Vali Vadham 22

[Guest guest]

It was his decision

 

 

Both the poets, Valmiki and Kamban agree on one point. It was Rama who decided

that he would stand behind the cover of a tree and kill Vali while he was

engaged in a battle with Sugriva. Valmiki indicates this suggestively.

"Embracing Sugriva of pleasing aspect, Sri Rama, who was exceptionally wise,

thereupon replied as follows to Sugriva who was dear as Lakshmana (to him).

'Let us proceed, O Sugriva, to Kishkindha from this mountain; depart you ahead

without delay and, going there, challenge to a duel Vali, who bears the name of

a brother!' Reaching with hasty steps to Kishkindha, the capital of Vali, and

hiding themselves behind trees, they all halted in a dense forest. Tightly

girdled (about his loins) even Sugriva roared frightfully by way of a challenge

to Vali, rending the air as it were by his shouts uttered with vehemence."

(Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto XII, Sloka 12-14)

 

The decision to kill Vali when he and Sugriva are engaged in a duel is mentioned

directly by Rama. It is the poet who says that they stood ambushed behind the

trees while Sugriva alone leaped forward throwing a challenge to Vali.

 

Kamban does not deviate from what Valmiki says. 'av idathu iraaman nee azhaithu

vali aanadhu Or vev vidathin vandhu pOr viLaikkum Elvai' Rama then told Sugriva,

'You call Vali for a duel and fight with him. (When you are thus engaged in a

fight) 'nindru' standing (aside) 'evvidath thuNindhu amaindhadhu en karuthu.' I

will shoot my arrow (and kill Vali). This is how I propose to do it. This is

my idea.

 

Clearly it was Rama's decision to kill him not in a straight encounter. It was

he who decided that Vali be dispatched in this manner. Though stalwarts like

Rt. Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastriyar feel that Rama initially thought of a single

combat with Vali and how he had used the words 'arrows', instead of 'arrow'

implying that he would have to spend more than a single arrow to kill him, this

later took shape of dispatching with a single arrow. (See: The point of ambush)

 

We are not going to judge the correctness or otherwise of the decision. We are

just nobody to pass judgements on what Rama did. We are going to see how the

poets saw the act and how they portrayed it and learn from their mouth how the

characters around felt about it and how Rama himself felt about it. After all,

the Lord is strong enough to stand any amount of critical analysis and does not

need our no more than twig thick defences. The story itself has its own

reasons. Some are explicit and several of them are implied and must be

distilled, interpolated from within the poet's own work so that we see this

episode in a proper light.

 

When such a study is made, it is desirable and indeed preferable that we confine

ourselves to the source material itself, rather than bringing extraneous

evidence from other Puranas and stories of the lore in support of arguments. It

is not our purpose to argue against or in favour of any particular character.

What we seek is the Truth and truth does not require any props.