Vali Vadham 40

[Guest guest]

The hidden point

 

 

'Agreed,' said Vali. But it doesn't look like he is convinced with the

arguments of Rama, completely. 'Okay. Let it be. I have committed a mistake

and you punished me. I agree with you. I do not question your authority or

your act. But you should have killed me in a straight fight. 'av urai kEtta

ari kulathu arsum maaNda sevviyOi, anayadhu aaga' The king of Vanaras listened

to those words (of Rama) and said, 'O righteous one! Let it be so.' 'seruk

kaLathu eriyaadhE,' You should have shot that arrow, facing me in the

battlefront; 'vevviya puLingyar enna vilangiyE maraindhu villaal evviyadhu ennai

endran' instead you stood hidden (behind a tree) and killed me as a hunter would

kill a mere animal.

 

'I agree with you. You killed me because I could not be forgiven under the

rules that grant exemption to animals and my fault should be measured against

human standards. But you killed me from behind a tree, like a hunter would kill

an animal. How do you explain this?' 'ilakkuvan iyambalutraan,' says Kamban.

Rama did not answer this question. Lakshmana started answering, instead.

 

'munbu nin thambi vandhu saran puga,' Your younger brother took refuge in him,

earlier and 'murai ilOyai then pulathu uippen endru seppinan' he took a vow to

kill you, who has gone away from what is right. 'seruvil neeyum anbinai

uyirukku aagi,' In case he engaged you in a one-to-one battle, (you will

inevitably be pushed into defeat against him) and for the sake of love of your

own life, 'adaikkalam yaanum endri enbadhu karudhi' you would fall at his feet

and ask for his refuge (and that would put him in a very difficult situation for

he would not be able to say 'no' to you and if he accepts you, he would be

failing in his words given to Sugriva already) 'aNNal maraindhu nindru eidadhu

endraan.' That is why he did not appear before you when he let his noose,

loose.

 

The nature of the response is such that this could not be put into the mouth of

Sri Rama, as it would sound like shameless boasting, had he uttered these words.

That is why Kamban shifts it to Lakshmana, making him speak on behalf of Rama.

In fact Lakshmana is the closest and fittest person to answer this question in

this situation, as he is the very alter ego of Rama.

 

But how valid is the reason that Lakshmana gave? How far is it true that Vali

would have also taken refuge in Rama? It is theoretically possible that Vali

would have done so. There is no doubt about it. If there was a straight fight,

there is no second question about who would be the winner and who would be the

loser. But it would have been a very difficult war that Rama would have had to

wage. It was not that easy even for Rama to establish a clear win over Ravana.

It took a long battle, even after the killing of all the valiant second-rankers

that Ravana sent and even after obliterating the reserve force. Agasthya had to

come and teach Rama 'aaditya hrudaya,' and Indra had to send his chariot and his

charioteer, Mathali to give his wise counsel to Rama during the war. It was

Mathali who insisted that Rama should use the Brahmastra to finish off Ravana.

And think of it. This was Vali, who was more valiant than Ravana, who had

actually won Ravana. The battle with Vali, if it had taken place, would

therefore have taken a longer time to come to a decisive end, though there was

no question about the result.

 

And Vali would have without doubt surrendered unto him. Let us see the reasons

why we come to this conclusion. And let us also examine the validity of the

other - hitherto unexplored - question of the so-called boon of Vali, to acquire

half the strength of his enemy when he encountered one.