet does not elaborate. He stops somewhat short of two lines. Would it be possible that the tear filled eyes of Sugriva conveyed to Rama a silent “Eli Eli lama sabach thani?” ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’

It must have. The Poet continues in the same verse and indicates Rama’s response in the third and fourth lines. Technically speaking, Rama’s response starts from the last foot of the second line itself. ‘uLLam kulaindhidEl.’ Do not lose heart. ‘umai vEtrumai therindhilam.’ I could not distinguish between the two of you. ‘kodip poo milaindhu selga’ Wear this creeper full of flowers ‘ena viduthanan’ so saying Rama sent him back. ‘edhirthanan meetum’ and Sugriva resumed his battle with Vali.

It should sound odd. Kamban’s canvas is large enough. His poetry is known to be more vivid and many a time he has proved his skill at painting stunning and realistic portrayal. His gift for verbal portraiture is known to be crisper and clearer than many of the poets of his calibre. Then why did he not express the feelings of Sugriva in words? Why did his Sugriva not argue with Rama? Why did he not find fault with his Lord? Why did he not accuse him? Just plain and simple. Kamban wants us to understand Sugriva is playing the role of the ‘protected’ than an ally now. The less he speaks, the better it is. That is what Kamban has been maintaining right from the beginning as far as this episode is concerned.

But there is no denying the fact that Kamban prefers to keep the scene as it is, a scene that has been interpreted as Rama’s dilemma by great commentators. We will see as the episode develops how completely Kamban moves away from some of the arguments presented in the original. He repaints the whole episode and puts it under a different light altogether.

No wonder Sri VVS Aiyar, a great patriot and an associate of Subramanya Bharati observes thus. “Now the plot in almost all its details is Valmiki’s. But if Kamban takes the situations from Valmiki, he has treated them absolutely in his own way. In the manner of developing the situations, in the gradation by which the climax of each situation is brought about, in the justesse which known how to bring out all its capabilities out of each situation, we feel the touch of a master artist.”

The killing of Vali

The fight resumed and soon Sugriva lost his ground. Sugriva was bleeding from his ears though his eyes were spitting fire with anger. It was however becoming unbearable for him. ‘dhikku nOkkinan sengadhirOn magan’ He looked in the direction of Rama, as vital energy was flowing out from his wounds. ‘eduthup paaridai etruvan patri endru’ I will lift him above and strike him on the earth ‘iLaval kadith thalathinum kazhuthinum than iru karangal maduthu’ (so thinking, Vali lifted Sugriva above him by) placing a hand on the waist of his younger brother and another on his neck. ‘meek koNda Vali mEl’ (Vali stood with Sugriva lifted) over his head and on him, ‘kOl ondru vaangi, thoduthu naaNodu thOL uruthu iraaghavan thruandhaan’ Rama drew an arrow, strung it in his bow, bent the bow with his (muscular) shoulder and let it loose.

Vali wanted to strike Sugriva over the ground and lifted him above his head by his waist and neck. When he did so, his chest was fully exposed for Rama’s view, with the movements of Sugriva stilled for a while. Rama shot his arrow on Vali, without wasting time. It went through his chest ‘kadhaliyin kaniyinaik kazhiyach chErum oosiyin sendradhu’ like a needle that goes through a banana fruit.

The next moment the valiant Vali fell on the ground. ‘veyyavan tharu madhalayai midal kodu kavarum kai neghizhndhanan’ His hands lost their grip over Sugriva ‘negizhindhilan kadung kaNai kavardhal’ but they gripped the arrow that bore through his chest, in an attempt to stop it. His eyes rolled all over the place to see who could have aimed this powerful arrow on his chest. So looking, he would try to pluck the arrow with his hands. As it had already bore deep into his chest, he could not grip it with his paws. He used his teeth, nail, tail, hands and legs to pull it out. He could succeed in drawing it out a little that so that the name engraved on its other end was visible. And what did he see!

‘mummai saal ulagukku ellam moola mandhirathai’ (He saw) the ‘moola mantra’ of all the three worlds. ‘thammayE thamarkku nalgum thanip perum padhathai’ one that gives itself unto those who seek Him. The name Rama was written on the arrow. Vali laughed aloud. ‘The very lineage of Sun – to which Rama belonged – has lost its name with the birth of this Rama,’ he thought. ‘veLgidum.’ He felt ashamed for Rama. ‘magudam saaikkum.’ He would tilt his head to a side as if in deep contemplation. ‘vedipadach chirikkum.’ Laugh like thunder. ‘uLgidum.’ Think it over and over again. ‘idhuvum thaan Or Ongu aramO endru unnum.’ ‘Is this (aiming an arrow at me from hiding) is also a high form of maintaining Dharma’, he would ponder.

When Vali was lying on the ground, looking all around, Rama came out and walked towards him with his mighty bow in his hand, with Lakshmana following him. ‘vaaimayum marabum kaathu man uyir thurandha vaLLal thooyavan maindhanE,’ he addressed Rama. O sire! The son of the great king who stood for truth and gave his life up because he did not want to go back on his words! ‘nee bharadhan mun thOndrinaayE’ (what a shame) that you were born before Bharata (as his elder brother).

The poetry of Kamban just races ahead. One can actually feel the heat rising from Vali’s disappointed heart if one reads the verses aloud. Let the plaintiff speak for himself now.

When ‘My Lord’ becomes the accused

‘How can you do such a thing to me!’ Vali started his arguments, his skills of reasoning, logic and erudition touching a new high in his final peroration. ‘You come of a high lineage. You are highly educated. You have the right to govern all the three worlds. You are supposed to protect all the worlds. How can you go astray like this!

Your entire race is known for Dharma and justice. Is it possible that you have lost your senses after you lost Janaka’s daughter, your very soul, your wife, in the jungle? Has her estrangement caused your sense of justice to go off track? ‘arakkar Or azhivu seydhu kazhivarEl adharkku veru Or kurakku inaththu arasaik kolla manu neri kooritru uNdO?’ If some Rakshasa causes injustice to you, are you supposed to punish a totally unrelated monkey-king? Has your Manu Dharma taught you to do so? ‘irakkam engu uguthanai?’ Where have you shed your compassion? ‘en paal ep pizhai kaNdaai appa?’ What was the fault that you found me guilty of? ‘parak kazhi idhu nee poondaal,’ If you become blameworthy, ‘pugazhai yaar parikkar paalaar?’ who is the one that is to be found fit for all fame and glory?

‘kootu oruvarayum veNdaak kotrava!’ O King, who does not need the aid of an ally (when you fight your enemy), ‘petra thaadhai pootiya selvam aangE thambikkuk koduthup pondhu’ To your younger brother you gave the kingdom that was given to you by your father. ‘naatu oru karumam seydhaai.’ You thus did a wonderful thing in the civilised society. ‘embikku iv arasai nalgi’ By giving this kingdom to my younger brother, ‘kaatu oru karumam seydhaai’ you (indeed) did something wonderful in the jungle as well. ‘karumamdhaan idan mEl uNdO?’ What other grand deeds can you think of doing?

When two warriors are engaged in a battle, the good and the wise must consider both as equally related to him. It is not right to take sides Rama. Your sympathy went with my brother and you aimed your arrow from hiding. More over, ‘seyalaich chetra pagai theruvan therindhu, ayalaip patrith thuNai amaindhaai enin,’ If it was your intention to make Sugriva an ally of yours in your effort to vanquish your enemy, ‘puyalaip patrum ap pongu ari pOkki’ instead of associating with a lion that could fell a (cloudlike or storm-like) elephant ‘muyalaip patruvadhu enna muyarchiyO?’ what is this attempt of yours, in trying to get the friendship of a rabbit?

This argument is a bit elaborate in Valmiki Ramayana. Vali speaks of his prowess. “I would have brought (back) your wife (the princess of Mithila) to you in a single day, had you but moved me in this behalf before; for it is for this that I have been killed by you, keen as you were to oblige Sugriva. Nay, tying round the neck the evil-minded ogre, Ravana, who stole away your wife, I would have handed him over to you without his being killed in battle. I could have brought back at your command the princess of Mithila even if she had been kept in a place surrounded by sea water…” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 17, Sloka 48-51)

What we have presented above, with the exception of the first paragraph and the last one, are the original contributions of Kamban, which are not found in Valmiki. If one carefully observes, he has not included a few of the points argued in Valmiki. He, however, has included an important point about Sugriva’s condition.

When ‘My Lord’ becomes the accused…II

Vali starts with an accusation. Rama answers them. Vali contests the validity of Rama’s arguments and Rama explains how and why Vali is at fault. Vali then realises his faults. Therefore Vali is shown arguing his case against the Lord twice. One of the significant points that Kamban omitted in the first set of arguments – a case against Rama – is this.

“My skin (in other words, the skin of a monkey) is not permitted to be worn by the virtuous; my hair and bones (too) are precluded from use and my flesh is not permitted to be partaken of by those practising virtue like you. (Only) the following five (species of) animals endowed with five claws (on each paw) viz., the rhinoceros, the porcupine, the iguana and the hare, the turtle being the fifth, are permitted to be partaken of by (meat-eaters). The wise does not even touch my skin and bones either, O Rama, while my flesh is not (at all) worth eating. Yet I, an animal endowed with five claws (and therefore not fit to be partaken of) have been (wantonly) killed (by you).” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 17, Sloka 38-40)

When I am not worth eating or when my skin or hair is of no use to the humankind, why did you choose to kill me? You cannot therefore say that I am an animal and therefore you killed me, as a hunter kills an animal. Even if you do so, you have to accept that your hunting me was wanton.

This argument is absent in Kamban because he is going to treat this very concept of ‘being an animal’ from an entirely different standpoint. More over, as Sri VVS Aiyar points out “The second and final argument of Valmiki’s Rama - that he, as a Kshatriya, was quite at liberty to kill, in whatever manner he pleases, Vali – who is no more than a monkey – lacks tenderness and truth and is unworthy of the character of Rama.”

I am not tired of repeating one thing. The poetry of Kamban is so rich in its verve, rhythm and expression that one can actually feel the presence of Vali, his jibes, taunts and pleads. He has very carefully selected the arguments of Vali from his predecessor while adding his own, paying attention only to the moral aspect of the question, both when Vali speaks and when Rama justifies.

That is why he is so very careful about the order of events and in complementing the original. Take the case of Sugriva for instance. One does not know what Sugriva was doing when Vali was shooting his verbal darts at Rama. Kamban remembers to mention that. He was unable to see blood gushing out of the wound from his brother’s chest, though he was afraid of him and was going through hell under his tortuous hands. He swoons at the sight of blood pouring forth from Vali’s chest. ‘udan pirappu ennum paasathaal piNippuNda ath thambiyum,’ that younger brother whose bonds as a brother were strong, ‘pasung kaN nEsath thaaraigal sori thara nedu nilam sErndhaan’ fell on the ground, his tender eyes raining his tears of love and swooned.

That presents a really touching picture. Remember how Vibishana was affected by the death of his brother? Hate as you may, blood is really thicker than water. We will elaborate on this when we take up Sugriva once when the screen is down on Vali episode.

Back to our Lord. He is the defendant now.

Who has the authority of whom?

Rama in Valmiki opens by saying that he has the authority of Bharata to punish wrongdoers. “This (entire) globe including mountains, forests and woodlands belongs to the scions of Ikswaku (having been bequeathed to them by their progenitor, Manu). The right of punishing and rewarding the beasts, birds and human beings (of this earth) too vests in them. Bharata – whose mind is set on virtue, who is truthful and guileless (nay) who knows the truth about righteousness, self-gratification and is intent on chastising the evildoers and recompensing the virtuous – rules over the earth. He (Bharata) is a king in whom prudence and humility both are present (in an equal degree), nay, in whom truthfulness is firmly established as also valour as obtained in the scriptures and who has an idea of time and place. Having received his command for the propagation of righteousness we as well as other rulers of the world range the entire globe, keen as we are to promote virtue.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 6-9)

Dear friends, when studying such great questions one has to be dispassionate and view and weigh the arguments purely on the basis of the text and the way they are interpreted and argued for and against by scholars whose erudition has been established and proved beyond doubt and accepted widely.

One common question asked on this opening argument of Rama is, ‘When did Bharata give Rama such an authority?’ Though Srinivasa Sastriyar feels that this claim of Sri Rama is highly imperialistic (“naked imperialism” to quote him in his own words) he also feels that the values prevalent and predominant in another age should not be seen from the angle of another age whose values have changed a lot. Rama’s was an age of monarchy and we live in times where democracy prevails. The ruler is no more the fighter as well. The ruler is not required any more to head his army and lead it himself to the warfront. That is a very simple difference, just for a start. Therefore, what Rama said has to be viewed with reference to his time as well, is what he feels.

And then he cites the commentary of Govindaraja. “It follows, he (Govindaraja) says, from the very fact that Bharata has assumed sovereignty that all his kinsmen had a share of that sovereignty. They could and should go and do in his absence what he would have done if he had been on the spot.”

Sastriyar then quotes another commentator and authority on Valmiki Ramayana, Tilaka. He says, “The comment in Tilaka is a little more clever. He anticipates some of the points that we would make. He says as follows: First of all, Sri Rama says that he has got power from Bharata to do this. Therefore, although to our knowledge Bharata did not give such authority, we may infer from it the existence of such a commission. Secondly, he says, ‘When Bharata was king, some of the powers of the king also spread out to all his relations. So Rama had a share of it and he could have done it.’ Thirdly, he says what I pointed out before on one occasion, viz., that Rama had appointed Bharata Regent, and therefore might take power. As a matter of fact, when Bharata and Rama concluded their debate it was arranged that Rama should, in reality, that is in law, be king and that Bharata should be only Regent. Therefore, Bharata held delegated authority and the man who delegated it certainly could act for him. You cannot dispute his right. Rama being himself the delegating authority could on occasion resume it whenever he liked.”

Kamban doesn’t touch upon this argument at all. For him there is no question of jurisdiction. Kamban’s Vali himself accepts the jurisdiction and authority of Rama, even while chiding him. We will continue on that.

Hari Krishnan