Vali Vadham 51

[Guest guest]

The sword of Rama

 

 

Kamban gives a new dimension to trust and trustworthiness with the gesture of

Rama. 'than adi thaazhalOdum, thamaraith thadang kaNNaanum' when Angada fell at

his feet, the lotus eyed Rama 'ponnudai vaaLai neeti nee idhu poruthi endraan'

extended his sword and told Angada, 'bear this.'

 

There are two varying interpretations of this line. Some feel that Rama, with

the sword in hand, extended it towards Vali, pointing it to him (implying his

killing of Vali) and told 'bear this'. In other words, 'bear with me for this.'

They feel that Rama apologises to Angada for killing his father. That sounds

good. That shows Rama's magnanimity, his ability to come down from his exalted

stature and bend before a youngster and asking for his pardon for having killed

his father. He is able to see the agony in the heart of Angada and therefore he

apologies to him, is what they say, to support their interpretation.

 

However good it is, this interpretation is somewhat laboured. No explanation or

interpretation, however good it may be, can be considered good unless it is

correct and appropriate also. It should have the backing of the Poet. It

should have other incidents or events to support that claim. There should be

internal evidence to prove that point. Sadly, there is nothing to support this

argument excepting the third line of the verse that says 'ennalum ulagam Ezhum

Ethina.' When Rama said this, all the seven worlds praised him. What is there

in the simple act of handing over a sword for all the seven worlds to praise

him, the 'advocates of apology' ask. According to them, the seven worlds

praised Rama because he apologised to Angada.

 

We don't deny the fact that the explanation as it is, is good. However, one

question arises. What is the need for Rama to draw out his sword and point to

Vali with it, while he can simply point to him with his finger? One has to

remember Rama is an archer and always carries the bow in his hand and therefore

his sword would necessarily be hanging from his side, about his waist, and will

not be always in his hand, as does the bow. Therefore, if he were to point to

Vali with his sword, he should first draw it out of the sheath. Why should he

go through all this trouble for a simple act of pointing to Vali! That makes the

'interpretation as apology' rather weak.

 

And when apology is sought for, it means that Rama was sorry for what he did.

But Rama says that he killed Vali, without even the trace of feeling guilty

about it. "No agony is felt by me or remorse for what I have done," is what

Rama says to Vali when he was giving out his reasons for killing him from behind

a tree. (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 37). And

therefore, there is no reason why he should apologise. There is no reason to

believe that he apologised out of pity for Angada, to pacify his heart. Vali

has already told Angada that Rama was not at fault and that he should take to

him as his benefactor. Angada has accepted that and has now fallen at the feet

of Rama. Pity is therefore no reason for seeking apology when none involved

feels that Rama is at fault. In the circumstances, the 'apology' idea sounds

rather incongruous, though it indeed is very good.

 

Then what was the intention of Rama in handing over his sword to Angada? Is

there any internal evidence to prove that stand? Why should at all he hand his

sword to Angada? Was handing over the sword a simple act? Was there nothing in

it for 'all the seven worlds to praise?'