SriRama's action - 1

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear bhAgavathAs,

Salutations to all. SriRama's action in killing vAli(and

also wrt SItE)has always been a subject of debate. This is an often

raised moral question by many critics in the academic circle too.

Often people have their own views and reasons and stick to their

views no matter even if the expert in that subject gives an

explanation. Such people can not be blamed either because they form

their opinions based on their limited knowledge and experience. I

remember vaguely(please correct me if I'm wrong), that revered

Chakravarthy Rajagopalachari also says(in his Chakravarthy Tirumagan)

that there is a bolt on SriRama's character! Keeping all this aside,I

have posted below the explanation, for SriRama's action in killing

vAli, given by Dr Benjamin Khan,a PhD (and professor of the

Dept of Philosophy,Christian College,Indore in 1965 when the book was

published) in the book "The concept of dharma in Valmiki Ramayana".

 

--

Killing of VAli by SriRama hidden behind a tree when vAli was engaged

in battle with another man[Cf KiShkinDhA kANdam(IV) 11-4;12-14]

--

 

Let's see the arguments which VAli puts forward to accuse SriRama for

his immoral action and what SriRama has to say in defense of His

action to prove that His killing of VAli from behind the tree and

when VAli was engaged in battle with other man is morally justified.

VAli accuses SriRama in the following words:

 

"What merit have you reaped by destroying me who was not engaged in

conflict with you?[Cf. IV.17.16-17 The whole sarga deals with VAli's

arguments against SriRama's immoral action] Before I saw you, I had

thought within myself,"Indeed Rama shall not destroy me,engaged as I

am with another person and have not prepared to fight with him". "Had

you fought with me openly, you would have,indeed,seen the abode of

death,being killed by me".

 

This shows that VAli was killed by SriRama contary to the established

conventions of battle[Cf. IV.17.15]. Elsewhere we find the convention

being observed,eg.,when NIla was fighting with RAvaNa,HanumAn refuses

to attack RAvaNa since he is engaged in battle with another man. This

proves that SriRama's act was contrary to the established conventions

of war.

 

nIlE na saha samyuktham rAvaNam rAkshasEshvaram |

anyEna yuDhyamAnasya na yukthamabhiDhAvanam ||

- VI(yuDhdha kANdam).59.74

(HanumA thinks "it is not meet for me to attack RAvaNa since he is

engaged with NIla)

 

Therefore VAli calls this action of SriRama a wicked deed[Cf

IV.17.34,40,42]. VAli further says to Rama,"Royal virtue consists in

humbly and freely administering discipline,favour andpunishment.

Kings by no means should follow their whims. But you are angry and

unsteady by nature,capricious,quite narrow-minded in the discharge of

royal duties and do use your bow and shaft anywhere and everywhere.

You have no devotion to virtue,no comprehension of right things and

are always guided by passion"[Cf. IV.17.33]. Vali calls it a treason

and those who "commit treason,destroy brAhmaNas and are thieves and

always engaged in the destruction of animals and are atheists and

marry before their elder brothers are married,do all go to

hell"[Cf.IV.17.34-36]. Vali further says,"it is perfectly proper that

SugrIva shall inherit my kingdom on my ascension to heaven. But it is

equally improper that I have been viciously killed by you in

battle"[Cf. IV.17.51]

 

In part 2,we will see how Raghava defends Himself to refute Vali's

allegations?

 

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar TiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai