Anusha S Rao is a scholar of Sanskrit based in Torontowho likes writing new things about very old things. X/@AnushaSRao2
Credit: DH Illustration
That politicians right, left, and centre (pun intended) are milking the Ayodhya Ram temple’s ‘Pran Pratishta’ ceremony for all it is worth is nothing new. So, this week, let us hope they accompany us as we look within the Ramayana for a controversy about the correct exercise of power.
Traditionally, two events cast a shadow over Rama’s image as the perfect man -- the first, of course, is his treatment, and consequent abandonment of Sita, who loves him so dearly. And the second, which we shall speak of today, is Rama’s killing of Vali, the Vanara king and Sugriva’s brother. In case you needed a quick refresher course on the Ramayana, here it is briefly. When Rama is exiled by his father, and Sita is kidnapped by Ravana, Rama needs help to find her. He strikes up a friendship with the exiled Vanara king Sugriva based on personal tragedy -- Sugriva’s mighty brother Vali has exiled him due to a misunderstanding and Sugriva wants him killed. In return, Sugriva is to help Rama locate the missing Sita.
Rama carries out his part of the promise first. Sugriva summons Vali for battle, and Vali ill-advisedly accepts, despite being warned by his wife that Sugriva must have external help. Rama then conceals himself and kills Vali as he is battling Sugriva. Now, this poses a conundrum in the epic. How can Rama, the epitome of fairness and justice, kill Vali in such an unjust way?
The Ramayana itself is aware of this problem. When Vali questions Rama, he feels called upon to justify his actions. He explains that, as a representative of the king, he must punish Vali for his adharmic actions, including taking Sugriva’s wife. Also, Rama has made a promise to Sugriva and must honour his word. And finally, as a man, Rama is permitted to hunt animals, and killing Vali counts as an instance of hunting.
Needless to say, these answers seem unconvincing. Even if Rama was obliged to punish Vali for his bad conduct, why violate the rules of war and/or punishment by not revealing himself to Vali first? Second, Sugriva, too, seems to take Vali’s wife as his own after Vali dies, and no one has a problem with it. And finally, it seems cruel to justify Rama’s killing of Vali by giving the Vanaras sub-human status and allowing men to go around randomly slaughtering them.
Commentators on the Ramayana have been uncomfortable with this narrative, and so go to great lengths to justify the morality of Rama’s actions. For instance, some argue that since Rama is in dire straits, exiled and separated from his wife, the usual rules of dharmic conduct do not apply to him, and allowances can be made for what, in ordinary circumstances, would be considered immoral.
Others argue from Rama’s divine status as the incarnation of Vishnu, which gives him absolute moral authority over all beings -- pointing out to how these events balance themselves out in future rebirths of these characters in the Mahabharata.
And yet others have suggested that Rama was meant to be human, not divine, in the epic. And if he had to face Vali in hand-to-hand combat, he would have probably lost. And so, he had to resort to concealing himself in order to gain a decisive victory.
If Lord Rama isn’t beyond reproach, and there is much ambiguity about his actions, we, and our elected representatives, can definitely do with more humility as we invoke divine approval for our very human actions.