BALI VADH




SHRI RAM AND MARYADAS OF HIS TIME : 4

BALI   VADH

After the
abduction of Sita, Shri Ram immediately left Panchvati in search of Sita. As
per the advice of Jataayu , and also that of Shabri, he was moving in the
southerly direction, and was at Kishkindha Mt. He entered into a friendship
pact with Sugrive, wherein, it was decided that, Shri Ram would ensure
Sugrive’s win over Bali, and subsequently, Sugrive would assist in every
possible manner, Sita’s safe return. In the process Shri Ram would also help to
restore to Sugrive, his wife, who had been forcibly kept by Bali.

 

This pact
was important. In the first instance this was first of its kind, in as much
that it recognized Vaanars as new generation of mankind and that they were
equal in status to people living in rest of the kingdoms. Until now after the
accord between kingdoms and Parashuram, the kingdoms were not having any
relation- good or bad with Vaanars (pl. read Hindu History ), and now for the
first time, Prince of Ayodhya, Shri Ram, was not only accepting them as equal,
but was also entering into a pact accepting them as equal.

 

Soon
thereafter, on the advice of Shri Ram, Sugrive challenged Bali for a fight.
Bali had earlier received a boon from gods that he would gain half the strength
of his opponent in any man to man
fight. As such he was unbeatable. This fact was discussed by Sugrive and Shri
Ram and they had agreed that Shri Ram would kill Bali, by an arrow, hiding
behind a bush, when Sugrive and Bali fought each other.

Now the
Maryada of that time was against any such interference, when two persons were
engaged in a combat. Shri Ram knew that and was also prepared to go against it.
He knew that if he won a comprehensive battle against Ravan, with the support
of Sugrive and his Vaanars sena, it would become easier to bring them into the
main stream of civilized life. It may also be argued that since the kingdoms of
that time still regarded Vaanars as yet another animal breed, and never treated
them as human beings, there was no problem in ambushing and killing them from
behind a bush, as was normally done while hunting. Shri Ram had already
accepted them as human being at par with those living in kingdoms, and to that
extend that argument is inappropriate and inconsistent with the facts.

 

In the
ensuing fight both Bali and Sugrive fought bravely but soon Bali started
gaining upper hand. When the blows from Bali became too much to bear, Sugrive
ran back to where Shri Ram was. Shri Ram assured Sugrive that the only reason
why he had not killed Bali was because during fight both looked alike. He gave
Sugrive a tulsi maala which Shri Ram
himself wore around his neck and send him back for combat. This time, too, Bali
started gaining an upper hand. From the bush, Shri Ram then drove one arrow
straight into Bali’s chest.

Wounded
seriously, Bali fell on the ground. He saw Ram standing right in front of him,
with his bow and arrow, and Laxman standing a few steps away. Bali accused Ram
of favoring Sugrive, and killing him like an animal, when he was engaged in a man
to man
combat with Sugrive. This was ADHARM, he protested. Shri Ram replied
that he was staying in forest to establish DHARM among mankind living in
forest, and Bali knew that. Taking the argument further, Shri Ram said that he
(Bali) had been punished because he had forcibly kept his younger brothers
wife. As per dharm there was no difference between the younger brother and a
son, and as such Bali’s indecent act did not merit any lesser punishment.

 

Bali knew
that Shri Ram was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He also knew that he would
have turned down any request from Shri Ram for help and support against Ravan,
as Ravan was his (Bali’s) friend and he would not, under any circumstances, had
involved his sena in any fight against Ravan. He also knew that he was fatally
wounded. Realization of death brings spirituality in most men. Bali also felt
the same. Bali knew why Ram had mortally wounded him. He would not have assisted
Ram, but Sugrive would. His race i.e. Vaanars will benefit immensely with Ram’s
support. He asked Ram that now that, HE, as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, was
standing right in front of him, as he [Bali] lay dying, was he still a sinner?

 

Understanding
that Bali had accepted his mistake, Shri Ram desired that Bali may be treated,
so that he could be saved, but Bali flatly refused. He requested Shri Ram to
take care of his son Angad and then he died.

 

Now the
above conversation simply highlights how seriously wrong Bali was, when he
forcibly kept his younger brother’s wife. Shri Ram knew that he had broken the
Maryada of his time by interfering decisively in a man to man combat. But
he had promised to Bharat, when they met in Chitrakoot, that he would do everything
to establish Bhaarat, a land where there would be no exploitation of mankind by
mankind. He was on a nation building mission, and only that was his priority.
Sugrive and the entire Vaanars gained immensely, in terms of goodwill, by
helping Shri Ram, in his fight against Ravan. Shri Ram was able to bring them
in the mainstream... subsequently after his victory over Ravan.

 

We must
remember that for God there is never any Maryada, but a person is bound by
traditions, customs and rituals. Maryada is a component of history and once we
start judging a person on the bases of Maryadas of that period, we are doing
this after we have accepted him as a historical figure of that time. In the
case of Shri Ram this confusion must be cleared once and for ever. Some people
believe that he was a historical figure, some feel otherwise. This article has
been written with full belief and faith that he was a historical figure.

 

A person
who follows the Maryadas of his time is called Maryada Purush. But a person, who
goes beyond that, i.e. a person who not only follows Maryada, but is even
willing to break them for the sake of larger cause such as humanity and nation
is called MARYADAPURUSHOTTAM. Shri Ram is justly called MARYADAPURUSHOTTAM RAM.

        

 

 

---------------- Note: Content of this blog post is writer's personal opinion and may not be SanghParivar.org or Sangh's view.

Comments

saugato Banerjee's picture

bali had acquired strength

bali had acquired strength not from his birth but through his own capacity, devotion to God and through strong meditation(tapasya)! so, ethically, what skill bali had got, to overcome this, opponent like Sri Ram had to acquire those first through his own capacity by pleasing surya or other God as bali did but Sri Ram choose a cheap way to kill bali, hiding from bush! i will never ever will support or accept three acts of Ram- 1) injustice to a helpless,pregnant woman who was left alone in a deep forest(why Ram himself had not left with sita as a responsible husband or father, if he knew that sita was innocent , giving the kingdom to bharat as he had to do it for 14 years!what security arrangement had he provided for sita while leaving her in deep forest? she cud have been eaten by the animals! sri Ram forgot all those thing as he was reigning and enjoying power! he had done so unethical, immoral deed that i strongly blame it! just think, he had done this injustice with his own full conciousness , just to appease a few citizen! i claim, appeasement policy of hindus started right from sri Ram) 2)killing of bali fraudulently 3) killing of indrajit fraudulently
also, he had taken the help of a traitor, ungrateful bhivison- which is also unethical! he should have spied his own men to extract the ravan's kingdom news! why to take help from a enemies man! did he not indulge a wrong tradition? even he could not defeat Ravan at his own, he had to know the secret to kill Ravan from a traitor!

i am sorry for my above post but somewhere i have to express my anguish over wrong thing!

kbs14's picture

Dear Shri Saugato, Thanks

Dear Shri Saugato,

Thanks very much for your comments.

Sir, with all humility, I would like to differ to the extent that the observations by you are incomplete. Why?

Simply because we are neither discussing a religious story, nor a literary text. We are discussing history of a great man, and as such every event would have an emotional and Dharmic value. Let us work this in present scenario. Governments today are trying to define what their Dharm would be incase of a terrorist attack.We all know since terrorists target innocent people, the emotional decision is very clear, ie to save the innocent people, but the Dharmic decision could be different. And so it is with Lord Ram.

Now, Sir, you have given the emotional decision about Bali Vadh—nothing wrong with it. I have given the Dharmic in my reply to comments dt Sat, 01/30/2010 - 22:54. Please go through it. Regarding DISOWNMENT of Sita, once again what was the dharm that was established, is important. Please read my post AGNI PARIKSHA OF SITA – FACTS, at url : http://www.sanghparivar.org/forum/agni-pariksha-of-sita-facts, to read the dharm from it.

Sir we have to understand one thing absolutely clearely and comprehensively. Every thing that Shri Ram did WAS and IS DHARM. The only problem is that at most of the instances the dharmic interpretation may be at variance with what it should actually have been, causing negative result The result nowadays can be measured in physical terms. Statistic shows that Hindu society is moving in a negative zone, and they are correct.

Sir all these things require correction, for which coordinated efforts are required.

Regards
Kulbhushan

saugato Banerjee's picture

kindly not to misunderstand

kindly not to misunderstand me as i knew very well that Ram was, and Ramayan was realy happened!
my thinking or conclusions were not emotional but practical which are related to a human being!
Sri Ram did many good jobs but where he did the intentional mistake or injustice to benefit larger section of mankind , that i have pointed!

ethics and morality tells us that an innocent shud not be punished in spite of death of several sinners!
i had read ur "Agniparikhsa -sita fact" but the question lies there itself! o.k. , if i accept also that Ram had to leave sita for benefit of larger section! but why he had not made the proper arrangement for her departure! no security arrangement, no home, nothing he had provided for sita(onece wife)! as per his order, sita was thrown to jungle like .....! no no.. it's wrong!

Dr K Prabhakar Rao's picture

Dear KBS It was revealing

Dear KBS
It was revealing to read your thought.
Ramayan and Mahabharat are believed to be the actual historical events in India, As you said, the explanations will differ if they are considered as mere stories or real past historical incidents. The social organizations were different in past and vary from place to place. An acceptable thing in one society could be a crime in other society. Similarly the same act could be seen as different at different times. Vanara tribe was forset dwellers and probably had their own code.. Can vanaras of Valis time be considered merely as animals of forest? Probably this is doubtful. Hanuman was also a Vanara. Yet he was the most illustrious and well read in scriptures and was the exponent of grammar and other sciences. He was the authority. He had divine powers too. Similarly Sugreeva was the blessed son of Surya and is known as a wise man although short tempered. Vali was no less. He defeated Ravana and they made a pact to enjoy all comforts together. Therefore, the vanaras of Balis time can not be merely considered as mere forest dwellers without any human intelligence.
Vali kept Ruma sugriva's wife by force with him after driving away Sugreeva. This under any case was not accepted even those times.This happens only in animals. Sugreeva after the death of Vali took care of Tara, Bali's wife, and had conjugal relations with her. This was an accepted fact in those times. Younger brother was permitted to marry his brother's wife and took care of her. Even in Hill tribes in India this is permitted in India. ngas have this practice. There was also a movie Ek mailee si chadahar some time ago based on this practice. Sugreeva was not at fault for this act.

Rama considered Vali guilty for his immoral act. Therefore, he had to kill vali as punsishment. secondly, Rama promised to make Sugreeva as the vanara king and to fill this promise there was no way out except to kill Vali and this he accomplished by shooting from behind a bush. This he had to do due to some fact. Vali had a boon that whenever he fought an enemy the strength of the enmy was taken over by Vali. Thus Rama was sure that he could not kill vali in open fight and thus he had to kill vali from behind a bush. Thus Rama's actions of protecting Dharma and overcoming a very strong enemy were fulfilled. But one point has to be remembered. Rama in the next incranation as Krishna was shot by a hunter who was said to be vali in earlier life. This goes to prove that Rama had to undergo counter actions at some stage as per Hindu karma siddhanta, and this took place in the life of Krishna. Thus a portion of sin is thus attached to Rama even as per the scriptures and Rama paid in next life.

Dr K Prabhakar Rao

kbs14's picture

Dear Dr Rao, So nice of you

Dear Dr Rao,

So nice of you to have visited the site once again and doing a thorough study of the post, and writing a review of the post.Thank yo very much for the same once again.

Sir, the question that still remains to be answered is “what was the Dharm that was established by this Historic event?”

WAS IT AS PER THE EXISTING ACCEPTABLE BELIEF that since Bali was unfair to Sugrive and his family, it was OK for Shri Ram to have killed Bali unfairly? As further consolaton, our religious leaders also tell us that Shri Ram was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu and hence could not have done any thing wrong.

OR

THE DHARM THAT GET REVEALED THROUGH THIS POST, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:
“If a Leader (Chief, King) has already declared his intention in advance that he is on a humanitarian and nation building spree, and to achieve that end it requires killing one person, who is obstructing this process, then, as per Hindu Dharm there is no harm in killing, even unfairly, the person, who, knowingly deals unfairly with his own tribe and causes obstructon in the growth of that tribe and the larger cause of nation building.”
(Note: That is why Shri Ram is called Maryadapurushottam Ram, and not because he broke maryada by klling Bali unfairly.)

THIS SIR IS THE IMPORTANT DEBATEABLE POINT.

Sir, Hindus are not getting desired result as a society, because over the years they have developed a very passive outlook. After independence efforts by Hindu leaders to change that attitude was unfortunately not made. It has to be done now.

I repeat, my humble request is that, in this information age, our focus and endevour should be to see that religion moves in a positive direction and should be able to sort problems of Hindu Society, such as Dowry deaths, Attrocities on Females, Corruption in Self Rule, Suicides by Farmers, Illitracy and Excessive Child Mortality.

This is one instance of misinterpretation. Yo will find several such instances in Ramayan alone. Only debate withen the educated Hindus, duly supported by religious leaders, can sort this problem.

Regards
Kulbhushan

kbs14's picture

Sirs, The issues raised by

Sirs,

The issues raised by Shri Saugato Banerjee on Sat, 01/23/2010, and Dr K Prabhakar Rao on Sat, 01/23/2010, needs elaborate answers.

Several questions have been raised by this HISTORIC EVENT. I am stressing the point HISTORIC EVENT, because in case one believes that it was merely a story then the treartment of events could be different. However if one believes FIRMLY (as I do), that this was a historical event, then the issue requires answer in the light of existing social background and then we can pass our judgement.

The problem presently existing with Hindu Religion is that we have been cajoled or coheresed to accept the results from these stories( I am afraid, I am using a dirty word ‘story” for History, but that is how every one is treating ancient history), without going into details of historical background, which results in erronious conclusions. Since Shri Ram is a Dharmic figure, such erronious conclusions are classified as Dharm, and since statistically( and statistic seldom gives wrong results), we are already moving in a negative direction, we become, unintentionally, a party who is resposible for taking Hindu Dharm in the negative direction. Everyone who is writing about religion or problems of society does have a very serious responsibility to take the society forward.

Now I have tried to answer questions pertaining to Bali Vadh, such as:

1. Bali was killed by Shri Ram hiding behind a bush/ tree, when bali was engaged in a man to man fight with Sugrive.As such Shri Ram did broke the maryda(the defination of Maryada is: NOBELEST TRADITION OF THAT TIME) of that time. Yet he is called MARYADAPURUSHOTTAM! WHY?

2. What was the dharmic conclusion? Now the Dharmic conclusion that I have given may be different then provided by others.That perhaps should have been the most debateable point. If you have believed it to be correct –accept it and suggest ways to propogate it, other wise reject it, after givng the writer an opportunity to explain.

That is how I look at these issues. Sir you all are highly accomplished individuals and society does expect you to provide necessary dirction.

Regards
Kulbhushan

saugato Banerjee's picture

if bali had done wrong and a

if bali had done wrong and a sinner, God like sri Ram shud have punished him right in front of him and as an judgement!!! why hiding from bush? no, no, it is not justified!! whoever has done it, it is extremely wrong and sri Ram had done wrong!!!

Dr K Prabhakar Rao's picture

Every one has to pay for the

Every one has to pay for the deeds done. sriRama was justified in killing Bali as per the justification that are;
1.Bali drove out Sugreeva his brother and forcibly kep his wife Ruma with him.This was most unethical and the biggest sin. As stataed younger brother i like a son and his wife amounts to a daughter in law. Having conjugal connections with her is pardonable and death is the punishment.
2.Sri Rama was the lord of the land na was in forset to establish Dharma
3. Vali was a vanaraa forest dweller and such animals are trapped, snared and shot behind ushes. It is rather hunting
Thus sri Rams act was justified as stated in te sripture. Yet as consequence Sri Rama had to undergo certain actions too.

In the next birth rama incarnated as sri Krishna and at the end of avatar he was resting under a tree in a forest and a hunter standing behind trees unable to see Sri Krishna completely saw his foot and mistook him to a deer and he shot an arrow, The arrow pierced Sri Krishna foot and the hunter having seen his deed and realised the sin he has committed went to sri Krishna and cried, Krishna told him that the hunter was no one else than Vali in the present life and this he had undergo punishmnet in the incarnation of krishna. Thus scores were settled. That is the story as per our scriptures
Dr K Prabhakar Rao