Vali Vadham 31

[Guest guest]

When 'My Lord' becomes the accused.II

 

 

Vali starts with an accusation. Rama answers them. Vali contests the validity

of Rama's arguments and Rama explains how and why Vali is at fault. Vali then

realises his faults. Therefore Vali is shown arguing his case against the Lord

twice. One of the significant points that Kamban omitted in the first set of

arguments - a case against Rama - is this.

 

"My skin (in other words, the skin of a monkey) is not permitted to be worn by

the virtuous; my hair and bones (too) are precluded from use and my flesh is not

permitted to be partaken of by those practising virtue like you. (Only) the

following five (species of) animals endowed with five claws (on each paw) viz.,

the rhinoceros, the porcupine, the iguana and the hare, the turtle being the

fifth, are permitted to be partaken of by (meat-eaters). The wise does not even

touch my skin and bones either, O Rama, while my flesh is not (at all) worth

eating. Yet I, an animal endowed with five claws (and therefore not fit to be

partaken of) have been (wantonly) killed (by you)." (Valmiki Ramayana,

Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 17, Sloka 38-40)

 

When I am not worth eating or when my skin or hair is of no use to the

humankind, why did you choose to kill me? You cannot therefore say that I am an

animal and therefore you killed me, as a hunter kills an animal. Even if you do

so, you have to accept that your hunting me was wanton.

 

This argument is absent in Kamban because he is going to treat this very concept

of 'being an animal' from an entirely different standpoint. More over, as Sri

VVS Aiyar points out "The second and final argument of Valmiki's Rama - that

he, as a Kshatriya, was quite at liberty to kill, in whatever manner he pleases,

Vali - who is no more than a monkey - lacks tenderness and truth and is unworthy

of the character of Rama."

 

I am not tired of repeating one thing. The poetry of Kamban is so rich in its

verve, rhythm and expression that one can actually feel the presence of Vali,

his jibes, taunts and pleads. He has very carefully selected the arguments of

Vali from his predecessor while adding his own, paying attention only to the

moral aspect of the question, both when Vali speaks and when Rama justifies.

 

That is why he is so very careful about the order of events and in complementing

the original. Take the case of Sugriva for instance. One does not know what

Sugriva was doing when Vali was shooting his verbal darts at Rama. Kamban

remembers to mention that. He was unable to see blood gushing out of the wound

from his brother's chest, though he was afraid of him and was going through hell

under his tortuous hands. He swoons at the sight of blood pouring forth from

Vali's chest. 'udan pirappu ennum paasathaal piNippuNda ath thambiyum,' that

younger brother whose bonds as a brother were strong, 'pasung kaN nEsath

thaaraigal sori thara nedu nilam sErndhaan' fell on the ground, his tender eyes

raining his tears of love and swooned.

 

That presents a really touching picture. Remember how Vibishana was affected by

the death of his brother? Hate as you may, blood is really thicker than water.

We will elaborate on this when we take up Sugriva once when the screen is down

on Vali episode.

 

Back to our Lord. He is the defendant now.