SriRama's action - 2

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

SriRama's first argument against VAli's accusation is "the land

belongs to the IkshvAkus and honouring Bharatha's commandments,we

shall consider how we shall punish them who go astray."

 

ikshvAkUNAmiyam bhUmih sashai lavanakAnana |

mrgapakshi manuShyANAm nigrahApagra hAvapi || IV.18.6

 

"Do you consider why I have killed you. You have ravished your

brother's wife renouncing that ever existing virtue"

 

bhrAthr bhAryAbhimarshE 'smin dhaNdO 'yam prathipAdhitha: IV.18.20

 

na hi Dharma viruDhdhasya lOkavrththAdhapEyuSha: |

dhaNdA dhanyathra pashyAmi nigraham hariyUThapa || IV.18.21

 

na hi thE marSha yE pApam kshathriyO'ham kulOdhbhava: |

au rasIm bhaginIm vApi bhAryAm vApyanujasya ya: || IV.18.22

 

O monkey,you have thus violated the path of virtue and thus I have

punished you who have ravished younger brother's spouse. I find no

other alternative than to punish him who acts against humanity and

violates the sacred sanctions of customs. I am kshathriya,I can not

put up with your immoral action. The ShAstras sanction the

destruction of one who under the influence of passion ravishes his

own daughter,sister and younger brother's wife.

 

So far as the first justification of Rama's action in killing VAli is

concerned,we find it is not convincing because VAli himself was a

king of no mean order and KiShkinDhA in no way was the protecting

region of the IkshvAkus. Secondly,Rama was an exiled person with no

delegation of royal power in him. Therefore to say that the land

belonged to the IkshvAkus and he could administer favour on all the

subjects is an argument which ignores the facts.

 

The second justification of Rama's action on moral grounds,viz., that

VAli had ravished the spouse of his younger brother and it is

kshathriya Dharma to punish all those who violate such customs and

commit heinous crime,is again a clever ruse to get rid of a person of

doubtful allegiance. There is no internal evidence which proves that

VAli ever desired RumA-the wife of SugrIva. On the otherhand it

appears that the boot is on the other foor;it wsa SugrIva who desired

his elder brother's wife. There are many references which mention

SugrIva sporting with ThArA.

 

"svAm ca pathnIm abhiprEthAm thArAm cApi samIpsithAm" IV.29.4

(Having attained all his desires and his own wife and the much-

desired ThArA)

 

Similarly Angadha says that SugrIva has kept the wife of the elder

brother equal to a mother to the younger brother.

 

"bhrAthur jyEShTasya yO bhAryAm jIvathO mahiShIm priyAm |

DharmE Na mAtharam yasthu svIkarOthi jugupsitha: ||" IV.55.3

(he that while her son is living wrests the beloved queen of his

elder brother,mother unto him by morality,is hated by all)

 

Neither HanumAn,nor ThArA nor Angadha has thrown such a reflection on

VAli's character. On the other hand,SugrIva himself praises Vali's

character in the following words:

 

"He did not desire to slay me fearing that his greatness might be

soiled,but alas through my wickedness I performed an iniquity by

taking the life of my brother. Being struck by him with branches of

tree when I fled away and wept,he consoling me said only,'Do not do

this again'. He all along maintained his fraternal feelings,his

honesty and piety,but I displayed my wrath,passion and monkeyhood"

[Cf. IV.24.10-12] Here SugrIva makes no mention of RumA,but on the

other hand,clearly makes mention of his own motives and intentions to

occupy the throne.

 

krODhAdhamarShAdhathi vipraDharShAdh

bhrAthur vaDhOmEnumatha: purasthAth |

hathE thvidhAnIm hariyUThapEsmin

suthIvram ikshvAkukumArA thapsyE || IV.24.6

(O Rama,out of anger and passion and on account of my being insulted

by him(VAli) I did formerly desire to bring ab out his destruction

but now I am truly pierrced by his death)

 

ThArA commenting on VAli's moral character says,"O this hero VAli

departed to the celestial abode and not beholding me there,shall not

be delighted in the company of heavenly damsels wearing diversified

garments;even in the celestial land the hero VAli shall turn pale

with grief in my separation"[Cf IV.24.35]

 

svargEpi shOkam ca vivarNathAm ca

mayA vinA prApsyathi vIra! vAli IV.24.35

 

We have reasons to think that SugrIva should have been killed on

moral grounds rather than VAli if SriRama's own admission is to be

taken seriously. Rama's pretence of killing VAli on moral grounds

lacks all moral support.

 

In the third argument SriRama justifies his killing of VAli from a

place of concealment in the following manner:

 

"O monkey,there is another argument for your destruction:Many persons

living on flesh either lying in ambush or openly catch and pierce by

means of net,noose and trap, many a deer. They are not to blamein

this and I do not cherish any mortification for this. And I am

justified in killing you,whether you do fight or not since you are a

monkey"[Cf. IV.18.39-43]. What Rama says is that in hunting a shaft

can be hurled on an animal from behind and there is nothing immoral

in it. As VAli was only an a nimal his killing from behind a tree was

morally justified. This argument is most illogical because in the

second moral argument VAli has been raised to a rational being and

therefore his so called ravishing of younger brother's wife has been

condemned and suddenly in the third argument he has been lowered to

the level of an animal. If he is only an animal then any moral

judgement on his character is not warranted by any law and if he is a

rational being then Rama's killing him from behind a tree can never

be justified being contrary to Kshathriya Dharma.

 

The author Benjamin Khan feels that all these answers put forward as

justification(above) for the killing of VAli by Rama are an

interpolation at a later date by some one of an inferior intellect

than Valmiki,who forgot that Rama was an exiled prince,a

kshathriya,whose beloved wife was abducted by another king of the

south who bore a political enmity towards the kings of the north.

The abduction was an insult which had to be avenged,and so SriRama

says to SIta[Cf VI.115.5,6]

 

"yA thvAm virahithA nIthA calaciththEna rAkshasA

dhaivasampAdhithO doShO mAnuShEna mayAjita:

samprApthamavamAnam yasthEjasya na pramArjathi

kasthasya pauruShENArThO mahathApy alpa cEthasa:"

 

(This accidental misfortune under the influence whereof you were

carried away by the fickle minded Rakshasa in my absence,has been

avenged today by me as a man. What is the use of his manliiness who

when insulted can not remove it. Even if he be a great man,he may be

called mean).

 

PS:There is some mistake in the reference quoted as I didn't find the

above mentioned slokam in that particular reference VI.115.5,6. So I

will search for the correct one when I get some time(there are 131

sargas in the yuDhdha kANdam). I found some errors in other

references but that was located very easily.

 

It becomes quite clearthat Rama waged a war against RAvaNa to wipe

off the insult:

 

"sIthA snEha pravrththEna" IV.6.17

 

Now to accomplish this purpose,Rama needed powerful allies who could

help him in this great task and therefore he was constrained to enter

into negotiations with those chiefs who were desirous[Cf. VI.18.13]of

kingdom but were driven away,or who wished to join Rama in the hope

of securing a kingdom in return. The killing of VAli could be

justified on the following grounds...

 

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar TiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai