Vali Vadham 52

[Guest guest]

Assurance, not an apology

 

 

Let's look at the line once again. 'ponnudai vaaLai neeti nee idhu poruthi

endraan'. The word for word meaning of the line would be - 'pon' golden 'udai

vaaLai' sword 'neeti' extending (or) pointing - the word means both. 'nee' you

'idhu' this 'poruthi' take (or) bear 'endraan' told. Bear is the English

equivalent that conveys both the meanings. He pointed his sword and told 'bear

this.' Or, he extended his sword and said 'bear this.'

 

Both sound correct and acceptable. However, we have to rewrite the meaning of

the first interpretation as 'He pointed (with) his sword and told 'bear (with me

for) this.' Further, where did he point? That is a question, the answer for

which has to be assumed, with the necessity of supplying words that are not

there in the verse. Therefore the first interpretation necessitates the

insertion of the phrase, 'towards Vali' without which the intended shade cannot

be obtained. But what supports the necessity to supply this phrase?

 

Moreover, as we saw already, Rama did not have to draw his sword to point it

towards Vali, when he could have done so easily with a finger. Further, there

is no significance in pointing to a person with a sword rather than with the

hand.

 

A simple and direct reading of the verse would mean, 'Rama extended ('gave' is

the implied meaning) his sword and told Angada, 'take it.' It is not that easy

a situation and that simple an act that did not merit the 'praise of all the

seven worlds' as the 'advocates of apology' seem to believe. Remember, Rama

killed the father moments ago and is now giving his sword to the son. That is

no small thing. It has to be remembered that the sword is a weapon and could be

used against the person who is giving it. Angada was not armed at the moment.

Arming him, whose father was killed by the very same person who was handing over

his sword, was not a small thing.

 

Just look at the scene. Vali is lying down, mortally wounded and life is

flowing out of him. Angada is lamenting. Vali advises Angada not to lament for

his death and justifies the act of Rama. He advises him to serve Rama and also

hands him over to Rama to be his mentor and protector, to reiterate, along with

Sugriva. Angada accepts the advice of his father and falls at the feet of Rama.

If Rama is handing his sword to Angada, what does it convey?

 

It says, 'Here, Angada, take my sword. I trust you and therefore hand this to

you. You are accepted as my ward.' Besides that, of all the weapons the sword

is considered to be the symbol of strength, power and authority. That is why

even in this age of machine guns, it continues to be a part of the outfit of

Chiefs and other senior members of Army, who sport it, carry it in ceremonial

parades and other important occasions. It is not replaced by the gun as yet in

such occasions!

 

Therefore, it is apparent that Rama appoints Angada as the Prince Regent by this

simple ceremony. An assurance to the departing soul that everything would be

taken care, Sugriva would be anointed as the King and Angada would be the Prince

Regent. If we look at the second part of the third line and the fourth line of

the verse it says 'iRandhu vaali an nilai thuRandhu vaanukku appurathu ulagan

aanaan.' Vali left for his heavenly abode (on seeing that). Vali was happy to

see the significance of what Rama did and died in peace, only after seeing this.

 

Right. Is there any internal evidence for Angada continuing to carry the sword

of Rama? Yes. Very much. Look at the verse describing the coronation of Rama.

The very first line says, 'ariyaNai anuman thaanga,' Hanuman bore (supported)

the throne; 'angadhan udai vaaL Endha,' Angada bore the sword of Rama. Is this

not the sword that was handed over to him at the time of Vali Vadham? Does it

require any more argument?

 

It was not an apology that Rama sought. It was an assurance that he gave to the

departing soul.