The World Of Valmiki
by N. Raghunathan
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Vali But Vali was not listening. Indeed he was one of those who cannot give heed to what others say: they are
too self-centred. And Vali had in addition the defect of his race. Though Western critics have not yet got over the shock of discovering that an epic could find room for monkeys and demons, the practice of their
own poets, from the Greeks with their centaurs to Spenser with his dragons, shows that such symbols may be effectively used to depict the deviations from that human norm with which the poet identifies himself, in the Ramayana the
poet takes the civilization that had flowered in Dasharatha's Ayodhya as the norm of human culture. The royal family of the Ikshvakus was something more than a dynasty. Its political fortunes had varied; its
territory was not perhaps larger than that under Janaka. But Manu, the first of kings, was its progenitor, and its name had been synonymous with righteousness and valour. The poet takes it as the symbol of an organic
society fixed in the matrix of dharma. Such a traditional society is devoted to the balanced pursuit of the purusharthas. It values the virtues of self-control, discrimination and circumspection. Its
social mores are largely governed by these values. But the poet has seen other societies which are ruled by other dominant impulses. There are those that live at the level of the instinct. They are normally
kindly, except when they are crossed; they are busy getting and spending. They take their pleasures avidly and are not prone to look before and after or to pine for what is not. They do not debate about Fate and Free
Will and such high things. In other words, they are content to take life as it comes and not bother unduly about what happens thereafter. It is this instinctive1
life that the poet describes as generic to the Vanara race. The noblest Roman of them all, Hanuman, had vicariously to stand the good-humoured gibe of Bharata, the kind-hearted, who when he found Rama's arrival delayed too long for his patience, cried out:
'Were you giving free play to the fickleness of the monkey mind?' (Yuddah 130.22) The Vanaras have their code: but their social values, if we may so a call them, are
different. Hence much of the hair-splitting over the ethics of Sugriva's having annexed Tara or Vali having annexed Ruma is beside the point. Though Rama blames Vali for having deprives his younger brother of his wife,
he thinks of it primarily as an act of cruelty to the younger brother and not as an offence against sexual morals. When after Vali's death Tara lives with Sugriva it seems to be regarded as a legitimate tribal custom.
"You had a father's duty towards him, if your regard for Dharma was genuine." 'But', goes on Sri Rama, 'By long experience Sugriva knew that it was hopeless to look to you for justice. You were implacable in your
hatred. He laid that plaint before me, and I undertook to redress his wrong.' In fact Sugriva had said, 'Give me protection against Vali of whom I go in mortal fear.' (
Kish. 5.24) That seems to be Valmiki's parama-tatparya regarding the ethics of Vali's killing. Even if Vali had offered his friendship and help to Rama the latter could not have accepted it, had he
known of Vali's deergha-vairam2--the most unnatural of feelings that could be entertained towards a brother. To refrain from adding to the quota of another's sorrows or tribulations is, the poet seems
to think, the duty of the least of God's creatures. Look at the beautiful sentiment he puts into the mouth of Suparshva, Sampati's son, who blocked Ravana's way and was entreated by him to let him go:
'Nobody, not even the lowest of the low, strikes at those who seek to conciliate them. How
Contrast this with the way Vali had pursued poor Sugiriva round and round the world till at a lucky moment Hanuman thought of the sanctuary at Rishyamooka. Because Vali quoted Dharmasastra, Rama too went at it hammer
and tongs. But he knew--and Vali came to agree--that you cannot understand the scriptures by making an ad hoc raid upon them as our social reformers do. You have got to live the good life:
'The Dharma to which good men give their allegiance is exceedingly subtle and difficult to Vali simply admits it;
and his dying message to Sugriva betokens the sad submission to fate which is so common to high spirits who know that their day is done: (Kish. 22.3-4) 'The comradeship so natural to brothers was, alas, not to be for
us.' The more is the pity, because Sugriva has a genius for friendship. And he lavished it all on Sri Rama who could chaff him genially on his knowledge of shastra and shishtachara and could afford
to speak the truth to him--a strain which few human friendships seem able to stand. Valmiki says that Sri Rama, looking slily at Lakshmana with a smile, said to Sugriva:
'Not all brothers, my dear, are like Bharata; neither are all sons like me, or all friends like you.' Sugriva That is one of the
great sayings of the Ramayana, which requires a little thought. It seems to have been intended to emphasise the truth that the self-denying devotion exbibiied by each of these in the particular relationship exalted here was
inspired not by a sense of duty but by love. This is the renunciation with a positive content that Valmiki glorifies. Be that as it may, I fancy that the advocatus diaboli
would find little to urge against the claim that Sugriva was the perfect friend. The moment his eye lights on the two brothers, he is all anxiety to ascertain whether they are well-intentioned. Hanuman tells them that Sugriva wants to be friends with them. When Lakshmana tells Hanuman that Rama looks upon Sugriva as
sharanya, Hanuman does not repeat this to Sugriva. He merely informs him that they are desirous of his friendship. And Sugriva, in his very first words to them, his mind freed from the besetting fear that they
might be Vali's friends, tells them that he is honoured and flattered to find that they should wish to be friends with him, a mere Vanara. And, forthwith, they pledge mutual friendship in the most solemn manner, neither mentioning
an ulterior objective. The question of mutual help is broached later. It is true that when, after the pact is sealed, Sugriva beseeches him to save him again against Vali: (Kish. 5.25) Rama
says with a smile that he knows friendship has a price. But it is noteworthy that after the great battle is over and they are all at Ayodhya for the coronation, Bharata, who has heard of Sugriva's heroic valour and
self-denial, utters the mot juste: amending Rama's words he says: 'Sauhrdad jayate mitram' (friendship comes from love). But that is to look far ahead. We are now at the beginning of this ideal
friendship. Sugriva, though he was to be troubled later by doubts about Rama's ability to cope with Vali, expands like the lotus in the sun at the dawn of happy friendship. Nowhere has a more perfect characterisation of
friendship been depicted in literature than in the verses 8 and 9 of Canto 8 of the Kishkindha Kanda. With Vali gone, the crown secured and the long-denied comforts of family life restored, Sugriva seems to
slide for a moment into the hedonism that forgets ideals. But only 'seems'. Even in his wildest abandon he has not forgotten what he owes to Rama. Lakshmana has spoken harshly out of ignorance: (Kish.
30.81). But Sugriva, who needs no such reminder, takes no offence: (Kish. 36.11). (Don't we hear there the echo of another great friend's apology, Arjuna's: 'Maya pramadat pranayena vapi'?) With the impulsive gesture of his race he had discarded his mada (intoxication) with his malya (flowers), as he starts to meet Rama: (Kish. 36.3). And Rama when he meets him
chides him, not for being forgetful of the duties of friendship, but for forgetting that Kingship is an arduous task: (Kish. 38.20-22). From that moment till the day he takes leave of Raghava after the great
coronation, Sugriva knows no weakness, no self-indulgence. Rama, the friend, has become for him the incarnate Good for which no sacrifice is too small. The fates had deigned that he should not be friends with his
brother., But they had reserved him for a higher destiny--to be adopted by Bharata into the brotherhood of the Dasharathis. If for a moment I may deviate into a topical reflection, Valmiki would seem to think that no
differences of race, language or culture need inhibit the maitri
which the world so sadly lacks today. On the other hand he looks upon it as the golden strand on which may be threaded the rich diversity of our human lot. But true friendship can only be among those who respect
the basic human virtues of kindliness and compassion. The friendship of Vali and Ravana was based on ideology. The friendship of Sugiriva and Rama was based on the fundamental decencies.
then could the likes of me, my dear?' (Kish. 59.16-17)
know, 0 ape. Only the supreme soul enshrined in the hearts of all creatures knows what is
productive of good and what of evil. (Kish. 18.15)
(Yuddha 18.15-16)
1That the monkeys ought not to be judged by the Aryan code of personal morality is implicit in the Ramayana account of their origin. Begotten for a special purpose by the gods, who are
bhogis and not karmis, on Vanaris and Rikshis, they naturally live an amoral life. 2The overthrow of Parasurama was the first blow struck at deergha-vairam. It symbolised the close of
an era. A new principal, of mercy tempering justice, was to be exalted over the harsh Kshattriya attitude against which Rama inveighs time and again.