THERE ARE ABOUT FOUR EPISODES in the Rāmāyaṇa that have bothered its audience. However, a close reading of the original text of the epic clearly reveals the intention of the poet as well as the protagonist, Rāma. The current condensed translation titled The Essential Ramayana also captures these segments of the story in detail. Here is a short analysis for the convenience of the reader.
Rāma encourages the vānara brothers Vālī and Sugrīva to get into a duel and slays Vālī by shooting an arrow from behind a tree. Many have taken objection to this act of Rāma and have termed it adhārmic. In fact, Vālī, before breathing his last, challenges Rāma to explain his action. Rāma’s reply amply justifies his deed; nevertheless, we must keep in mind a few more aspects which led to the particular event.
We learn from the Kiṣkindhā-kāṇḍa that Vālī was arrogant, short-tempered, disproportionately vindictive and had the tendency to jump to conclusions about others’ intentions. From the Uttara-kāṇḍa, we can also glean that Vālī was materialistic and was in agreement with Rāvaṇa that they would share between themselves all wealth including their wives. The fact that Sugrīva was more dhārmic of the two brothers is evident because he had the support of powerful and righteous heroes such as Hanūmān, Jāmbavān, Nala, and Nīla. Sugrīva closed the cavern in which Vālī fought Māyāvī for the safety of the kingdom; he truly believed from the voices that emerged from the cave and the blood that oozed out that Vālī was dead. He took up the kingship upon the insistence of the elders and the ministers. He treated his sister-in-law Tārā with care and respect. However, Vālī who emerged alive from the cave, rushed to his kingdom, never gave Sugrīva a chance to explain himself, chased him around the world, and banished him from the kingdom. He took by force Sugrīva’s wife Rumā. It is evident that Vālī was absolutely materialistic and was driven by his instincts rather than wisdom. These qualities certainly do not befit a king.
Rāma had promised Sugrīva that he would help him regain his wife and kingdom. The two had pledged friendship over Agni. Rāma always empathised with those in trouble and in this case, he could resonate even better as he had lost his wife as well. Upon shooting Vālī, Rāma makes it clear to him that he did so in order to establish dharma in the world; forcing oneself upon one’s sister-in-law amounts to incest and all kinds of incest are to be punished with the death penalty. Rāma says that he is doing the job of a dhārmic representative of Bharata, the emperor of the world.
We must also note that just before he breathes his last, Vālī himself accepts his mistake and asks for forgiveness. Tārā, though is broken, realises that he has been rightly punished for his misdeeds. Later in the story, we see Vālī’s son Aṅgada fighting on Rāma’s side; though he expresses reservations about his uncle Sugrīva, especially out of desperation for not having found Sītā, he does not complain about Rāma. Tārā, Hanūmān, Jāmbavān, and others don’t find fault with Rāma either.
In summary, Rāma’s killing of Vālī must be examined from the perspective of daṇḍa-saṃhitā and not yuddha-nīti. In other words, it is an act of punishing the ignoble vānara and the physical combat was only a bait to bring Vālī out of his zone of luxury.
A king needs to keep his subjects in good humour and ensure that they trust him. Otherwise, he cannot wield his staff of purity nor can he claim to be adhering to superior values. A kingdom cannot be governed by brutal force; governing by the use of muscle power is not the Indian ideal of a dhārmic ruler. Rāma felt that it was important for the world to acknowledge that Sītā was of pure character, although he knew in his heart that she was chaste. Only then would the world gain confidence in him and his rule.
From the Yuddha-kāṇḍa it is evident that Rāma did not explicitly ask Sītā to undergo a test of purity by fire. His statements and questions naturally led Sītā to enter Agni. It was certainly an emotionally challenging course for both Rāma and Sītā; it was difficult for the onlookers as well. Lakṣmaṇa was especially aghast when he saw that his brother was unflinching in his stance.
Sītā’s chastity gets established through the episode of Agni-praveśa. All terrestrial and divine beings acknowledge the purity of her character. Rāma declares his true intent to the world and welcomes Sītā back to his life. As they head back to Ayodhyā in the puṣpaka-vimāna, we witness the soulful intimacy the two share with each other. Neither does Sītā complain about Rāma’s behaviour, nor does Rāma accuse Sītā any further. Sītā is truly an understanding wife and has the qualities of a perfect queen.
The Uttara-kāṇḍa narrates an episode where a śūdra named Śambūka was performing tapas, which had caused the death of a brāhmaṇa’s son. This episode, like the rest of Uttara-kāṇḍa is considered prakṣepa-pāṭha, i.e., later-day interpolation, by many scholars. Nevertheless, even if we were to accept the text as belonging to the original, we can glean certain important values from the episode of Śambūka-vadha.
Rāma never discriminated against people based on their varṇa; the Rāmāyaṇa mentions in quite a few instances that people of all the four varṇas rejoiced during Rāma’s rule.
Throughout the epic, we see Rāma embracing people belonging to all strata of society. He treats Guha and Sugrīva like his own brothers – the former was the king of Niṣādas, i.e., a tribal king and the latter was the lord of the vānaras. He blesses Śabarī, the tribal devotee and pays respects to Sage Mataṅga. He even considers the rākṣasa Vibhīṣaṇa as his own brother.
Rāma had slain a vānara, Vālī for his misdeeds and also a brāhmaṇa, Rāvaṇa for his vile nature. He had also subdued Paraśurāma’s ego who was a brāhmaṇa as well.
It is clear that Rāma respected and befriended people because of their innate goodness and did not judge them based on their varṇa (or even species!). He punished those who were adhārmic.
With this in mind, one must not view the slaying of Śambūka as a case of discrimination against a śūdra. From the Uttara-kāṇḍa it is clear that Śambūka wanted to ascend to svarga in his human body and attain the status of a devatā; the very nature of his tapas was tāmasic. In fact, Triśaṅku, one of Rāma’s ancestors had a similar aim and was punished by the devas.
The metaphor of such episodes is clear – tapas is meant for spiritual elevation and not for attaining material comfort, especially by rupturing the cosmic order. In this context, it is worth recalling two verses of the Bhagavad-gītā –
śraddhayā parayā taptaṃ tapas-tat tri-vidhaṃ naraiḥ |
aphalākāṅkṣibhiryuktaiḥ sāttvikaṃ paricakṣate || (Chapter 17, verse 17)
Tapas that is performed with utmost dedication and commitment, and without expectation of fruit constitutes sāttvic tapas.
In the current context, Śambūka was torturing his body by hanging upside down with the explicit aim of attaining the status of a devatā. This is clearly not sāttvic tapas, which is hailed as the best kind of tapas. The death of the brāhmaṇa’s son indicates that when there is a rupture in the cosmic order, it can cause trouble even to the innocent and the pious.
Rāvaṇa’s abduction of Sītā troubled innumerable innocent souls – it led to the destruction of an entire kingdom and the permanent separation of the ideal couple. Similarly, the episode of Śambūka-vadha must be taken as a metaphor for the ill effects of adhārmic deeds. Even though a similar event in connection with Triśaṅku had occurred in the past, Śambūka had not learnt his lesson. Death penalty was the only solution.
To be continued
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.
