Vali Vadham 27

[Guest guest]

Was it a dilemma?

 

 

Here is how Rt. Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastriyar quotes the great and revered

commentator of Valmiki, Govindaraja. "Govindaraja really says that Rama

certainly could have known who was Vali and who was Sugriva but he did not care

for the moment to do so. So says a great commentator. Rama had some other

thing in his mind. We do not know exactly what. We are unable to define it.

But he gave this excuse that he was unable to distinguish the brothers. It was

a false excuse. So say both the commentators and it was an extraordinary thing

that that should be done. As a matter of fact, to ascribe to Sri Rama this

inability to distinguish the two brothers one of whom was so much stronger that

he always beat the other hard is difficult no doubt. But at the same time,

ladies and gentlemen, I have a suggestion to make. It is bold of me to make it

but I believe it is supported by the words of the Poet. When the brothers were

first locked in combat, Rama had not finally made up his mind whether he would

go out and have a straight fight with Vali or whether he would from his place of

covert position attack. Perhaps he hesitated at the last moment, "Am I going to

do this wrong thing, this unchivalrous thing?" He might have hesitated thus."

 

Most likely. We cannot impute motives to Sri Rama. There is absolutely no

reason as to why we should do so. There is an answer given by Valmiki, through

Rama himself, as to why he did not let his arrow loose, even though he had

promised that Vali would be dispatched the very same day. 'That is not

convincing,' feels the greatest of commentators and is coming out with an

explanation, which reads far deeper into the text, reaches beyond it and touches

the heart of Rama. When the Poets have not given any clue as to why this

happened, the only other course left is to go by what the great stalwarts have

to say.

 

The person who feels that Rama had a conflict in his mind and that was why he

could not kill Vali in the first encounter, is the most respected of all

commentators. And the person who quotes it is considered to be one among the

best of orators that the country has produced. Above all, the audience.

Srinivasa Sastriyar delivered these lectures under the auspices of the Madras

Sanskrit Academy, in the Sanskrit College grounds, in the august presence of

scholars of Valmiki Ramayana. That cannot go wrong. There is reason to accept

this notion. We will take it up for discussion a little later.

 

Coming back to Kamban. As we have already seen, Kamban puts Rama in the role of

a protector. Sugriva has sought asylum in him. It is not possible for one who

has sought his protection to speak in the language of an ally. We saw earlier

how even the doubts lurking in the mind of Sugriva were not expressed by him

explicitly anywhere and Hanuman, reading his mind suggested that his mind would

be set at rest when he sees Rama shooting his arrow through one of the sal

trees. Therefore, Kamban restricts himself to just one verse when he describes

the plight of Sugriva who came running to Rama, beaten by Vali.

 

Think of it. Kamban wrote his Ramayana in 10500 verses. He showed all his

skills in portraying the human mind elaborately in hundreds of instances. Why

should he restrict himself to a single verse - just two lines of a four-line

verse to be precise - when speaking of how Sugriva came back to Rama?

 

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

detail in our next instalment.