Vali, the father and husband

Whatever be the position, the power, the strength that a person enjoys, only prudence, wisdom and his good deeds stand him in good stead and leave him in a relatively better state of mind – if not complete peace, for that needs devotion and realisation too – at the time of his death. Realisation of where the line of power ends, realisation of the fact that Time flows on and on mercilessly, without waiting for anyone.

Sri Rama puts this beautifully when comforting Sugriva, Tara and others on the death of Vali. He says, “The Time-Spirit has no kinship, friendship or affinity with anyone nor is there any means of bringing It under control nor (again) can one’s prowess prevail against It. Nor is God, who is the Cause (of all), subject to the control of an individual soul. By a discerning man everything should be looked upon as an evolute of the Time-Spirit.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 25, Sloka 7-8)

Vali, who is guilty of over-indulgence and frittering away his power during his lifetime, is now worried about Tara and more particularly Angada. Will Sugriva take kindly to them? Will they be safe? Will they suffer disrespect and humility because of his misdeeds? Will Sugriva nurture his hatred and subject his survivors to ill will and malice? That is the reason why he sought the protection of Rama. That is why he wanted Rama to be the protector of Sugriva and mentor of Angada. Now we see the same fears once again raising their heads in his solicitation to Sugriva.

“See fallen on the ground this Angada, who is not only deserving of (all) comfort but has (actually) been brought up in comfort (nay) whose countenance is bathed in tears and who though a (mere) boy, is not at all childish.” (Ibid, Canto 22, Sloka 8) Remember what Vali told Rama about Angada? “Angada (son of Tara) who is still young, though exceptionally mighty, and whose judgment has not yet matured…” (Ibid, Canto 18, Sloka 50) But when talking about the same Angada to Sugriva, Vali says he “is not at all childish”. One who can understand a father’s heart will not have any difficulty in sympathising with Vali for this difference when speaking to different people.

“Protect in every way on all sides like a son sprung from your own loins my son – (Angada) who is dearer than life (to me), and is (now) going to be bereft of me, so that nothing may remain lacking to him. Be you his father, donor and protector too in everyway as also his refuge in dangers, as I have been, O ruler of monkeys.” (Ibid, Canto 22, Sloka 9-10)

Let Angada not feel the difference. Be his father. And, listen to Tara. She is so wise. “Nay, this Tara (daughter of Susena) is extremely clever in discerning the most profound matters as well as in deciphering the meaning of portents of various kinds as also in all other ways. That which she recommends as right should be unhesitatingly done (by you). No opinion of Tara turns out to be wrong.” (Ibid, Canto 22, Sloka 13-14)

May you be guided by her wisdom. That is, do not take lightly of her because I was guilty of depriving your wife. Once again compare this with Vali’s request to Rama. “(Nay), you should handle the situation in such a way that Sugriva may not treat with disrespect poor Tara, mentioned above, who is guilty only because I have been guilty (of persecuting him).” (Ibid, Canto 18, Sloka 55)

The Slokas occurring in different Cantos – when juxtaposed and read – give an insight into the innermost recesses of that wounded soul, Vali.

The doors of heaven are wide open

Vali then handed the gold chain given to him by Indra that was supposed to give the wearer half the strength of the enemy he encounters, to Sugriva. “Also wear this ethereal chain of gold, O Sugriva; for the exalted goddess of victory abides in it and may leave it for good (if it remains on my dead body) when I am dead.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 22, Sloka 16) Wear this for the goddess presiding over it would leave it, if the chain is left on my dead body and thus defiled. Soon after the chain of gold is removed from his body, Vali dies.

The verses of Kamban however, do not show Vali in such a desperate mood, not a single word of suspicion or uncertainty expressed about the possibility of Sugriva ill-treating Tara or Angada. We see him speaking with the maturity of a realised soul. He does not say anything about how Sugriva should treat Tara or protect Angada. In fact these two names are not mentioned at all in his speech either to Rama or to Sugriva.

We see the advices that Vali gives to Sugriva and Angada centre around just two points here. ‘Do not lament over my death. I am only leaving for good. Never falter in your duty to this person, Rama. Help him in his mission. That is your duty. That is what you are supposed to do.’

Vali (in Kamba Ramayana) speaks as a person who is convinced with the intentions of Sugriva and who is clear in his mind about what he would and would not do to them after his death. It is therefore that we do not find any reference to Angada or Tara when he speaks to Sugriva. After he completed saying whatever he wanted to say to Sugriva, he turns to Rama and tells him ‘ மன்னவர்க்கு அரசன் மைந்த ! ’ O son of king of kings! (Son of Dasaratha!) ‘ மற்று இவன் சுற்றத்தோடும் உன் அடைக்கலம் ’ this Sugriva, with all his kith and kin, take refuge in you. It is for you to protect them.’ ‘என்று உய்த்தே, உயர் கரம் உச்சி வைத்தான் ’ So saying, he raised his hand and touched Sugriva’s head, blessing him.

It is to be seen here that he asks Sugriva to bring Angada to his presence. That itself is a testimony of his trust. Once again, he gives his advice to Angada, on similar lines as given to Sugriva. Turning to Rama he said, ‘This is Angada, my son. ‘நீநிற நிருதர் என்னும் துய் அடை கனலி அன்ன தோளினன்.’ He possesses shoulders of fire that would turn to embers the rakshasas like pieces of cotton. ‘தொழிலும் தூயன்’ He is pure in his deeds. ‘ உன் கையடை ஆகும்.’ Please take him under your protection.

This supplication does not say that this is required because Vali was not sure of what Sugriva would do. It simply stops with seeking the protection of Rama for Angada as he sought for Sugriva. With those words, Vali dies. The verses do not speak anything about Tara. Kamban changes the order of events and makes Tara to come only after Vali dies.

When Vali solicited the protection of Rama for Angada, Rama did something that was unexpected and remarkable. That stands in testimony to the trust that he placed in Angada, apart from conferring honours on Angada.

The sword of Rama

Kamban gives a new dimension to trust and trustworthiness with the gesture of Rama. ‘தன்னடி ஆழ்தலோடும், தாமரைத் தடங்கணானும்’ when Angada fell at his feet, the lotus eyed Rama ‘ பொன்னுடை வாளை நீட்டி நீயிது பொறுத்தி என்றான்’ extended his sword and told Angada, ‘bear this.’

There are two varying interpretations of this line. Some feel that Rama, with the sword in hand, extended it towards Angada, pointing it to him (implying his killing of Vali) and told ‘bear this’. In other words, ‘bear with me for this.’ They feel that Rama apologises to Angada and admire his ability to come down from his exalted stature and bend before a youngster and asking for his pardon for having killed his father. He is able to see the agony in the heart of Angada and therefore he apologies to him, is what they say, to support their interpretation.

But this interpretation is somewhat laboured. No explanation or interpretation, however good it may be, can be considered good unless it is correct and appropriate also. It should have the backing of the Poet. It should have other incidents or events to support that claim. There should be internal evidence to prove that point. Sadly, there is nothing to support this argument excepting the third line of the verse that says ‘என்னலும் உலகம் ஏழும் ஏத்தின.’ When Rama said this, all the seven worlds praised him. What is there in the simple act of handing over a sword for all the seven worlds to praise him, the ‘advocates of apology’ ask. According to them, the seven worlds praised Rama because he apologised to Angada.

We don’t deny the fact that the explanation as it is, is good. However, one question arises. What is the need for Rama to draw out his sword and point to Vali with it, while he can simply point to him with his finger? One has to remember Rama is an archer and always carries the bow in his hand and therefore his sword would necessarily be hanging from his side, about his waist, and will not be always in his hand, as does the bow. Therefore, if he were to point to Vali with his sword, he should first draw it out of the sheath. Why should he go through all this trouble for a simple act of pointing to Vali! That makes the ‘interpretation as apology’ rather weak.

And when apology is sought for, it means that Rama was sorry for what he did. But Rama says that he killed Vali, without even the trace of feeling guilty about it. “No agony is felt by me or remorse for what I have done,” is what Rama says to Vali when he was giving out his reasons for killing him from behind a tree. (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 37). And therefore, there is no reason why he should apologise. There is no reason to believe that he apologised out of pity for Angada, to pacify his heart. Vali has already told Angada that Rama was not at fault and that he should take to him as his benefactor. Angada has accepted that and has now fallen at the feet of Rama. Pity is therefore no reason for seeking apology when none involved feels that Rama is at fault. In the circumstances, the ‘apology’ idea sounds rather incongruous, though it indeed is very good.

Then what was the intention of Rama in handing over his sword to Angada? Is there any internal evidence to prove that stand? Why should at all he hand his sword to Angada? Was handing over the sword a simple act? Was there nothing in it for ‘all the seven worlds to praise?’

Assurance, not an apology

Remember, Rama killed the father moments ago and is now giving his sword to the son. That is no small thing.

Let’s look at the line once again. ‘ponnudai vaaLai neeti nee idhu poruthi endraan’. The word for word meaning of the line would be – ‘pon’ golden ‘udai vaaLai’ sword ‘neeti’ extending (or) pointing – the word means both. ‘nee’ you ‘idhu’ this ‘poruthi’ take (or) bear ‘endraan’ told. Bear is the English equivalent that conveys both the meanings. He pointed his sword and told ‘bear this.’ Or, he extended his sword and said ‘bear this.’

Both sound correct and acceptable. However, we have to rewrite the meaning of the first interpretation as ‘He pointed (with) his sword and told ‘bear (with me for) this.’ Further, where did he point? That is a question, the answer for which has to be assumed, with the necessity of supplying words that are not there in the verse. Therefore the first interpretation necessitates the insertion of the phrase, ‘towards Vali’ without which the intended shade cannot be obtained. But what supports the necessity to supply this phrase?

Moreover, as we saw already, Rama did not have to draw his sword to point it towards Vali, when he could have done so easily with a finger. Further, there is no significance in pointing to a person with a sword rather than with the hand.

A simple and direct reading of the verse would mean, ‘Rama extended (‘gave’ is the implied meaning) his sword and told Angada, ‘take it.’ It is not that easy a situation and that simple an act that did not merit the ‘praise of all the seven worlds’ as the ‘advocates of apology’ seem to believe. Remember, Rama killed the father moments ago and is now giving his sword to the son. That is no small thing. It has to be remembered that the sword is a weapon and could be used against the person who is giving it. Angada was not armed at the moment. Arming him, whose father was killed by the very same person who was handing over his sword, was not a small thing.

Just look at the scene. Vali is lying down, mortally wounded and life is flowing out of him. Angada is lamenting. Vali advises Angada not to lament for his death and justifies the act of Rama. He advises him to serve Rama and also hands him over to Rama to be his mentor and protector, to reiterate, along with Sugriva. Angada accepts the advice of his father and falls at the feet of Rama. If Rama is handing his sword to Angada, what does it convey?

It says, ‘Here, Angada, take my sword. I trust you and therefore hand this to you. You are accepted as my ward.’ Besides that, of all the weapons the sword is considered to be the symbol of strength, power and authority. That is why even in this age of machine guns, it continues to be a part of the outfit of Chiefs and other senior members of Army, who sport it, carry it in ceremonial parades and other important occasions. It is not replaced by the gun as yet in such occasions!

Therefore, it is apparent that Rama appoints Angada as the Prince Regent by this simple ceremony. An assurance to the departing soul that everything would be taken care, Sugriva would be anointed as the King and Angada would be the Prince Regent. If we look at the second part of the third line and the fourth line of the verse it says ‘iRandhu vaali an nilai thuRandhu vaanukku appurathu ulagan aanaan.’ Vali left for his heavenly abode (on seeing that). Vali was happy to see the significance of what Rama did and died in peace, only after seeing this.

Right. Is there any internal evidence for Angada continuing to carry the sword of Rama? Yes. Very much. Look at the verse describing the coronation of Rama. The very first line says, ‘ariyaNai anuman thaanga,’ Hanuman bore (supported) the throne; ‘angadhan udai vaaL Endha,’ Angada bore the sword of Rama. Is this not the sword that was handed over to him at the time of Vali Vadham? Does it require any more argument?

It was not an apology that Rama sought. It was an assurance that he gave to the departing soul.

Why weaker of the two?

Let’s now take up the question of why Rama chose a comparatively weaker ally, Sugriva, who did not have any means of helping him when they entered into friendship. Sugriva was fleeing away from Vali from place to place and did not possess any great physical power, nor an army, nor access to the portals of power. His only blessing at that time was Hanuman, who was always with him. But even Hanuman was not of very great help at that time, for he was under the spell of the curse that Rishis pronounced on him to stop his mischief at a very tender age, that made him unaware of his own strength, until at a very later date when Jambavan reminded him of it. The point is Hanuman was respected more for his wisdom, communication skills and other knowledge oriented faculties of his rather than physical might, before Jambavan reminded him of his strength.

Otherwise, he would not have also been fleeing all over the world along with Sugriva, even though he was more powerful than Vali in many respects. He had boons from almost all the celestials and the Trinity, was blessed with immortality and was supreme of all monkeys, including Vali. Why did he not fight with Vali and vanquish him there and then? This question is asked by Sri Rama himself, in the Uttara Kanda, after his coronation, when Agastya visits him.

“Sri Rama then interrogated the sage having his abode in the southern quarter; and full of humility, with joined palms, He addressed the following significant words to him: “Incomparable indeed was the aforesaid might of Vali and Ravana. The might of the aforesaid two warriors was, however, not equal to Hanuman; such indeed is my opinion. Heroism, cleverness, strength, firmness, sagacity, prudence and prowess and power have taken up their abode in Hanuman. ……… I wonder wherefore, when hostility sprang up (between Sugriva and Vali), Vali was not consumed as a tree (by fire) by Hanuman with a desire to please Sugriva. I think, Hanuman was not conscious of his own might in that he (simply) watched Sugriva (now the supreme ruler of the monkeys), who was dearer to him than his life, suffering hardships in exile.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Uttara Kanda, Canto 35, Sloka 1-3, 11-12)

Sage Agastya replies to this question as follows. “What you say regarding Hanuman is true, O jewel among the Raghus! None else is equal to him in might, speed or intelligence. An imprecation was, however, pronounced on him in the past by ascetics…” (Ibid, Sloka 15, 16) And then Agastya narrates the story of Hanuman.

Just think of it. It was Hanuman who suggested to Sugriva that they could be safe in Rishyamuka Parvata, remembering that Vali could not enter there. But it takes him a long time before he thinks of this solution. Had he suggested this at the beginning itself, it would have saved poor Sugriva and his friends (including Hanuman himself) from running everywhere and being beaten repeatedly everywhere by Vali. Amnesia. That’s the answer.

Therefore, Sugriva was very, very weak when Rama made friends with him. Even his only source of strength, his closest friend Hanuman, who had grown with him from boyhood like fire and wind, was of not much use at that time. Sugriva does mention to Rama that Vali had defeated Ravana (in Valmiki Ramayana) and Hanuman gives this piece of information in Kamban, to Rama.

What then stopped Rama from seeking the friendship of Vali who was far superior, who was in power and who had the army at his disposal, and most of all who had already defeated Ravana?

Sugriva and Vibishana Saranagathi

When we opened this discussion on the Vali Episode, we started with the suggestion of Kabandha who told Rama that he would need the help of someone to accomplish his endeavour of vanquishing Ravana and retrieving Sita. He suggested the name of Sugriva and told Rama that Sugriva is in an almost similar mental state – of being chased away from kingdom and living estranged from wife – as that of Rama and will be able to empathise with him much better, as they have at least one point in common.

It has to be remembered here that the fact Vali established his might over Ravana was revealed to Rama – both in Valmiki and Kamban – only after the promise of friendship is made. In Valmiki, the friendship is made before fire. But Kamban does not mention that they became friends with fire as ‘saakshi’. It was just words of assurance and nothing more than that. The word fire is not mentioned in the verse. Let’s see the verse in question once again.

‘endra ak kurakku vEndhanai iraamanum irangi nOkki,’ Rama looked at the Vanara king with eyes full of compassion ‘undhanakku uriya inba thunbangal’ whatever be your pleasures and pains; ‘uLLa mun naaL sendrana pOga mEl vandhu uruvana theerpal’ whatever be your pains originating from the past or arising in the future, I will alleviate. ‘anna nindrana enakkum nirkkum nEr ena mozhiyum nEraa.’ All such (pains and pleasures) are mine too and he gave his word for it. Your pleasures are my pleasures and all your past, present and future pains are mine. I will do everything in my power to rid you of them.

There was a question raised here, on this point. “Whoever is your friend, even if they are bad (and of questionable character) is my friend. 'un kilai enadhu.' Your relatives are mine” 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 kinda 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....” was the question raised by a reader. (See: Was he selfish?)

This question has to be gone into first before answering why he chose the weaker of the two.

With minor differences, Vibishana and Sugriva are saranagathas – who sought refuge in the Lord. We have seen that Kamban has built up his drama mainly on the theme that Sugriva was granted refuge. Even in Valmiki Ramayana Sugriva says that he is a ‘dasa’ of Rama, though the latter treats him as his friend. In his fight against Ravana, Sugriva tells him: “I am a friend and servant of Sri Rama, O ogre! You shall not be spared this day… (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 40, Sloka 10)

Srinivasa Sastriyar interprets this Sloka as follows. “You know who I am. Rama and I are allies. I have come here to assist him in his cause. He regards me as an ally, as if I were a co-ordinate part. Really, I am his ‘dasa’. Though in his judgement an ally, I am truly at heart his ‘dasa’.”

Well, there are three aspects to consider why Rama told Sugriva, ‘Whoever is your friend, even if they are bad (and of questionable character) is my friend’.

Sugriva and Vibishana Saranagathi II

We are discussing the reason why Rama told Sugriva ‘Whoever is your friend, even if they are bad (and of questionable character) is my friend.’ Does this not sound in violation of his declared purpose of standing by the side of Dharma? Would he accept even bad people, if it suits his convenience?

Number one. When Vibishana came to Sri Rama, seeking Saranagathi, he was clear and convinced in his mind about the divine nature of Rama. “I am the youngest (half) brother of Ravana and having been insulted by him, have sought you, who are capable of affording shelter to all created beings, as my refuge. (The city of) Lanka has been abandoned by me as well as my friends and possessions. My sovereignty, nay even life and amenities are (now) centred in you,” is how he starts his supplication. (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 19, Sloka 5)

Rama, declared moments earlier to Sugriva (as we have seen before) “I vouchsafe security against all living beings to him who comes to me only once and seek protection (from me), saying ‘I am yours’; such is my vow. Bring him (hither), O jewel among men, be he Vibishana or Ravana himself, O Sugriva! Security has (already) been granted in his favour by me.” (Ibid, Sloka 33-34)

‘It is my vow,’ says Rama ‘to protect anyone who seeks refuge in me, just only once.’ Well, Vibishana was so very clear in his mind and therefore he didn’t have to be spoken with words of assurance and he was accepted.

But in the case of Sugriva, remember that Rama went to him, seeking his help. But Sugriva was in a confused state of mind; at that time he did not even properly respond to Rama when his help was sought. Therefore, it became necessary for Rama to comfort him. But then, if he says, ‘I will accept your friends as mine, even if they are bad,’ does it mean that he would stand even by the bad and wicked? Then what happens to his Dharma?

Number two. It should be understood very clearly that when such an assurance was made, what Rama really meant was, ‘I will not look for credentials from the person who seeks protection. That is, his past is immaterial to me.’ And then what happens to the person if he was really bad? Once he surrenders unto Him, it is not possible for the protected to pursue his old ways! After all, when would a person – be he good or bad – seek refuge unto him? Only after the realisation that what he was doing was wrong. That is why the Lord says in Gita –

sarva dharman partiyajya mam ekam saranam vraja
aham tva sarvapapebhyo moksayisyami ma sucah

When he says 'Abandon all your Dharma and come unto me,' does it mean, 'You can continue to plunder, murder and commit all kinds of things that would disturb the equanimity of your surrounding, AFTER you surrender unto me!' No. One CANNOT simply continue to do that after he seeks his refuge. How can anyone continue to be with the devil, when once he is protected by the Lord! It is simply not possible for anyone to be bad, after surrender unto Him!

Let us take a test case. He tells Sugriva be he Vibishana or Ravana himself, O Sugriva! Security has (already) been granted. Supposing Ravana came to him, seeking his refuge, how would he have reacted? Would he have accepted him, and if so would it have been without preconditions? Is there any evidence in Ramayana to prove that point?

Comforting, not compromising

Opportunities were indeed given by Rama for Ravana to amend his ways twice, directly. This is apart from the messages conveyed by Hanuman and Sugriva to surrender to Rama. Before the commencement of the war, Rama sent Angada as his emissary with the message ‘deviyai viduga.’ Give back Sita. ‘andrEl’ Or else, ‘seruk kaLathu edhirndhu,’ meet me in the battlefront and ‘aaviyai viduga’ give up your life.

‘I will spare you if you return Sita to me,’ was the first message sent through Angada. Lakshmana was not for sending emissaries at a time when they have all arrived in Lanka and preparations for war were on. ‘What is the purpose?’ protested Lakshmana. ‘He won’t listen. Then why should you send a messenger now, at this stage? ‘irakkamadhu izhukkaam endraan iLayavan’ Your magnanimity at this time would be misread as your cowardice. Therefore don’t send a messenger.’

The answer that Rama made to Lakshmana very beautifully sums up his character, calibre and steadfast adherence to Dharma. ‘ayarthilen.’ Do not think I am confused. ‘mudivum ahdhe.’ I know that in the end Ravana would not come to terms. ‘aayinum’ Even then, ‘nayath thurai noolin needhi naam thurandhu amaidal nandrO?’ will it be right on our part to swerve from the great books of justice (given to us by Brahaspathi, Sukracharya etc.) ‘buyath thurai valiyarEnum’ Even if one is stronger in all respects, ‘poraiyodum porundhi vaazhdhal sayath thurai’ it is the way of the winner to observe patience and prudence.

‘I will not close any door that leads to peace and avoidance of war. I will make all attempts to stop a war. I will not resort to the use of force and exhibit my strength unless it is absolutely warranted by the situation.’

We see Rama giving out the same message to Ravana in the battlefield. This happens after Ravana was defeated in the first battle and was sent back with that famous statement, ‘indru pOi naaLai vaa’ (Go for the day and come back tomorrow). At that time he says that he is prepared to spare Ravana, if he accedes to two conditions. ‘sirayil vaithavaL thannai vittu’ Set her free, whom you imprisoned and ‘devar murayil vaithu nin thambiyai iraakadhar mudhaliyOr irayil vaithu’ make your younger brother (Vibishana) the king of rakshasas and others and also ‘avarkku Eval seydhu iruthiyEl’ accept him and serve him as your master and king. If you accede to these two conditions, I will spare you. Otherwise, come tomorrow for war. In other words, ‘I will protect you if you make amends.’

Coming back to our discussion on Rama’s assurance to Sugriva ‘Whoever is your friend, even if they are bad (and of questionable character) is my friend.’ The offer to protect Ravana, made twice, reiterates what we have been discussing, namely, ‘I will not go into your past. That is immaterial to me. If you come to me seeking my protection, I will without a second thought grant it.’ And the underlying message is that ‘You cannot continue to do what you were doing before.’

In the case of Sugriva, he was not clear in his mind, unlike Vibishana. But nonetheless he sought His protection. 'That is sufficient to me' is the message that the Lord conveys. The words of Rama 'theeyare eninum unnodu utraar enakkum utraar' do not mean 'I don't mind if your friends are wicked. Let them continue to be wicked even after they come to me. I will protect them.'

Sugriva was agitated, was completely in a state of mental derangement. At such a time, it is the job of the protector to assure complete protection, even if he has to go overboard. The above verse of Kamban should be read in the context of Gita, that we discussed yesterday.

It wouldn’t therefore mean that Rama was prepared to compromise on Dharma when it suited him. More over, one who was selfish would have chosen Vali for an ally, instead

Do ends justify means?

As we have been discussing earlier, Rama if he were really selfish, would have shifted his preference to Vali as against Sugriva. If it was his purpose to recover Sita alone, he would have resorted to that course only. Why should one have to undergo all the trouble when you have a person here, who is as good as a devotee, who admires you, who secretly worships you and who has established a clear superiority over your enemy, ready and available to do the job for you?

In fact that’s what even Vali asked Rama. “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)

Kamban’s Vali, who initially chided him for his vain attempt in allying himself with Sugriva, laments during the hour of his death that it was his misfortune that he could not get an opportunity to be of service to Rama. ‘matru ilEn eninum maaya arakkanai vaalin patri’ Even if I could not do other things, I would have tied that demon with my tail, ‘kotrava nin kaN thandhu’ and would have produced him before you. ‘kurakku iyal thozhilum kaatap petrilEn’ Alas, it is my misfortune that I could not do so.

Victory was minutes away for Sri Rama, had he chosen to change his mind, once he came to know that Vali was the better of the two. Agreed that he has given his word to Sugriva before he came to know of the prowess of Vali. He could have changed his mind, if he were really selfish! After all that is what we are witnessing in today’s scenario, be it politics or business or any other walk of life. Who cares for how things are to be done? Ends justify means. If the results are good, then the way one adopts to reach the goal need not be gone into. If the result is good, the road that leads to it must also be considered good, even if it is really not.

That was one aspect and only one aspect of the answer. But that cannot be considered to be wholly right. Rama would not have chosen Vali, even if the information that he was better was made known to him, before he gave word to Sugriva. When speaking of a character like Rama, such a possibility is not even imaginable.

If Rama established Dharma and demanded it from others too, the demand that he made on himself was much more in adhering to the principles. For him the ends have to be good and the means to attain those ends should also be, necessarily, good. What he needed here was assistance in his endeavour and not an alternative for his own self. Rama could not have thought of such a course. Even if he had done so, Sita would not have approved it!

Right is right

If retrieval of Sita was important for Rama, the way it should be done was more important for him. It was important for him that she should be set free from Ravana, by his own valour, his own deeds and his own efforts. No warrior worth his name would like to engage the services of a third person to do this job and Rama was very particular about it. Though he doesn’t say so openly anywhere, either in Valmiki or Kamban, his heart is well echoed and articulated in the words of Sita, when she spoke to Hanuman in the Asoka Vana.

Hanuman intended to take Sita back from Lanka and hand her over to Rama. ‘I will take you back to him,’ said Hanuman. ‘aRindhu idai arakkar thodarvaargaL uLaraamEl’ If the rakshasas come to know (of the fact that you are being taken back) and dare follow me, ‘muRindhu udhira noori en mana sinam mudippEn’ I will kill them all and quench my anger. ‘neRindha kuzhal nin nilamai kaNdum,’ After seeing the condition in which you live here, ‘nediyOn paal verum kai peyaren’ I will not return empty handed to (merely give a report to) Rama.

Sita, in her own motherliness refused it ever so gently, praising all the time Hanuman, assuring him that she didn’t doubt his ability to do so. Why would she not go with Hanuman? She says, ‘andriyum piridhu uLLadhu ondru.’ Above all, there is one more reason. ‘aariyan vendri vem silai maasu uNum?’ (If I return home with you like what you suggest) it would cause a slur on his bow. It would affect his reputation. It would affect his glory. ‘nandri enbadhu en?’ That will be the only good thing that would result. ‘vanjiththa naaigaLin nindra vanjanai neeyum ninaithaayO?’ If this dog of a Ravana brought me here stealthily unseen by others, do you think I should return from here stealthily, in the same manner?

‘I will not move from this place unless he comes here, wage a war against Ravana, kill him and I see crows pecking at his eyes that saw me. If at all I thought of getting away from this place, I would have done so myself. ‘allal maakaL ilangai adhu aagumO’ Not this small island of Lanka ruled by tortuous people; ‘ellai neetha ulagangaL yaavayum en sollinaal suduvEn’ I will burn this entire universe with a single word of mine. But I desist from doing so. You know why? ‘adhu thooyavan villin aatralukku maasu endru veesinEn.’ It would affect his reputation, if I come out of this prison by my own effort.

He should come; he should save me by his strength; by his efforts and by his fight with this demon. He should set me free. That is what is right. Therefore, I have not attempted doing any such thing. And therefore, I will not return with you. Please do not feel bad about it.’

How else would she feel, this wife of the greatest of all archers? And most importantly, the wife of a person who is the very embodiment of Dharma?

It was a natural decision for the person of Rama’s calibre to ally with Sugriva rather than with Vali. After all, he was guided by the dictum ‘right is right’ as against ‘might is right’ that has become the order of the in the present day world. And that gives out a clear message. What is to be achieved has to be good and the ways adopted to achieve that goal are to be necessarily good.

And then we mentioned about the element of hesitation in Rama not killing Vali during the first encounter that Sugriva had with him. When making crucial decisions, Rama was careful and thought it over and over again. He could not be influenced by anyone to make a particular decision. There are three such occasions in the Ramayana (including the Vali episode) when he displayed hesitation before making the final decision.

Prudence was his watchword

We were discussing the reason why Rama did not kill Vali during the first encounter between Sugriva and Vali. We mentioned that great commentators like Govindaraja feel that it really was not the inability of Rama to distinguish between Sugriva and Vali that stopped him from shooting his arrow. (See: Was it a dilemma?) It was Govindaraja who suggested this and he is the widest quoted and most respected of all commentators of Valmiki Ramayana.

One of our readers, Mr Ravi Venugopal, (Ravi.Venugopal@ONSTAR.com), raised the following question on the point that Rama would have hesitated to kill Vali. “Now, if the Lord had any such dilemma, He would have revealed so initially, It is my personal opinion that, the Lord would not even 'think' of going across his word, however small the timeframe would be. There is a purpose in Vali's death, forget Sugriva for now, just as a story to impart good moral life to all mankind, it was essential for Vali and Ravana to die at the hands of Rama.”

Well, Govindaraja did not mean that Rama wanted to go back on his word given to Sugriva. Let’s see once again what Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar remarked on this question. “Why did not Sri Rama kill Vali at once, the first time they met? I told you of Sri Rama’s difficulty. But you see nobody is willing to believe that Sri Rama was really in doubt as to how to distinguish between brothers. As a matter of fact, no commentator believes it. Both the commentators say ‘Oh, no no! Sri Rama could certainly have drawn a distinction between the two.” For one thing, when the fight was over and Sugriva was returning a humbled and defeated individual, he could easily have seen which was Vali. Besides, Hanuman was there and why not ask him? So you go and find all sorts of other reasons. ………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. ………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 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. But then he quickly made up his mind remembering that he had made a promise to kill him at once………”

Thinking twice before making a crucial decision is the character trait seen in Rama’s actions, right from the very beginning. We mentioned a total of three places where he thinks over and postpones the decision at least for moments. The first instance occurs in the Bala Kanda. You know that sage Viswamitra came to Dasaratha and requested him to send Rama with him to stand guard when he performed his Yaga against Marica and Subahu.

The ‘maiden’ kill

Tataka was the grandmother of Ravana. She was the mother of Marica and Subahu and therefore the latter two were the maternal uncles of Ravana…

Well, you know how displeased Viswamitra was when Dasaratha hesitated to send Rama and offered to come to the forest himself, to stand guard there, to protect the sacrifice of Viswamitra from demons. He was so angry and then Vasishtha had to intervene and convince Dasaratha of the benefits that would accrue to Rama if he accompanied Viswamitra to the forest.

‘I entrust them to you,’ said Dasaratha to Viswamitra. It may be noted here that Viswamitra asked only for Rama but Dasaratha sent Rama and Lakshmana both with them. Srinivasa Sastriyar says, “The commentator, hard put to it to explain the matter, says that Lakshmana is also included in the word Rama by Upalakshana, the Sanskritic equivalent of the English figure of speech, synecdoche. When Sri Rama is mentioned, Lakshmana is also included in it.” Such was the love and affection between these two brothers that they were considered inseparable and one could not be thought of without the other. But that is a discussion for another day.

‘vandha namibiyai thambi thannodum mundhai naan marai munikkuk kaati,’ (Dasaratha) showed Rama as also his brother who came with him (and told him) ‘nal thandhai nee thanith thaayum nee’ You are their father and mother. ‘ivarkku endhai thandanen’ I, who am their father, am giving them to you. ‘iyaindha seyga.’ Do whatever is good for them.

This verse is important in the context of what we are going to discuss. Viswamitra was told in the presence of Rama that the former was like their very father and mother. That is to say, Rama was supposed to carry out his orders as a son would carry out the orders of his parents.

When they walked into the forest, the sage was narrating about the cruel and unbearable acts of the demons. Though he was capable of handling these ogres himself, once he sat before the fire to perform the sacrifice he was not supposed to lose his temper or engage in any acts of war, even if it was defensive. Then the sage mentioned about Tataka. Tataka was the grandmother of Ravana. She was the mother of Marica and Subahu and therefore the latter two were the maternal uncles of Ravana.

‘ilangai arasan pani amaindhu,’ (Tataka) at the behest of Ravana ‘Or idayUra vilangal vali koNdu enadhu vELvi naligindraaL’ with her strength like that of a mountain, is committing all kinds of misdeeds to spoil my sacrifice. ‘alangal mugilE’ O the cloud with a garland! (an address to Rama, referring to his dark complexion and likening it to the rain bearing cloud) ‘avaL iv anga nilam engum,’ she wanders all over Anga ‘kulangalOdu adanga nani kondru thirigindraaL’ and is indulging in wanton killing of people on a massive scale.

Before Viswamitra could complete his words, there appeared Tataka. We know Rama did not kill her at once. We know what he thought of and why he hesitated. But the scene develops to show something more. It shows that Rama could not be influenced against his own will. It shows that he would not do a thing unless he is convinced first.

Let’s see the drama unfolding before us.

The ‘maiden kill’ II

Tataka roared before them. ‘It is my good fortune that you came my way. I am going to gobble up all of you,’ and she lifted her trident menacingly, to wipe them all the next moment. The situation was too dangerous. But Rama remained calm. He knew that Viswamitra would want him to slay her that very moment.

‘aNNal munivaRkku adhu karuthu eninum’ Rama thought, ‘I know that the sage wants me to kill her now. Even so,’ ‘aavi uN ena vadik kaNai thodukkilEn’ I will not shoot the sharpest of my arrows at her to take her life away. ‘thuN enum vinaith thozhil thodangi uLaLEnum’ Though (it is a fact that) she is about to venture upon a gruesome deed ‘peN ena manathidai perundhagai ninaithaan’ she is a woman (and so I will not kill a woman.)

I will not kill her, however bad she is described to be by the sage. If what the sage says is true and if she is indulging in wanton killing, how come the sage and his followers are still alive in this jungle? How come she has not finished them off, all these days? Rama must have thought in these lines. Viswamitra read his mind and said,

‘theedhu endru uLavai yaavayum seydhu’ She has committed all those deeds that are listed as sin. (She has exhausted the list of sins!) ‘emaik kOdhu endru uNdilaL.’ She did not eat us till now for we are mere sages and are not muscular enough to satiate her hunger. ‘ithanayE kurai.’ So that is what is lacking in us. We are nothing more than mere skeletons. That’s why we are alive. ‘yaadhu endru eNNuvadhu?’ What to think of her? Who is there to compare her misdeeds with? ‘ik kodiyaaLayum maadhu endru eNNuvadhO?’ Would you think this insensible, malevolent personification-of-cruelty as a ‘woman’ and desist from killing her?

Viswamitra then went on to describe who were all the sufferers of her cruelty. And also added a list of all those who slayed women who were cruel and committed sinful deeds in the past. Kyathi, wife of sage Brgu, who fell in love with rakshasas and went astray, was killed by Lord Vishnu. Kumathi (also known as Manthara, daughter of Virochana) who relished the flesh of any living being – including humans – was slayed by Indra. Therefore, do not think that it is not manly to kill a woman. Viswamitra gives a long, long list of reasons as to why she deserves to be killed and only after that Rama killed Tataka.

The point is, Dasaratha told Viswamitra in the presence of Rama that he (Viswamitra) was like the very father as well as mother of Rama and Lakshmana. Rama’s penchant for carrying out the order of his parents is the very theme around which Ramayana revolves. Therefore, Rama should have without a word carried out what Viswamitra desired. He didn’t. Viswamitra had then to give proof of her callousness. He had to give convincing reasons. He had to quote precedents of who all have done a similar deed to convince Rama of the correctness of what he was supposed to do.

And this was the same Viswamitra, at whose anger the entire earth shook and all the directions darkened, simply because Dasaratha gave an alternative. He didn’t refuse what Viswamitra asked for. He suggested that he, an experienced warrior, would be a better alternative to a lad who has not seen any ‘real action’ thus far. Why could he not show such an anger here? Why should he have to indulge in a long peroration instead? Simply because he knew Rama could not be made to act against his will. His intellect had to be appealed; he should first be convinced that what he was doing was absolutely right, before he could be pushed into action!

That was why this sage, senior in many respects, age, achievement, tapas, stature (now as a parent) had to reason it out and convince this slip of a boy.

The question of standards

We were discussing the moments of hesitation or in other words when Rama needed to think twice before he finally decided on the action that he was about to take. We saw how sage Viswamitra had to give a long list of justifications for killing Tataka. That was the first instance when Rama is seen a bit hesitant about what he was supposed to do. The second instance is the Vali episode, as ascribed by great commentators like Govindaraja. Let us now take up the third instance where he is seen given seriously to thought and rather reluctant to use the mightiest of weapons against his foe, Ravana.

We have already discussed the difference between an arrow and an ‘astra.’ Astra is a divine weapon, presided over by one celestial or the other. Rama had always had his reservations about the use of extraordinary power in the elimination of enemies. Use the minimum possible force and fight. Parry an astra with an equivalent or a counter astra to neutralise the effects, only if and when the enemy uses it. This has been the thumb rule in all his battles in the epic.

The reader will recall the permission that Lakshmana sought to use Brahmastra against Indrajit. In the second war against Indrajit, Rama precluded Lakshmana from using Brahmastra. ‘aandravan adhu pagardhalum’ When Lakshmana said so (that he had no other alternative but to resort to the use of Brahmastra) ‘ara nilai vazhaadhaai’ (Rama told him) O the unswerving one from the path of Dharma! ‘eendra andhaNan padaik kalam thodukkil iv ulagam moondrayum sudum’ If you resort to the use of Brahmastra, it would annihilate all the three worlds. ‘oruvanaal mudigaladhu’ Nobody can stop it. Therefore do not use it.

Lakshmana was thus bound by the words of his brother and did not use it even when Indrajit did so. That led to his falling on the ground and then he was rejuvenated by the herbs brought by Hanuman. And hear what Rama says when Lakshmana was venturing on his third war with Indrajit.

‘thoduppadhan munnam vaaLi thoduthu’ Before (Indrajit) could choose an arrow, you shoot yours and ‘avai thuraigaL thOrum thaduppana thaduthi’ parry them with an appropriate arrow of yours. ‘eNNam kurippinaal uNarndhu’ Read his mind (and infer his next action) ‘thakka kaduppinum aLavu ilaadha gadhiyinum kaNaigal kaatril viduppana avatrai nOkki’ look at the speed with which his arrows come searing the wind (and understand what arrow has been shot at you) ‘avatrai nOkki vidudhiyaal’ and use an appropriate counter arrow. ‘viraivu ilaadhaai’ O thou the unhasty. Do not be hasty is what is meant by the address.

If at all Indrajit chooses a divine weapon, use an equivalent just to neutralise it and do not use a divine astra to kill your foe. This is the standard that Rama sets when Lakshmana goes for his third war with Indrajit. That was the standard that he set for his brother. We know that Rama demanded more from himself when it came to observance of a standard that he set for others.

With this background in mind, let us look at the final battle between Rama and Ravana and how he was postponing the use of divine weapons and how he had to be persuaded to do so .

When the normal course fails

The following verse of Valmiki beautifully sums up the battle between Rama and Ravana. “Watching that matchless struggle and observing that even the sky is its own compeer and that he sea is its own analogue, the struggle between Sri Rama and Ravana can be likened only to the struggle between Sri Rama and Ravana.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 107, Sloka 51)

It could not be compared with anything else. The verse is a standard example for illustrating the Sanskritic figure of speech known by the name ‘Ananvaya’ the occasion, which arises only where the object described is peerless and serves as its own comparison. And that battle lasted for seven whole days, without respite. To use the language of Sastriyar, “………the fight between Ravana and Sri Rama lasted for seven days, that there was no remission or relaxation of the struggle, that it continued to be of the same intensity all those days nights, that there was no remission or relaxation of the struggle all those days and nights when either combatant failed in his vigilance or in exercise of his great strength.”

During all these seven long days of battle, we see the description of Rama’s arrows only and not the use of any divine weapon. Verses after verses run like this. “With four sharp arrows loosed from his bow Sri Rama thereupon drove back the four spirited horses of Ravana.” “The valiant scion of Raghu loosed twenty, thirty, sixty and hundreds and thousands of arrows on the enemy’s chariot.” (Ibid, excerpts from Sloka 30-44)

One may see here that despite being hard pressed by time and the valiant Ravana, Sri Rama observes utmost restraint and does not use the divine weapons against Ravana – for use of divine weapons to vanquish an enemy was something against his principles. It is only after Matali, the charioteer of Indra who was sent to assist Rama, was stuck by the arrows of Ravana that Rama’s anger picks up and his fight intensifies. That is a point to be studied in detail later when we study Rama’s character.

Finally, Rama is unable to understand what is really happening and why he could not vanquish Ravana. “I wonder what is the reason why these well-known shafts – which have all been tried and found infallible by me on the battlefield, (nay) by the help of which the ogre Marica for his part was made short work of (by me) as also Kara along with Dusana, nay (the ogre) Viradha too was disposed of in a hole in the ground in the Kraunca wood, and Kabandha in the Dandaka Forest, by which (again) were the (seven) sal trees (at Kishkindha) and mountains too were transfixed as also Vali (the lord of monkeys) and (last of all) the sea was thrown into agitation – have proved of little efficacy against Ravana. (Ibid, excerpts from Slokas 55-61)

Kamban also shows Rama in such a predicament. ‘kaNinuL maNiyoodu kazhindhana eNNin nuN maNalil pala vengaNai’ More arrows than the countless sands on the seashores have gone through the very eyeballs of this ogre. ‘puNinuL nuzhaindhu odiya pundhiyOr eNNin nuNNiya.’ Arrows sharper than the intellect of scholars have sunk into his wounds. (Yet he has not died.) ‘enach cheyarpaatru enaa’ (Rama thought) what is the course of action that is left open to me now?

Note the use of the words ‘arrows’ (NOT divine weapons) again and again.

Conviction beyond compare

Even at such a crisis, is it not surprising that the greatest archer of all times, one who was in possession of all kinds of divine weapons, one who had mastered the Dhanur Veda, was thinking only in terms of his arrows and not his divine weapons? His strong grounding in principles was the reason. He could not even think of resorting to the use of the mightiest of divine weapons, the Brahmastra, the only weapon that could stop, nay, slay Ravana. It is the kind of mental training that Sri Rama has subjected himself to, that it did not occur to him at that time that he should deal with this situation in a special way, when the normal course fails.

It was Matali, the charioteer of Indra, on whose chariot Sri Rama was seated, who reminded Rama thus. “How do you (merely) do as Ravana does (by acting on the defensive) as though you did not know (how to dispose of him), O gallant prince? With a view to his destruction discharge you on him the mystic missile presided over by Brahma (the grandfather of the universe, which was created by the ten Prajapatis or lords of creation, who were all his mind-born sons), my lord. The hour of doom, which was foretold by the gods, has now arrived.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 108, Sloka 1-2)

Kamban however shows this as Rama’s own decision to resort to the use of Brahmastra, not suggested by Matali. ‘naaraNan thiru undhiyil naanmugan baara vempadai vaangi’ He took the divine astra created by Brahma (one who was born from the divine lotus that bloomed through the navel of Lord Vishnu) ‘ip paadhagan maaridai eyvan endru eNNi valithanan’ and strung it to his bow, thinking, ‘I will shoot this through the chest of this scoundrel.’

Be it the suggestion of Matali, or his own decision as shown by Kamban, both the Poets make one thing very clear. It took a long time for Rama to come to this decision. He was avoiding this move for as long as it was possible for him to do so. ‘Do not play the defence. Be on the offensive’ is the advice given by Matali.

This third instance very clearly, and without the least scope for any doubt, goes to point that (1) Rama was very particular in adopting the right ways to achieve the right ends. The adage ‘Ends justify means’ had nothing to do with him. (2) He was unsparing and uncompromising in following his own judgement and did not budge even when the great sage Viswamitra – who was at that time the very embodiment of his parents – wanted him to kill Tataka. He did so only after sufficient reasons, justifications and precedents were given to him. (3) He did not resort to the use of the supreme powers of destruction over which he had ready access, even when a crisis was in the making.

In both the above occasions, one can see Sri Rama thinking it over and over again before coming to the final decision. This therefore gives credence to the argument of the great commentator Govindaraja, who says that Rama hesitated for a while before killing Vali and that is why he did not kill him in the first encounter with Sugriva. But it has also to be remembered that once Sri Rama decides to do a particular thing, he was clear in his mind about the course of action and did it without any guilt feelings about what he did. That is why he is able to say, “No agony is felt by me or remorse for what I have done,” to Vali.  And. lastly, when Vali himself accepts that Rama was right in killing him, that he deserves to be punished for what he had done, in both the versions of Valmiki and Kamban, who else needs to argue the case of Rama!  It needs no further justification when he who began with an accusation, relaised and sublimated into submission and went to the extent of justifying the act of Rama.  Here, listen to him from Kamban: 

'உண்டு எனும் தருமமே உருவமா உடைய நிற்
கண்டு கொண்டேன்; இனிக் காண என் கடவெனோ?
பண்டொடு இன்று அளவுமே என் பெரும் பழவினைத்
தண்டமே; அடியனேற்கு உறு பதம் தருவதே.

I have (at last) seen, realised, the very Dharma Everlasting, (remaining) embodied in your Self.  What is there more for me to see!  This punishment (of yours) wipes me clean of all the sins of my misdeeds of yore; and confers unto me the Realisation, the Liberation (or mukthi, the Ultimate for every soul).  Such admissions of misdeeds can be found in the last submissions of Vali, in Valmiki's version of Ramayana.  I would call particular reference to this Sloka:

sugriive ca a.ngade caiva vidhatsva matim uttamaam |
tvam hi goptaa ca shaastaa ca kaaryaakaarya vidhau sthitaH || 4-18-53

"You have firm convictions about practicable and impracticable procedures, and you alone are the protector of the good and punisher of the bad, hence treat both Sugreeva and Angada with equal compassion." 

mat doSa kR^ita doSaam taam yathaa taaraam tapasviniim |
sugriivo na avamanyeta tathaa avasthaatum arhasi || 4-18-55

"The fault occurring from my fault of maltreating Sugreeva may not light upon that self-reproachful Tara, and it will be apt of you to see that Sugreeva will not look down on her treating her as the wife his rival"

That's an acknowledgement of  Rama's conviction, and an attestation to the 'conviction' by the convict himself.  When Vali himself admits his faults and accepts Rama's act as justified, what further argument is needed!

So far for Vali and his killing. We shall now move over to Sugriva, Tara and Angada.

Hari Krishnan