13:57, 4 பெப்ரவரி 2010 இல் நிலவும் திருத்தம்

Not guilty, are you?

Even when chiding Rama, Kamban’s Vali acknowledges one fact. ‘This earth belongs to you.’ He says ‘veeram andru’ (What you have done) cannot be considered to be heroic; ‘vidhi andru’ nor is it according to what is prescribed in great books; ‘meimayin vaaram andru’ it doesn’t go with Truth; ‘nin maNNinukku en udal baaram andru’ nor is my body a burden on your earth; ‘pagai andru’ I am not one among your foes. ‘paNbu azhindhu, eeram indri idhu en seydhavaaru arO’ What have you done to me, quitting from your good qualities and compassion too?

Notice that he says ‘my body does not burden your earth.’ Therefore there is no question of violation of borders, who gave him the authority or how does Rama get his authority to kill someone in Kishkindha, while he was in exile. Vali does not question his authority at all. His arguments are on the morality of killing him when he didn’t do anything in violation of the established order, and of course the point that Rama shot an arrow at him from hiding.

Kamban confines himself to strong reasons. His Rama’s reasons are logical and elaborate and he lists seven strong and indefensible reasons against Vali. He gives a short recital of his case. We have seen these incidents vividly in our earlier instalment Thus he became the king.

‘You went into the cave and did not come out for a very long time. Sugriva was worried and he tried to get into the cave, to look for you. Your elders stopped him and advised him against such an attempt. They told him that he should assume the crown, in your absence because they felt that you should have died in your encounter with Mayavi. Sugriva refused to do so and insisted that he would follow your pursuer who would still be in the cave, fight with him, avenge for your (assumed) death or give his own life up. But they persisted with their advice. They compelled him; forced him to accept the leadership. ‘patri aandra padaith thalai veerarum mutru uNarndha mudhiyarum munbarum,’ Your best commanders-in-chief, ministers, scholars and advisors as well as others who were present stopped him. ‘etrum num arasu eidhuvayaam ena,’ And they insisted ‘Whatever might have happened. Please accept the crown’ ‘kotra nan mudi koNdadhu ik kOdhilaan.’ It is therefore that Sugriva, the unblemished, accepted their request and your crown.

It is established beyond doubt that Sugriva did not have any design over your throne and that he did not intend to cheat either your people or yourself. He was guileless. Okay. What did he do when you returned? ‘vandha ninnai vaNangi magizhndhaan.’ He was so happy that you returned and he fell at your feet. It is not that you were not informed of what happened and how it happened. Sugriva did tell you how he was forced to assume responsibility in your absence and your people stood witness to what he said. You did not listen either to your younger brother or your people. You assumed that Sugriva had malicious and cunning intentions and you believed your baseless conclusion so strongly that you pursued him with the intention of killing him.

I therefore charge you with the following misdeeds.

These are my charges

You say you have not committed anything that is wrong. Here are seven.

Number one. ‘kollal utranai umbiyai.’ You attempted to kill your younger brother. You did not stop your attempts in killing him, whenever it was possible for you to do so.

Two. ‘kOdhu avarkku illai enbadhu uNarndhum irangalai.’ You did not take pity on him; show him mercy, even when you were aware that he was guileless.

Three. ‘allal seyyEl unakku abayam pizhai pullal ennavum pullalai; ponginaai.’ He pleaded with you not to cause harm to him. He said ‘I surrender unto you. Please bear with me even if what I did was wrong.’ But you did not listen to him. You were blind with your rage and deaf because of your prejudice.

More over, you did not realise one vital thing. ‘ootram utru udayaan unakku aar amar thOtrum’ Sugriva had the military at his command then. Even then he did not choose to fight with you. He fell at your feet and begged for your acceptance. ‘endru thozhudhu uyar kaiyanai nee kootram uNNak koduppen endru eNNinaai.’ He stood before you reverently with joined hands. But you chose to kill him for no fault of him.

Four. ‘anna thanmai arindum aruLalai.’ You were aware that he could have fought with you with the full strength of the army at his command, instead of submitting unto you. But that did not stop you from coming to a wrong conclusion and you did not show any mercy to him. The reader may recollect Vali’s question ‘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? Rama seems to ask, ‘You are telling me that I have shed my compassion somewhere. What compassion did you show to Sugriva, your younger brother?’

Five. ‘pinnavan enbadhum pENalai.’ Let these be on one side. You did not even think of him as your own brother, who was borne by the same womb that bore you and was fed by the same breasts that fed you. ‘vannidhaan idu saaba varambu udaip pon malaikku avan naNNalin pOgalai.’ The fact that Sugriva is alive today is not due to your mercy. It is because he ran into a place from which you were precluded from entering into, by the curse of Rishi Madhanga and you could not enter it for fear of your own death. That is to say, ‘You desisted from going there because you were afraid that you would lose your life otherwise. That fear of death of yours should at least have enabled you to see how frightened Sugriva was, of you and of the inevitable death that followed him. You failed to do so.’

Six. And this is a crime that cannot be tolerated. ‘eeram aavadhum’ It is part and purpose of love; ‘ir pirappu aavadhum’ it is the responsibility of one who is born of a respectable household and high parentage; ‘kalviyin mei neri vaaram aavadhum’ it is one of the aims and purposes of getting educated ‘matru oruvan puNar thaaram thaaram aavadhaith thaangum tharukkum arO,’ to take pride in protecting the modesty and chastity of a woman who is the wife of somebody else.

You are supposed to protect the modesty of your younger brother’s wife, in the name of love, for the sake of the respectability of your parentage and for the reason that you are educated. What did you do?

These are my charges II

The charge is even more explicit in Valmiki. “You cohabit through lust with Ruma, the wedded wife of the high-souled Sugriva, who is your (virtual) daughter-in-law, even while Sugriva is alive; you have (thus) perpetrated a sinful deed.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 19)

Younger brother is the equivalent of a son in the Indian tradition and the elder brother is regarded as next to one’s father. Therefore, wife of a younger brother is naturally to be considered as one’s daughter-in-law and elder brother’s wife is the very incarnation of one’s mother herself. The words ‘even while Sugriva is alive’ are suggestive of the accepted norm among some of the ancient communities all around the globe to marry the wife of the brother, after his death. We will see this when we see what happened to Tara, later.

Coming back to the charges of Rama in Kamban’s version. “Thou talkest of mercy and gentle birth and equity and valour; depriving another of his wife – is it mercy? Or nobility of birth? Or justice? Or valour? The arrogant tyranny that fights without cause and pitiless cruelty towards the weak are the chief unpardonable crimes against the laws of chivalry. And lust towards the wife of another is the highest crime against Dharma. This is the conclusion of the wise. Thou knowest the Dharma and understandeth what is right and what is wrong. And still thou didst not care for Dharma or the right. For if thou hadst cared, wouldst though have desired the dear wife of thy brother?” (Translated by Sri V V S Aiyar)

You did both. You, without any reason, were angry with Sugriva and showed your physical might on him who is much weaker as compared to you. You failed to protect the modesty of his wife.

My seventh charge is this. Apart from failing to protect her modesty, you took her by force. ‘dharumam innadhu enum thagaith thanmayum irumayum therindhu eNNalai.’ You did not consider what was right and what was wrong according to Dharma. You did not think of the consequences that your act would lead to in this world and in the other. ‘eNNinaal,’ had you ever considered it that way, ‘arumai umbidhan aar uyir dheviyai perumai neenginai eydhap peruvayO’ would you have ever done what you did to Ruma?

And if you ask, ‘How does you come in the way, between my brother and I?’ I have this to say. ‘aadhalaanum,’ because of all the above and, ‘avan enakku aar uyirk kaadhalaan enalaanum niR kattanen’ and because he (Sugriva) is my brother as dear as my life, I punished you. ‘edhilaarum’ Even if he (or anyone else for that matter) is not in any way related to me, ‘eliyar endraal’ if he is poor and oppressed, ‘avar theedhu theerpadhu en sindhaik karuthu arO’ it is my avowed mission to help them and alleviate their suffering.

Yes. It was the vow of Rama. It was the assurance that he gave to all the Rishis when he met them in the ashrama of Agastya, when he started his exile. ‘I will protect you all against your tormentors, because ‘aavukku aayinum’ if for the sake of cattle; ‘andhaNarkku aayinum’ or for the sake of the learned; ‘yaavarkku aayinum’ for the sake of whoever they may be; ‘eLiyavarkku aayinum’ or for the sake of the poor and the oppressed ‘saavap petravarE’ one gives his life up, ‘thagai vaan urai dhEvarkkum dhEvargaL aaguvaar’ he becomes the supreme of all celestials.

I did what I assured in the presence of great Rishis and the most celebrated of all among them, Agastya himself.

You expect too much out of me, My Lord

‘Do not measure me by human standards,’ Vali says. ‘I am just a monkey and your laws are not applicable to us…’

Vali heard the arguments of Rama charging him with offences for which he was punished. ‘aiya, nungaL arung kulak karpin ap poi il mangayarkku Eyndha puNarchi pOl seydhilan emaith thE malar melavan.’ Modesty and chastity were specified by Brahma, the creator, specified only to humans Sire, and your women who are supposed to be faultless. It does not apply to animals like us. ‘eidhin eidhiyadhu aaga iyatrinaan.’ He left us to lead our life as we please. What is applicable to you, human beings, will not be applicable to us, mere animals.

‘maNam illai.’ We are not wedded to each other, as you do. ‘maRai neRi vandhana guNamum illai kula mudhaRkku othana.’ We do not have the qualities that are specified in the Vedas, nor do we any kind of pedigree. ‘uNarvu sendruzhich chellum ozhukku alaal.’ We are guided by our instincts and what comes out of our own inclination of the moment. That is our inherent quality.

‘petri matru idhu petradhu Or petriyin kutram utrilan.’ Because this is the quality of the species to which I belong, I cannot be measured against your laws. Where then is the question of my violation of Dharma, O Rama? I have not committed anything wrong by animal standards. ‘nee adhu kOdiyaal.’ Think over it and please understand it.

I would once again like to stress that these arguments of Sri Rama and Vali are specific only to Kamba Ramayana and are not found in Valmiki. In Valmiki, Rama makes just three statements. Number one. He has the authority of Bharata to establish Dharma on this earth. It was therefore his duty to punish a wrongdoer. Number two. Vali cohabited with his own daughter-in-law and therefore deserved to be punished. Number three. He was a mere animal and could be hunted.

“No agony is felt by me nor any remorse for what I have done, O bull among monkeys! Remaining concealed or open to view, people catch by means of nets and nooses as well as by means of traps of various kinds numerous deer that have run away alarmed or remain firmly rooted, fearless as they are. Met-eating people hit with violence deer, which are unwary, or circumspect, nay even those which have their faces turned away (from the hunters) and no blame attaches to this. Nay, (even) royal sages, well-versed in the principles of righteousness, go a hunting. Hence, O monkey, you were mortally wounded by me with an arrow in the course of your encounter (with Sugriva) no matter whether you were not fighting (with me) or fighting (with another); for you are but a monkey.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 37-39) All the other arguments are put forward to support and substantiate these three main standpoints.

But that does not adequately answer the question of Vali raised earlier (discussed under the heading ‘When ‘My Lord’ becomes the accused…II’). ‘I am an animal with five-claws, who is precluded from being hunted; nor my skin, bones or flesh is useful in any way.’ There is no reason given in the answer of Rama to substantiate his stand against what Vali said earlier. More over, if Vali is considered as an animal then the question of the applicability of laws would arise. Would the laws applicable to humans be applied to animals as well? How can the laws prescribed for animals of a higher order – humans – be applied to animals?

However, Vali does not argue any further in Valmiki Ramayana. He does not raise any further questions. He is satisfied with what Rama says, or rather pronounces as his judgement. Let's move on to Kamban.

Who is an animal?

Being an animal or not, is not judged by mere appearance. Does the stature of a person go according to the body it received by birth?

As we saw yesterday, Vali did not speak against what Rama said, in Valmiki. Here is how he responds: “What you have said, O jewel among men, is precisely true; there is no doubt about it. Indeed a dwarf cannot argue with a giant. Certainly you ought not to find fault, O scion of Raghu, with me even for the unbecoming and unpalatable words that were addressed by me (to you) before this through mistake. Indeed you have directly perceived the truth about the (four) objects of human pursuit and are a wise man. Nay, you are devoted to the good of the people and your mind is clear and unbaffled in determining your duty and weighing the circumstances on which you base your decision.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 45-47)

Though the questions remain unanswered, Vali is satisfied with what Rama gives out as his reason. The critical eye of Kamban has picked up the lacunae and therefore he changes the drama to put further arguments into the mouth of Vali. The question that was put forth by many critics of Ramayana for a long time was thus included in Kamban.

‘I am after all an animal and your human laws would not be binding on me,’ was how Vali countered Rama. ‘Don’t tell me that!’ retorted Rama. ‘You cannot claim to be an inferior creature and take defence behind what was exempted for innocent animals. You say these laws were prescribed for humans and not animals. Okay. Why was it that animals were exempted? Simply because they cannot see the difference between what is right and what is not. But you do not fall under that category.’

‘nalam koL dhevarin thOndri,’ you were born of very high parentage. The very Indra is your father. ‘navai aRak kalangala ara nal neRi kaaNdalin,’ Because you have studied the scriptures and know and understand them fully well, (without faults of knowledge – navai ara – such as uncleared doubts and understanding the text in a different way) ‘vilangu alaamai viLangiyadhu’ it is established beyond doubt that you cannot be categorised as an animal. ‘aadhalaal alangalaarkku Idhu aduppadhu andrum aam arO.’ It therefore does not befit a person of your stature (to act like what you did and to defend it like how you do).

Know one thing for certain. That it is an animal or not, is not judged by mere appearance. ‘poRiyin yaakayO?’ Is the attainment and stature of a person or a being goes according to the body that he she or it receives by birth? ‘aRivin mEladhu andrO?’ Is it not to be based on the intellectual attainment?

Education makes all the difference. It empowers one to see things in the right perspective. It enables one to know and understand his society, his people, the principles and ideals that are to govern one’s life. You were provided with the opportunity to learn, to understand the high values and without doubt you come from a highly accomplished parent who could have – and has – guided you, imbued you with values. After learning all the scriptures and values, how do you claim exemption under a law that did not take animals into account, just because they do not have the opportunity to undergo a study under an able teacher and understand righteousness?

This argument of Rama, put forth by Kamban is very valid even this day. If we take a look around us and we can see this rule operating around us in a somewhat modified form – for which also Kamban has laid down specific conditions.

Crime or no crime?

The fact that you are well versed in all the books that lead a soul to a life of purity is betrayed by your own words. You argue so logically…

The scriptures say that a soul is born and reborn and takes various forms such as plants, animals etc. until it is evolved enough to be born as a human being. The human being, endowed with the ability to think and to realise the ultimate, qualifies for what is known as mukti. Animals do not attain mukti, as they have to pass through several births to realise the purpose of birth. But there have been instances when animals were able to attain that ultimate state of bliss.

Rama continued. ‘maadu patri idangar valindhida’ When a crocodile held it by one of its legs, as it entered the river, ‘kOdu patriya kotravar kooyadhu’ that which appealed to the Lord who holds a conch in His hand (i.e., the elephant) ‘paadu petra uNarivin payathinaal veedu petra vilangum vilangu adhO’ was given moksha because it was able to realise the ultimate and can that tusker be classified as an animal? The soul that resided in the form of an elephant, could it have attained moksha, if it were considered a mere animal alone? It was given a special status because it realised the Ultimate and surrendered unto it. Because of that it was equated with that of a human birth and was given ‘veedu’ or moksha.

Take another case. You know Jatayu. He was the king of vultures. He saw Ravana taking Sita away and fought with him. ‘sindhai nal aRathin vazhich chEralaal’ His mind having been set in the path of Dharma, ‘paindhodith thiruvin parivu aaturvan’ to alleviate the suffering of Sita, ‘vendh thozhil thurai veedu eydhiya endhayum’, (Jatayu) my father, showed all his warrior’s skills and fought (with Ravana) and attained moksha. ‘eruvaikku arasu allanO?’ Was he not the king of vultures? Was he to be considered a mere bird? If it was so, how was that he received the hero’s heaven, which is possible of attainment only for humans?

It is therefore amply clear beyond an iota of doubt that beings are judged by their attainments and not by their forms. Be it a bird or an animal, it can attain the ultimate once it is able to realise the Ultimate. When such being so, how do you – who are endowed with a rich knowledge of the Books – claim to be equated with that of an animal and escape from the rule of law?

Sri Rama elaborates on this point now. ‘nandru theedhu endru theri arivu indri vaazhvadhu andrO vilangil iyal?’ Is it not the nature of an animal to lead a life where it cannot distinguish between what is right and what is wrong? ‘nindra nal neri nee ariyaa neri ondrum inmai un vaaimai uNarthumaal.’ The fact that you are well versed in all the books that lead a soul to a life of purity is betrayed by your own words. You argue so logically. You are able to tell me that this law pertains to humans and that law pertains to animals. You have a clear perception of what is laid down in the books as the path of righteousness and what is to be eschewed.

The very reason why an animal is exempted is that it is ignorant. When you are not ignorant, how do you fall under the exempted class?

Thus you deserve to be punished

There is a difference between an act of crime perpetrated by a person of normal mental health and the mentally deranged. The law even provides for exemptions in the case of criminal acts performed (accidentally or otherwise) by children below a specific age, just because they lack the much-needed maturity to see right from wrong. That is exactly the reason why several of our criminals plead that they did such-and-such an act under the intoxication of liquor because the law excuses to an extent the misdeeds of a person who was more governed by emotions than by intellect.

‘thakka innana thagaadhana innana endru okka unnalar aayin,’ They who are not able to differentiate between right and the wrong, they alone are ‘uyarndhu uLa makkaLum vilangE’ brutes and are to be considered as animals, even though they are born with the human frame. ‘manuvin neri pukkavEl av vilangum puthELirE.’ If an animal is able to conduct itself according to what is laid down in the holy books, they are to be classified with the Devas and none else.

What are your attainments O Vali? You are the devotee of Lord Shiva and you have received from Him the power and force of four (out of five) elements in you. But penance or no penance, the ultimate test lies in your action; in your personal qualities and in your pursuit of rectitude. ‘mEva arum dharumath thurai mEvinaar Evarum bavathaal izhindhorgaLum.’ Even those who were considered to be lowborn have become great saints because of their pursuit of Dharma. ‘thaa arum thavarum pala thanmai saal dhevarum uLar theemai thiruthinaar.’ Many are there who have by their later sins fallen from their great heights that they earned by their good deeds once.

‘inayadhu aadhalin,’ Because things stand this way, ‘ek kulathu yaavarkkum,’ to one and all, irrespective of the nature of birth, ‘vinayinaal varum mEnmayum keezhmayum’ rise or fall comes to anyone by one’s own deeds. ‘anaya thanmai arindhum azhithanai manayin maatchi.’ You know this truth very well. Not that you didn’t know. Despite knowing it, you vitiated the life of your brother; you ruined your brother’s house.

I therefore punished you because I have a duty to protect the poor, the lowliest and the lost. Because I am committed to destroy all evil from the face of this earth. And because your brother has my word for his protection, since he is my friend.

The reason why Kamban very carefully built the character of his Sugriva, not making him to give an assurance to Rama in his effort to trace Sita, not allowing him to negotiate with him and circumventing the difficult test of the sal tree by making Hanuman to suggest it, rather than himself asking for it (as that would amount to suspicion of the Lord in whom he had taken refuge) are now clear. He (Kamban) intends to show this act of Rama as an act done to protect one who has taken refuge in him.

Then one more question remains to be answered. We will see that in our next instalment.

The hidden point

‘But you killed me from behind a tree, like a hunter would kill an animal. How do you explain this?’ Vali asked.

‘Agreed,’ said Vali. But it doesn’t look like he is convinced with the arguments of Rama, completely. ‘Okay. Let it be. I have committed a mistake and you punished me. I agree with you. I do not question your authority or your act. But you should have killed me in a straight fight. ‘av urai kEtta ari kulathu arsum maaNda sevviyOi, anayadhu aaga’ The king of Vanaras listened to those words (of Rama) and said, ‘O righteous one! Let it be so.’ ‘seruk kaLathu eriyaadhE,’ You should have shot that arrow, facing me in the battlefront; ‘vevviya puLingyar enna vilangiyE maraindhu villaal evviyadhu ennai endran’ instead you stood hidden (behind a tree) and killed me as a hunter would kill a mere animal.

‘I agree with you. You killed me because I could not be forgiven under the rules that grant exemption to animals and my fault should be measured against human standards. But you killed me from behind a tree, like a hunter would kill an animal. How do you explain this?’ ‘ilakkuvan iyambalutraan,’ says Kamban. Rama did not answer this question. Lakshmana started answering, instead.

‘munbu nin thambi vandhu saran puga,’ Your younger brother took refuge in him, earlier and ‘murai ilOyai then pulathu uippen endru seppinan’ he took a vow to kill you, who has gone away from what is right. ‘seruvil neeyum anbinai uyirukku aagi,’ In case he engaged you in a one-to-one battle, (you will inevitably be pushed into defeat against him) and for the sake of love of your own life, ‘adaikkalam yaanum endri enbadhu karudhi’ you would fall at his feet and ask for his refuge (and that would put him in a very difficult situation for he would not be able to say ‘no’ to you and if he accepts you, he would be failing in his words given to Sugriva already) ‘aNNal maraindhu nindru eidadhu endraan.’ That is why he did not appear before you when he let his noose, loose.

The nature of the response is such that this could not be put into the mouth of Sri Rama, as it would sound like shameless boasting, had he uttered these words. That is why Kamban shifts it to Lakshmana, making him speak on behalf of Rama. In fact Lakshmana is the closest and fittest person to answer this question in this situation, as he is the very alter ego of Rama.

But how valid is the reason that Lakshmana gave? How far is it true that Vali would have also taken refuge in Rama? It is theoretically possible that Vali would have done so. There is no doubt about it. If there was a straight fight, there is no second question about who would be the winner and who would be the loser. But it would have been a very difficult war that Rama would have had to wage. It was not that easy even for Rama to establish a clear win over Ravana. It took a long battle, even after the killing of all the valiant second-rankers that Ravana sent and even after obliterating the reserve force. Agasthya had to come and teach Rama ‘aaditya hrudaya,’ and Indra had to send his chariot and his charioteer, Mathali to give his wise counsel to Rama during the war. It was Maathali who insisted that Rama should use the Brahmastra to finish off Ravana. And think of it. This was Vali, who was more valiant than Ravana, who had actually won Ravana. The battle with Vali, if it had taken place, would therefore have taken a longer time to come to a decisive end, though there was no question about the result.

And Vali would have without doubt surrendered unto him. Let us see the reasons why we come to this conclusion. And let us also examine the validity of the other – hitherto unexplored – question of the so-called boon of Vali, to acquire half the strength of his enemy when he encountered one.

Would Vali have fought Rama?

Let us think over. When will a person think of a ‘fight to the last’? He should first be convinced about his possibility of a success…

Lakshmana told Vali that it was because of the possibility of the latter surrendering to as well that Rama hid himself behind a tree when he shot the arrow at him, as otherwise it would come in the way of the fulfilment of the promise that was made to Sugriva already. This was what we saw yesterday. Was it possible that Vali would have also surrendered to Rama in case of straight fight?

Well, that sounds possible. Let us think it over. When will a person think of a ‘fight to the last’? He should be convinced about his possibility of a success. Though no duel is started after discussing, debating and ascertaining the physical might and the skills of the opponent with weaponry, it is obvious that it would not start when one party is convinced about the accomplishments of the other. Vali had very high regards for Rama, for his moral stature as well as his skills with the bow. It may be recalled here that Tara stopped him when he jumped up from his bed for an encounter with Sugriva. Tara had warned Vali that Sugriva has obtained the friendship of Rama and that was why he was bold enough to challenge him for a duel.

The first reaction of Vali was shock. Not that he was shocked that Rama could have come to kill him. But because Tara, he thought, must have gone mad in thus speaking ill of Rama. ‘What! What are you talking? ‘ulaginukku aRathin aaru elaam izhaithavarkku iyalbu ala iyambi en seidhaai?’ Whom do you think you are talking about? Rama is the one who has shown this world the path of Dharma. You are speaking things that are not in agreement with his nature. ‘pizhaithanai paavi un peNmayaal.’ You have uttered slander, you sinner, because of your feminine qualities. Note the word ‘paavi.’ That was how Vali reacted when Tara warned him about Rama.

Therefore it goes without saying that Vali had immense regard for Rama. Number one. Vali was not mentally prepared to fight Rama. Let us assume that he was challenged for a single combat and then he could not say ‘no’ because that is what is ordained for any warrior. He should not go back when a challenge is thrown to him and because of that he accepts the challenge. His fight against his opponent can last only till his anger lasts. That was so in the case of his fight with Mayavi, which lasted for 28 months. But could Vali have retained his anger for such a long time, especially when he did not have any hatred for Rama and in fact was devoted to him, admiring him from a distance? Doubtful.

Further, Vali was fully and completely aware of the prowess of Rama. This is discernible from the remark that he made to Tara. ‘nindra pEr ulagu elaam nerukki nErinum,’ Even if all the three worlds (put together) join hands and are up in arms against him, ‘vendri vem silai alaal piRidhu vENdumO?’ does he need the aid of anything else other than his victorious bow? ‘than thuNai oruvarum thannil vEru ilaan.’ He doesn’t need the help of anyone else. In fact he is his own aid, his own help and his own assistance. He need not have to be supported by anyone, in any of his efforts. ‘pun thozhil kurangodu puNarum natpanO?’ When this being so, will he, of all the lot, choose to make friends with a puny monkey?

Would Vali, who was so convinced of Rama’s valour, prowess and skills, have chosen to enter into a ‘fight unto the last’ with Rama when he was so very well convinced about his strength and skills?

Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar, quoting the great commentator of Valmiki, Govindaraja, observes as follows on this point. “To throw some light upon this I will read to you two of the comments of the greater exegetists. Govindaraja himself – no man can claim to be a greater Rama baktha than he – does not mince his words over the question. He says … …that is, Vali knowing the great skill in battle of his antagonist, might have made his submission and when submission is made Rama was not the man to go forward with a battle. He must at once grant protection to the saranagata. In that case the promise that he had made would be frustrated.”

It is more than obvious now that Vali did not have the kind of anger or hatred against Rama and on top of it was very much aware of the supremacy of Rama and that he lacked the fuel that would have led him to a ‘fight to the last’ with Rama. The explanation of Lakshmana sounds convincing.

Sastriyar gives another explanation. “Now what do you think would have been Rama’s fate if he had actually entered upon a straight face to face fight with Vali? I do not that say he would have lost. No. That is not my point. But let us remember that the fight between Ravana and Sri Rama is described by the Poet as having 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 and nights that there was no moment when either combatant failed in his vigilance or in the exercise of his greatest strength.

Now if that was the case later on with Ravana, with Vali the fight would have lasted at least for seven or eight days. Sugriva’s patience would have been lost. He would have been stricken with fear and Rama’s promise to dispose of Valid that day would not have been carried out. And you know in the style of the battles of those days, when you have a straight fight, you do not kill your enemy straightway. The first arrow never succeeds. Your arrow is resisted by the other man’s arrows and you try a second time, a third time, a fourth time, etc. It is only after the enemy is exhausted and you too are getting nearly exhausted, that the issue is finally decided. That would have been the result of a straight encounter between Vali and Rama. Never doubting for a moment that Rama would have come out victorious, it is at the same time clear that he would have to be carrying on for many days this well-maintained struggle and that perhaps by that time Sugriva would have lost his patience completely.”

There is a point there. Rama had promised Sugriva that he would dispatch Vali the very day.

And there is this story about Vali’s much talked about boon that he would acquire half the strength of the opponent. Govindaraja interprets Valmiki to mean, ‘full strength’. To put it in the words of Sastriyar, Govindaraja says “You will acquire all the strength of your enemy if he comes in front for battle.”

‘That’s it you see,’ people chuckle. ‘That was precisely the reason why Rama hid behind the tree. He was afraid that he would lose his strength, if he appeared before Vali.’

Can it be so? I am afraid that this question of the so-called boon of Vali has not been studied in proper light. In the first place, it was not a boon – that is it was not like the boons that Hiranya, Ravana or anyone else for that matter received.

Instruments of protection

A study of the epics reveals that the divine gifts fall under three categories.

First among them is what is known as boons. It is a kind of blanket protection against several forces or granting of a wish or the fulfilment of one or the other aspiration. The kind of assurance given to Hiranya for instance that he could not be killed either in the morning or in the night; either on earth or in the sky etc. or the powers granted to Ravana or Indrajit fall under this category.

Then there is the second kind. Granting of weapons of destruction. Like the pasupadhastra received by Arjuna or the other various divine weapons that Gods and other celestials grant.

The third kind is the instruments of protection. Karna was born with an armour and earrings, blessed by his father, Surya. These would protect him. Though these did not give the kind of invincibility to the warrior, they were supposed to protect him from being killed in a battle. It has to be remembered that Karna was defeated several times by Arjuna, before Indra came a-begging for the armour and earrings, which Karna readily and without hesitation cut from his body and gave away.

Then the Mahabharata speaks about a divine breastplate and arm-wraps that Dhuryodhana was given by Acharya Dhrona, on the fourteenth day of the war. They had the power to protect the wearer against any divine weapon and that made the arrows of Arjuna to fall like reeds, without in any way harming Dhuryodhana. But there was a catch. Dhuryodhana did not learn the mantras that were required to be chanted before they can be worn. Acharya Dhrona had chanted them on his behalf, because there was no time for Dhuryodhana to learn when the war had picked up momentum nor did the latter have the inclination to learn it. Arjuna tormented Dhuryodhana by shooting his arrows on Dhuryodhana’s fingers and nails, which remained unprotected by the breastplates and the arm-wraps.

It is therefore evident that even those divine instruments of protection were limited in their use. They could of course protect. But they could extend protection only against specific situations or persons. They thus had limitations – unlike the blanket protection granted by boons. Scholars would even joke that Lord Shiva would without hesitation grant protection against all kinds of odds to his devotees. And the devotee would in turn become a terrorist. It would then be for Lord Vishnu to break his head to find out a solution and look for loopholes for the destruction of the miscreant!

To come back to our discussion, these were intended to protect against specific situations or specific portions or limbs that they were supposed to protect. Like the breastplate and arm-wraps of Dhuriyodhana. They could protect only his chest and arms and not fingers and fingernails!

The much spoken about ability of Vali to receive half the strength – or all the strength – of his opponent was through one such instrument of protection, a chain of gold given to him by his divine father, Indra. This story is not narrated in Kamba Ramayana. There we find Hanuman saying that Vali would receive half the strength of his opponent, when he appraises Rama. Then once again we find this mentioned by Vali himself, when Tara stops him from responding to the challenge of Sugriva. Kamban does not elaborate on this.

The story is mentioned in passing by Sugriva in Valmiki Ramayana, when he narrates how Vali prepared himself for the battle with Dundhubhi.

The famed gold chain of Indra

When Sugriva was describing the battle between Dundhubhi and Vali, he mentions that Vali was drunk at that time. Dundhubhi pointed this out and told Vali that he would give the latter sufficient time to regain his senses and then fight with him. Vali told him, “Do not (be misled by to) think that I am drunk, if you are not afraid of engaging in a contest (with me). Let this inebriety (of mine) be construed as (a state of) drunkenness resorted to by a hero on the occasion of this duel (with you). (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 11, Sloka 38)

In the next Sloka, Sugriva says, “Replying to him thus and throwing (about his neck) a chain of gold gifted (to him) by his father, the mighty Indra, Vali stood prepared for an encounter (with the demon), highly enraged.” It was in his commentary on this Sloka that Govindaraja had mentioned “You will acquire all the strength of your enemy if he comes in front for battle.”

The complete details on this chain of gold are not given. However, it is obvious that the chain would empower Vali with half the skills and strength of his opponent, while the strength of the opponent would not in any way be diminished. In other words, half the strength of the opponent would be added to the strength of Vali but that would not in anyway affect the strength of the opponent. Otherwise, when Vali was wearing this very same chain in his fight with Mayavi, it should not have taken twenty-eight long months for him to win his battle! Mayavi was in no way affected by Vali wearing the chain, though Vali’s strength would have without doubt increased by half that of his opponent’s.

Vali was wearing this chain in his fight with Dundhubhi as well as Mayavi. Ravana when he wanted to fight Vali, quite misunderstood this and approached Vali from behind when the latter was meditating. That was an easy win for Vali, however, tying him up in his tail and tucking him under his armpit, he jumped over hills and plunged in the seven seas for his morning ablutions.

The point is Vali’s gold chain would not have had any effect on Rama in anyway, even if he had chosen to appear before him when he let his arrow loose on him. In fact, Rama did appear before Vali when he was stuck with his arrow and was lying in the ground. Vali was wearing his gold chain at that time. Valmiki says, “Even though he lay fallen to the ground, neither grace nor life breath nor vital energy nor prowess left the body of the high-minded monkey. The well-known excellent bejewelled chain of gold, bestowed (on him) by Indra (the ruler of gods) preserved the life, vital energy and grace of Vali (the foremost of monkeys). With that necklace of gold that heroic leader of monkey hordes appeared like a cloud whose outlines are tinged with the (roseate) hues of dusk. His necklace and body as well as the arrow which pierced his vital parts, even while he lay fallen, shone as though his splendour had been divided into three parts.” (Ibid, Canto XVII, Sloka 7)

His body was shining; his necklace was shining and the arrow that pierced him was shining and that looked like Vali’s splendour was divided into three parts. Okay. What did the necklace do now? It preserved the life, vital energy and grace of Vali, so says the Sloka.

A question arises now.

Inclusive or exclusive?

Take a look at the Sloka once again. The chain that Vali was wearing preserved the life, vital energy and grace of Vali. That indicates that the power of the chain was still active and only due to this fact that Vali was still breathing though he was mortally wounded. Now, Rama appears before him with his bow along with Lakshmana and Vali starts his arguments with him. That is, the opponent of Vali was facing him now. If the chain that Vali was wearing had an all encompassing, blanket power, it is only plain and obvious that it should have transferred at least half the energy – if not full – of Rama to Vali now. In that case, Vali should have stood up. Why was it that Vali was still lying down on the ground? Why could he not stand up with the power that the chain should have transmitted to him from Rama?

It has to be remembered that Vali was wounded and has not dead when Rama saw him. Therefore there is no evidence to suspect that his receptivity to such transfer of strength has ceased completely.

Consider this against the boon (not instrument of protection) that Hanuman had received. The story has it that in his boyhood Hanuman leapt up to the sun, imagining it to be some fruit and Indra had to intervene and use his Vajrayudha, considered to be the deadliest of weapons, on him. Though it stopped him, it did not affect him. ‘porindhu imayOr kOn vachira paaNam puga moozhga erindhuzhi’ When Indra threw his Vajrayudha at you and even though it struck you with such force, ‘itru Or pun mayirEnum izhavaadheer’ it didn’t do any harm to you. You didn’t even lose a single strand of hair. This was how Jambavan reminds Hanuman of this incident later.

Another example is that of Basmasura, who obtained a boon from Lord Shiva to the effect that he who is touched by Basmasura should turn to ashes. And then the asura tried to test the boon on Lord Shiva himself and the Lord had to keep away from him until Lord Vishnu devised a way out of the situation.

Therefore, boons are more powerful than such instruments of protection and what Vali had received was not a boon and was only a tool to protect him. What I want to stress again is these instruments of protection have their own limitations and are not operable in certain specific circumstances. They are not like boons that grant protection against anyone at any time.

The fact that the chain of Indra that Vali was wearing did not rejuvenate him, even though his opponent was facing him now shows without doubt that Rama was beyond its purview. And therefore there is no evidence to justify the argument that Rama hid behind the tree to ward off the effect that his presence would have on Vali and that he could not have succeeded if he had faced Vali. When even Mayavi could resist Vali for 28 long months against the magical power of the chain, there is no reason to believe that Rama could not have succeeded against Vali, had he faced him.

The final diagnosis

This is as far as Valmiki Ramayana is concerned. If one comes to Kamban, this question does not arise at all. The reader will recollect the careful manner in which Kamban has been building up the events. It is no doubt Valmiki’s Vali makes a mention as follows: “Had you fought with me on the battlefield remaining before my eyes, O prince, you would have seen God Yama (son of the sun-god) when killed by me this (very) day. (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto XVII, Sloka 47). Though he sounds a little superior to Rama in this Sloka, he changes his mind in the following verses, when he says, ‘you should have approached me instead, for I would have brought your wife back from Ravana.’ Though this may sound inconsistent it is understandable that a person in the last throes of death could not check his tongue and Vali’s overstatement was given the wink by Rama. Subsequently even Valmiki’s Vali accepts the fact that Rama was right in what he did.

As far as Kamba Ramayana is concerned, the question of Vali deriving the power of his opponent applying or not applying to Rama is a non-issue. Kamban has not put such words as in Valmiki Ramayana, into the mouth of Vali at all. I quote what Sri V V S Aiyar has to say on this.

“The reference by Vali to his immense prowess and magical capacity mentioned by us above aims at making the reader thing that perhaps even Rama could not have killed Vali if he should have faced him. And if Vali must be killed for his crimes against Sugriva, as the reader like Vali himself must agree after Rama’s justification, what has Rama to do except shoot at him from behind a cover without facing him? But at the same time, see how Kamban takes care that Vali does not say that this magical power would work against Rama also. It is after his reference to his magical power that Tara mentions Rama’s name, and naturally one would expect Vali to say that magic would cover Rama’s case as well. But the careful Kamban does not put these words into his mouth. For he wants to leave the capacity of Rama to fight face to face with Vali an open question, being satisfied with the impression in the mind of his reader that possibly the Vara of Vali would have enabled him to withstand the force of Rama’s dart if Rama had appeared before him.”

In other words, as far as Kamba Ramayana is concerned, the so-called magical power of Vali to receive half the power of his opponent was not an issue at all when it came to Rama.

It is therefore not appropriate to think of Rama who wiped out legions and legions of reserve forces of Ravana and also the vast army of Kara and Dhooshana all alone by himself without the assistance of none, to have gone behind the tree to kill Vali just to avoid his getting the power of Rama. Govindaraja has given out the reason for this very well and Kamban has put it through the mouth of Lakshmana. More important, Vali had no hesitation in accepting it. When Vali himself, who argued quite vehemently, was convinced of the acts of crime which he committed that deserved the punishment and what Lakshmana told him as the reason for Rama’s attack from behind a tree, there could be no difficulty for others to accept the situation.

Let us see the reaction of Vali and a few related questions that remain to be seen like why Rama chose a weaker ally in Sugriva rather than Vali.

The grandeur of Vali

Despite all that Vali is a grand character. The creation of Valmiki is without doubt excellent and it is further honed in the hands of Kamban. It is natural and obvious that the best of any character comes out and reaches its point of culmination when the character is live and kicking. It is a pathetic fact that the greatness of Vali comes out at the time of his death, just minutes before he gives up the ghost. His words uttered at his last moments would evoke tears from even the hard-hearted.

‘aviyuru manathan aagi’ His mind thus pacified and convinced, ‘aRath thiran azhiyach cheyyaan puviyudai aNNal enbadhu eNNinan’ he thought that he who owns the earth (Rama) would not do a deed that is not right.

‘What you have done is correct and I deserve to be punished. I spoke ill of you and used harsh words against you. Bear with me for those words I spoke to you, senselessly and out of pain. “(Pray) propitiated by me, O powerful ruler of men, possessed of terrible prowess and vying with the mighty Indra, forgive whatever you have been unwittingly told by me, agonized as I was with pain caused by your arrow and (therefore) confounded.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 66)

‘Kindly listen to me. I have a few submissions to make. My brother Sugriva has in fact done me good. He brought you here to kill me. I do not feel bad about it at all nor do I have any kind of regret or remorse over what he did. ‘paNdodu indru alavumE en perum pazha vinaith thandame adiyanErkku uru padham tharuvadhE’. All the effects of my past misdeeds have been wiped off by your punishment. Your single arrow that bore through my chest took them away. The doors of salvation are now open for me. ‘vetru arasu eidhi embi veetu arasu enakku vittaan.’ My brother has taken a very ordinary kingdom from me and has given me the kingdom of heaven.

Those are the words of a realised soul, observes Sri VVS Aiyar. He says, “Val’s addresses to Sugriva and Angada and Rama area masterly study of how the clarified soul will look upon the affairs of the world after attaining jnana. He not only exonerates his brother of his murder, but looks upon him as one who helped him to attain the highest salvation.”

What is more moving is the other request that Vali placed before Rama. ‘You have very loyal brothers. They may not think of my brother kindly. They may even speak ill of him. ‘embiyai umbimaaragal than munaik kolvithaan endru igazhvarel’ if your brothers talk ill of my brother saying that ‘this is the younger one who killed his elder.’ If that happens, it is your duty to stop them from doing so.”

“Rama, I am entrusting my younger brother to you. If at any time he falters, he fails, he misbehaves or commits any sinful deed, please bear with him. ‘poo iyal naravam maandhi pundhi vEru utra pOzhdhil’ He may drink and his mind may go astray. At such time, ‘theevinai iyatrumEnum’ even if he commits misdeeds, ‘en mEl Eviya pagazhi kootrinai Eval’ please desist from aiming the arrow that you aimed at me. Bear with him.”

Hari Krishnan