Vali Vadham 32

[Guest guest]

Who has the authority of whom?

 

Rama in Valmiki opens by saying that he has the authority of Bharata to punish

wrongdoers. "This (entire) globe including mountains, forests and woodlands

belongs to the scions of Ikswaku (having been bequeathed to them by their

progenitor, Manu). The right of punishing and rewarding the beasts, birds and

human beings (of this earth) too vests in them. Bharata - whose mind is set on

virtue, who is truthful and guileless (nay) who knows the truth about

righteousness, self-gratification and is intent on chastising the evildoers and

recompensing the virtuous - rules over the earth. He (Bharata) is a king in

whom prudence and humility both are present (in an equal degree), nay, in whom

truthfulness is firmly established as also valour as obtained in the scriptures

and who has an idea of time and place. Having received his command for the

propagation of righteousness we as well as other rulers of the world range the

entire globe, keen as we are to promote virtue." (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha

Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 6-9)

 

Dear friends, when studying such great questions one has to be dispassionate and

view and weigh the arguments purely on the basis of the text and the way they

are interpreted and argued for and against by scholars whose erudition has been

established and proved beyond doubt and accepted widely.

 

One common question asked on this opening argument of Rama is, 'When did Bharata

give Rama such an authority?' Though Srinivasa Sastriyar feels that this claim

of Sri Rama is highly imperialistic ("naked imperialism" to quote him in his own

words) he also feels that the values prevalent and predominant in another age

should not be seen from the angle of another age whose values have changed a

lot. Rama's was an age of monarchy and we live in times where democracy

prevails. The ruler is no more the fighter as well. The ruler is not required

any more to head his army and lead it himself to the warfront. That is a very

simple difference, just for a start. Therefore, what Rama said has to be viewed

with reference to his time as well, is what he feels.

 

And then he cites the commentary of Govindaraja. "It follows, he (Govindaraja)

says, from the very fact that Bharata has assumed sovereignty that all his

kinsmen had a share of that sovereignty. They could and should go and do in his

absence what he would have done if he had been on the spot."

 

Sastriyar then quotes another commentator and authority on Valmiki Ramayana,

Tilaka. He says, "The comment in Tilaka is a little more clever. He

anticipates some of the points that we would make. He says as follows: First

of all, Sri Rama says that he has got power from Bharata to do this. Therefore,

although to our knowledge Bharata did not give such authority, we may infer from

it the existence of such a commission. Secondly, he says, 'When Bharata was

king, some of the powers of the king also spread out to all his relations. So

Rama had a share of it and he could have done it.' Thirdly, he says what I

pointed out before on one occasion, viz., that Rama had appointed Bharata

Regent, and therefore might take power. As a matter of fact, when Bharata and

Rama concluded their debate it was arranged that Rama should, in reality, that

is in law, be king and that Bharata should be only Regent. Therefore, Bharata

held delegated authority and the man who delegated it certainly could act for

him. You cannot dispute his right. Rama being himself the delegating authority

could on occasion resume it whenever he liked."

 

Kamban doesn't touch upon this argument at all. For him there is no question of

jurisdiction. Kamban's Vali himself accepts the jurisdiction and authority of

Rama, even while chiding him. We will continue on that.