Arun Chandrasekaran

Slaying of Vāli

April 10, 2026

"அறத்தை எல்லாம் திரட்டி ஒரு ஆணுருவம் செய்தால் அது இராமன்" is how Kambar constructs Rāman character from the very beginning.

Establishment of Aram/Dharmam

There's a reason why Valluvar has split Kural literature into 4 categories: Aram, Porul, Inbam.

They form what is called as Purusharthas: Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mōksha.

Purusharthas are those that every sentient being should strive for.

The Sanskrit and Tamil words literally mean exactly the same thing.

Sanskrit	Tamil
Dharma	Aram
Artha	Porul
Kāma	Inbam
Mōksha	Vīdu

Aram is the first thing that children must be taught when they are 4/5 years of age (pre-KG). Because Dharmam will establish righteousness in their minds, before even the critical thinking (Buddhi) develops. That's why they are taught "அறம் செய விரும்பு" as the definition of the first letter அ in Tamil.

Critical thinking with boundary is like a controlled river and without boundary is like a dangerous flood that can wipe out a civilization - typically the communist/extreme left agenda is in the modern sense.

The order in which Hinduism establishes Dharmam is:

Vedas -> Vedantas -> Aagama -> Puranas -> Ithihasas

• Vedas talk about the rituals/offerings to Gods.
• Vendantas talk about the self-inquiry and self-search.
• Aagamas talk about the rules and the establishment of spiritual inquiry in an acceptable order.
• Puranas talk about deep and nuanced foundation and connections amongst all the above.
• Ithihasas are our history on what and how things happened.

When all these were constructed in their own timelines, we must acknowledge the lack of linguistic and epistemological maturity due to limited nomenclature that allowed people of those generations to express and communicate the precise details to whatever extent to which they did. On a hindsight it is a shame that all of the above includes a certain amount of mythology coupled with history for various reasons that I will not go into in this article.

Without Aram, human interactions would devolve into survival of the fittest, similar to animal behavior. Aram creates the trust and justice necessary for a functioning society. Providing food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, and shelter to the poor are considered essential Aram. This creates a community where no one is left behind, effectively acting as social safety net in the ancient days.

At an individual level, the goal of Aram is to reach a state called manatukkan māsilan ādal (மனத்துக்கண் மாசிலன் ஆதல்) - becoming spotless in mind.

Rāman's stance on aram:

• At age 5, sage Vasishta taught him not to kill women and messengers (மாதரையும் தூதரையும் கொல்லாதே).
• At age 13, sage Vishvamitra shows him practically before the slaying of Thātakā - Even if she is a woman, if she commits criminal acts, treat her as a criminal and slay her. Dharma is not a lesson that can be contained within a single book. So following the right teacher's (who knows Dharmam at various levels) guidance is the right way to follow Dharmam until he gains both experience and knowledge.

அறம் = விதித்தன செய்தல், விலக்கியன ஒழித்தல்

படியும் சாத்திரத்து உள்ளுரைகாணார் பானைத்தேனில் அகப்பையை போல்வார்

Establishing Mendacity

Mendacity refers to the state or the quality of being untruthful. Duplicity implies double-dealing or deceitfulness, often involving saying one thing while meaning another. Deceit is a broad term for a deceptive statement or action intended to mislead. Perjury is the specific legal term for lying or making verifiably false statements while under oath. Prevarication means deviating from the truth by quibbling. Equivocation is using ambiguous language to mislead. In Tamil we refer it with a single word "poy (பொய்)" - remember the unintentional lack of nomenclature.

So is mendacity dharmam or adharmam?

Valluvar who elaborately establishes Aram says:

பொய்மையும் வாய்மை யிடத்த புரைதீர்ந்த நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின்

Even a mendacity is truthful If it does unsullied good.

If telling a lie is better than telling the truth in that particular context, telling a lie is acceptable to telling the truth. Telling a lie is acceptable, if that does not do any harm to both the person who tells and the person who receives. There is no justification for telling a lie. But the context in which a lie is told justifies the act of telling a lie.

Establishing Fate

Fatalism is to accept that a person is a puppet in the hands of fate.

ஊழிற் பெருவலி யாவுள மற்றொன்று சூழினுந் தான்முந் துறும்

What is stronger than fate which foils Every ploy to counter it

Our fate acts before we act and that is fate.

Valluvar has dedicated 37 chapters to describe Aram as பாயிரவியல், இல்லறவியல், துறவறவியல் and kept ஊழியல்/Fatalism as a separate and last and the only chapter in the arattuppāl (அறத்துப்பால்). This is precisely because even if one follows all kinds of dharmam, one might find that he may not reap the benefits whereas someone who has not followed any of the dharmam gets all the wealth. There can be conditions that might get triggered that cannot be reasoned about (like accidents, etc). So he brings in Fatalism as the last chapter of அறத்துப்பால்.

Vāli's Rage

Vāli and Sugrīvan were very close siblings with extreme love and respect for each other. This is stated in several places. However Rāmāyanam documents how fate impacted them.

Some māyāvis attack the land of the vānaras and vāli and his army goes on to defend. That leads them into a tunnel where vāli instructs his armies (that includes Sugrīvan, ānjaneyan, et al) to guard the opening of the tunnel so that no māyāvis will exit the tunnel and attack the citizens of their country. So they stand guard outside. Vāli goes inside the tunnel and battles the māyāvis. After a few weeks, blood starts flowing towards the exit of the tunnel where the vānaras where safeguarding. Vānaras take it for the blood of vāli, but not Sugrīvan. They assess that māyāvis might come and attack their cities at any point, so they expect Sugrīvan to take on the throne and lead them in the preparation of the battle. He refuses to believe that his brother was killed and so he refuses to take the throne. The vānaras convince him of Vāli's perishing and Sugrīvan cries in anguish. Due to the situation, he took the throne.

On the otherhand, Vāli wasn't dead after all. It took him few months to kill all the māyāvis and in the process he gains a lot of self-pride and ego that he is invincible. When we lose, our ego usually takes a backseat and we will get into introspection of what we could've done better. Rather it is during success that we must exercise our ego judiciously. It is just about time to see how Vāli handled that.

It is also a saying that the Kālan (Yaman) has entered the scene when:

• the younger brother asks for the share of his property from his father or his elder brother.
• the elder brother acts in a reckless manner that caused the conditions as such.

Vāli exits the tunnel and sees his armies have vanished and wonders what happened. His ego makes him think if his own brother has abandoned him. In the modern context, I'm also tempted to think the presence of PTSD in Vāli, but I will stay away from it. Vāli doubts if Sugrīvan was behind the māyāvis and if he had planned it all from the beginning and gets rage. He heads straight to his court and sees Vāli on the throne. The rage turns into paranoid and he starts attacking Sugrīvan immediately. Sugrīvan pleads to listen to his side of the argument and nothing reaches Vāli's ears at this stage. His severe rage makes Sugrīvan realizes that Vāli will not spare him and thus escapes the place with a couple of well wishers. With the same paranoia and arrogance, Vāli grabs the wife of Sugrīvan as well and makes her his own.

Rāman meeting Sugrīvan

In short, Rāman asks Sugrīvan: "I hear you lost your wife as well". This establishes the context that Rāman wants to not just help Sugrīvan, but his motto was to establish Aram. Rāman promises Sugrīvan that he will help him recover his life back by slaying Vāli.

Lakshmanan has been listening to all these conversations and thinks it is not right to encourage Sugrīvan's grief longing - but has not spoken it out loud cuz his elder brother knows Aram more than anyone. Rāman understands this and explains him that it is Aram that ultimately matters.

Sugrīvan says that if he goes to battle with Vāli, Vāli will kill him. Rāman doubts that and knowing the past history of Vāli, he doesn't believe Sugrīvan's words. Thus he encourages Sugrīvan to go into the battle and prove his righteousness. In reality, Rāman wants to really see if Vāli is such a paranoid that he would kill own brother who has not committed any crime.

During the first battle, Sugrīvan gets severely beaten and escapes from Vāli. But Rāman doesn't yet believe that Vāli would kill Sugrīvan. So he asks Sugrīvan to wear a garland around his neck to differentiate both - in my opinion this was just an excuse.

During the second battle, Sugrīvan gets severely beaten as well and Vāli gets to the point where he lifts Sugrīvan above his head and smash him on a rock to finish him off. Rāman concludes at that point that he Vāli is indeed paranoid and shoots the arrow.

The hit of the arrow and the spurting of blood from his chest put an end to his rage episode and brings him back to reality. In other words, he realizes that he is mortal after all (impermanance). The rage episode is gone, but there's still some anger left.

Slaying of Vāli

Initially, Vāli is filled with anger and levels multiple accusations against Rāma for his "cowardly" act of hiding. However, once Rāma explains the principles of Dharma (Aram) and the gravity of Vāli's own misdeeds - specifically his treatment of Sugrīva's wife - Vāli's anger dissolves into deep remorse. But there's lot more dynamics in this than that meets the eyes.

Visualize this as a conversation between Vāli and Rāman, in the presence of Lakshmanan and Sugrīvan and his armies. Vaali talks a lot of Aram and tells he has heard about Rāman to be the beholder of Aram itself.

Vāli: Why did you attack me from the hiding like a coward?

Rāman: Cuz you stole your brother's wife (and explains all the aram that Vāli explicitly omitted)

Vāli: We are animals and we don't have Aram and rules that you humans follow. (At this point, Vāli has denegrades his own stature (தன்னைத்தானே தரம் தாழ்ந்தவனாக ஆக்கிக்கொள்கிறான்))

Rāman: Until now you spoke so much in which the details of the Aram was shining. Are you really an animal? I will not accept that claim. An animal that knows Aram is like a human and humans that don't know Aram is like an animal.

Vāli could've said "whatever you said, no matter what, I am an animal.". Rāman would've got caught. But he didn't. Because he was flattered by Rāman's claim about Vāli being a human. Eg: if Dr Kalam says "Arun is a worthy man" vs someone giving me $1M, I would prefer the former. Another eg: இவன்தந்தை என்னோற்றான் கொல் எனும் சொல். So...

Vāli: So you are saying I'm a human? I feel so glad and praised. If I'm a human, you should've come in front of me and fought with me. Why did you hide and attack me?

Rāman pauses for a second and realizing Rāman's silence, Lakshmanan, who previously wondered if Rāman and Sugrīvan did the right thing, said...

Lakshamanan: What you asked is wrong. If you had come in-front of my brother, you would've surrendered like you did now. Already your brother had surrendered. If both had surrendered, my brother would have had to protect both of you. So then who will establish the Aram. That's why.

• This nuance is applicable only to Kambar, cuz, in his Rāmāyanam, he portrays Rāman as the literal God and Rāman is aware of his own divinity. Whereas, Vālmīki, in his Rāmāyanam, mentions that Rāman is unaware of his own divinity.

• This was an equivocation ("நக்கல்" in common sense) from Lakshmanan. But Vāli could've at least scolded them all, but he didn't.

Vāli: Rāma, forgive me. What I did was a mistake without thinking properly.

• He didn't say that because he received an answer that's worthy of an animal (நக்கல் answer). Vāli admires Rāman because he elevated his own status from Animal to Human. So Vāli thinks Rāman's respect/prestige has declined with his provocative question.

• When Rāman asked all the questions like "Can you steal your brother's wife, etc", Vāli knows that he committed crime. Just to escape, தன் தரம் தாழ்ந்து he said "We are animals". Whereas when Vāli asked "How could you attack me?", Rāman could've said a நக்கல் answer or even repeated/acknowledged what Lakshamanan said, cuz anyway Vāli is about to die and the world praises only the winners, not the losers. But he didn't speak. Cuz Rāman thought the question Vāli asked is correct and he doesn't have an answer and that he won't lie. With that lack of answer (in reality, could've been a pause), Vāli thought "Rāman didn't lie like me. He is definitely a noble man. My defeat in his hands is worthy of it."

உயர்தவனுக்கான அடையாளம் என்னவென்றால் தோற்கும்போதுகூட நீ வெல்ல வேண்டும் என்பதற்காக பொய்சொல்லாதே.

The End

Technically the vānaras are not monkeys, rather a clan of humans disguised in that form from their past to escape from Parashurāman's invasion. So Vāli could've also thought that Rāman has uplifted his entire kulam/kudi. Valluvar has discussed in details about kudimai (chapter 96). But I don't want to conflate it.

Kamban emphasizes that the arrow of Rāman did not just kill Vāli's body. It purified his soul. Vāli famously remarks that he is fortunate to die in the presence of God, a perfection of life that even sages strive for.

However I see this a bit differently:

• In a non-dogmatic^[1] context, the ego/paranoia vanished during defeat.
• There's a concept called வடக்கிருத்தல்^[2]. Vāli did exactly this in the presence of Rāman as God, after realizing his crime and surrendering to Rāman's feat.

---

1. Some can be offended by this because if everything in Hinduism is taken with a non-dogmatic context, what's left in Hinduism after all? ↩

2. It is often misunderstood as sitting facing north and dying without water & food. In reality, it is the process of attaining liberation via severe ascetic meditation. This is quoted in several Tamil literature like Puranānūru, where when the kings get injured in the back or if they loose the battle, they will surrender their arms and sit and meditate to gain liberation from this life. ↩