Vali Vadham 36

[Guest guest]

You expect too much out of me, My Lord

 

 

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.