Ethics in Mahabharatha
When we talk about Mahabharatha, a one-liner would always say its about the battle of Dharma and Adharma. The Pandavas are projected to be synonymous with all the positive virtues of mankind. One the other hand, Duriyodhana and his coterie is supposed to be the very embodiments of lust,jealousy and greed.
This simplification may be true in the events that precede the Kurukshetra War. But in the War, it is the Kauravas who follow the ethics by and large, with the exception of the killing of Abhimanyu. It is the Kauravas who seem to have some principles even while fighting the enemies.
The Pandavas on the other hand follow the time tested principle of ‘All is fair in love and war’ ably guided by the cunning Krishna.
Let’s look at the instances.
Bhishma clearly says that he cannot kill the Pandavas even before the war starts.
Karna makes a promise to Kunti that he will try to attack and kill only Arjuna but will spare all other Pandava brothers and he keeps that promise even when he gets a chance to kill Bheema.
On the other hand, the Pandavas attacked Bhishma with Sigandi, a girl by birth in front, knowing very well Bhishma will not wage war with Sikhandi.
That is how Bhishma goes down. Is that war ethic?
Let us also see the killing of Dronacharya.
The Pandavas find Dhronacharya too hot to handle in the warfield. Thus they employ devious psychological tactics.
Bhima lifted his iron mace and brought it down on the head of a huge elephant called Aswatthama and it fell dead. After killing the elephant Aswatthama, Bhimasena went near the division commanded by Drona and roared so that all might hear.
“I have killed Aswathama!” Bhimasena who, until then, had never done or even contemplated an ignoble act, was, as he uttered these words, greatly ashamed.
They knocked against his very heart, but could they be true? Drona heard these words as he was in the act of discharging a Brahmastra. “Yudhishthira, is it true my son has been slain?” Dronacharya asked addressing Dharmaputra.
The acharya thought that Yudhishthira would not utter an untruth, even for the kingship of the three worlds.
And Yudhishthira himself stood trembling in horror of what he was about to do, but within him also was the desire to win. “Let it be my sin,” he said to himself and hardened his heart, and said aloud: “Yes, it is true that Aswatthama has been killed.”
But, as he was saying it, he felt again the disgrace of it and added in a low and tremulous voice, “Aswatthama, the elephant” words which were however drowned in the din and were not heard by Drona.
Mahabharatha also has an instance of sledging like cricketers. Bhimasena loudly spoke indicting Drona in harsh words as follows
“You brahmanas, abandoning the legitimate functions of your varna and taking to the Kshatriya profession of arms, have brought ruin to princes. If you brahmanas had not gone astray from the duties belonging to you by birth, the princes would not have been led to this destruction. You teach that non-killing is the highest dharma and that the brahmana is the supporter and nourisher of that dharma. Yet, you have rejected that wisdom which is yours by birth, and shamelessly undertaken the profession of killing. It was our misfortune that you descended to this sinful life.”
These words and the news of his son’s death cause immeasurable pain to Drona. He relinquishes all his weapons and is soon in a trance.
At this moment Dhrishtadyumna climbed in to the chariot and cuts off the old warrior’s head.
Now, that was some fair play wasn’t it?
We can also say the same about the killing of Karna and Duryodhana.
It was not exactly ethical to attack someone who is busy lifting his chariot which gets stuck in the mud.
Similarly, Bheema had no business to smash Duryodhana’s thighs as part of accepted Kadha war practices. Krishna subtly prompts him to do that citing Bheema’s oath when Panchali was humiliated.
So I think Vyasa wants to imply subtly that when you enter a war, a few ethical blemishes here and there are inevitable. But maybe it’s just me. Each person can interpret it in his own way.
But the fact remains that the practices of Pandavas to win the war was anything but ethical.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Wow PK. You have almost reflected my thoughts. Infact as a child my favourite deity used to be Lord Krishna. But ever since reading the story of Karna, I felt Krishna was cunning.
I remember reading a line from Mahabharatha where Arjuna feels bad for waging the war and having to resort to unfair means. Krishna replies that everyone in this world gets what s/he deserves thru’ Karma. Well, if that is true, why didn’t Pandavas treat all their sufferings as a fruit of their karma?? A question to ponder.
Krishna is seen as the cause for straining relationship between Pandavas and Kauravas eventually resulting in a war, in which all Kauravas meet their end. Therefore, at the end of the war, Gandhari curses Krishna that for all this he had done, he would have no heir and his dynasty would end with him and Krishna graciously accepts it.
But more than an epic, what is beautiful about Rajaji’s Mahabharatham (it was called “Vyaasar Virundhu” earlier) is that it depicts the many faces of life in form of a mythological story.
My fav character, however, is Karna. What about yours PK?
April 14th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
to be frank, i don’t know much abt. any of the mythical stories… i used to watch these only for the “animated and graphic work” of the wars… one guy will send a ambu with fire and the opponent will respond with water… used to be fun
to watch on TV
April 14th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Iniya puthaandu nal vaazhthukkal, PK.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Prabhu,
1) the question from Drona was not ” did aswattama my son got killed?”, it was simply “did aswattama get killed”? in that context, a “Yes” to the question was neither wrong.
2) Sikandi in prior birth was born as “Ambai” and her love to “Salvan” was abruptly cut short when Bhishma waged a war and took her as captive to get married to “chitrangathan” and “visitra veeryan”. In that process, Salvan relinquished his love, ambai had no where to go, she did tapas, was born as a girl next time through as well, and via “sithu” became a man — there is no reference of Sikandi being a eunuch, but Bhishma knows who Sikandi is in prior birth, and references Sikandi as “girl” with reference to her Atman, not physical appearance. In that context, given Atma is eternal, and has no form, the killing is justified isn’t it?
3) Dronar was insulted by Durupadan when he forgot childhood friendship and Dronar won half his kingdom and insulted him. Durupudan in vengeance, did tapas and earned Dhristadyumnan who was born just to slay Dronar. War rules say — when the enemy is incapacitated, dont hurt them, but it has no rules for “when the enemy has relinquished waging the war, dont attack”….Dronar relinquishes, throws arms and starts a tapas, so at that time, he is not incapacitated, so killing is Dharma isn’t it?
Again, I am not saying this, if you read “Pandavar Bhoomi” by Vaali, or amar chitra katha (or) the bhagwad gita by chinmayananda, all this are referenced
the only thing that I could never digest as an act of pandavas was the killing of karna - he was incapacitated, yet on the advise of krishna, arjuna kills him….I dont have a clue how to explain that “sorry” act, while pundits can claim “that is a curse earned by karna from parasurama when he cheated as a brahman”…
hope it helps
April 14th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
PK
with MB we have to remember each and every story is interwined with other so basically for our every thought and action there is a reaction. So each charachters action/reaction is broughtforth by their earlier deeds.
so you just cant interpret it in black&white.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
ravi,
thanks for yr response. enakku apdi favorite nu yaarum solla mudila!!
i guess there r no heroes as in black and white in mahabharatha and that is precisely why i like it.
nk,
:)) read it when time permits its certainly not funy but enjoyable.
jo,
Hey Happy Vishu:)
April 14th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
ganesh,
My memory of mahabharatha tells me that it was not Drona who asked the question. It was actually announced by someone in the Pandava camp (i forget the name of the character) “Aswathama ,(under his breath) the elephant, is dead”. The key is Drona never heard the word elephant and so he thought his son was dead. In anycase it was deceit.
Also Krishna brings about the disappearance of sun (could it be that there was an eclipse at that time ??).
Krishna is definitely the most cunning of all mythological characters.
PK, also remember one thing. These epics are so old that they could have changed over time. Infact there are people who believe that Ramayana and Mahabharatha were written in praise of Ravana and Kauravas respectively.
These people believe that vested interests later added parts that completely turned them around.
Rewriting history is part of Indian history from time immemorial may be..
April 14th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
ganesh venkittu and dganesh,
regarding sikandi yeah i think i made a mistake in referring him as eunuch. But sikandi is basically a girl and gets changed to a boy due to tapas. Bhishma refuses to attack him not bcos he was ambai of prev birth but bcos sikhandi is a girl by birth.
Actually i thought of writing about the Ambai episode in another post:)
Regarding the drona episode, it is anybody’s guess abt which ashwathama Drona is more concerned, abt ashwathama the elephant or his son?
Also i’ve quoted Rajaji verbatim there. its not my quote.
neenga solra madhiri vecha kooda, is dharma all about following some rules in letter?.
following something in spirit nu onnu irukku right?
I’ll quote Rajaji again,
“When Drona asked thus, Krishna was terribly perturbed. “If Yudhishthira fails us now and shrinks from uttering an untruth, we are lost. Drona’s Brahmastra is of unquenchable potency and the Pandavas will be destroyed,” he said.”
There is also another reference
“Drona spread fear and destruction in the Pandava army by his relentless attacks. “O Arjuna,” said Krishna, “there is none that can defeat this Drona, fighting according to the strict rules of war. We cannot cope with him unless dharma is discarded.”
When Krishna himself acknowledges that there is a deviation from dharma, why should we go in defense? Bcos Krishna is god?
Dronaroda pazhaya insult kadhai padichen. but how does that matter in war? the bottomline is, a previous score was settled.
Did Dhrona wage a direct combat with Dhrishtaduymnan? NO.
Was Dhrona aware of an attack by Dhrishtadumnan? to my mind, NO.
i did not talk about the manner in which purisivaras was murdered. that was hardly ethical either.
i know about the intertwining od kilai kadhaigal but i believe there shud be some basic ethics whiel wagng a war.
for eg. how will it be when someone attacks yudhistra when he goes to get Bhishma’s blessing and then come out in defense stating that “The war rules does not say that one shud not be attacked when he goes out to get blessings”?
Thats a weak argument to my mind.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
karthik s
i’ve quoted rajajji verbatim in blockquotes. it is indeed drona who asks that question.
i completely agree to yr view on Krishna being cunning
yr view of history being rewritten is definitely worth considering.
you never know:)
April 14th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
puthaandu vaazhtukkal PK
April 15th, 2006 at 3:09 am
First time here,interesting stuff. I just noticed the emphasis of varna/caste in ramayana & mahabaratha. Maybe both the epics are just myths to perpetuate casteism?
April 15th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Anand prabhu,
Hey Woish you a very happy thamizh New Year:) and thanks for yr wishes:)
sridhar,
welcome here. as to your comment on caste in mahabharatha, well illenu solla mudiyadhu but its evident that ppl r willing to respect for one’s skills rather than one’s birth
intances.
Drona - he was a brahmin but was respected as a great warrior.
Karna - even though he is a shathriya noobody knows that.
He is only refered to as therotti magan but he still gets a kingdom by virtue of his friendship with duryodhana and he is admired for his vallal qualities.
Krishna,
he is born into yadhava kula right?
yet ppl adore him.
As far as Ramayana i have not read it fully, but ramayana te epic was supposedly written by valmiki who is a theif and who later gets reformed.
so andha kalathileye skills ku mariyadhai irundhudhu nu dhaan sollanum.
April 15th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
April 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Prabu Karthik,
U are right in saying that it was unethical of the Pandavas when it came to the final battle. But if they did not do it, it would have been impossible to destroy evil. U are talking in terms of the battle. But what about the cunning game of dice played by the Kauravas which cost Pandavas everything and the cruelty inflicted on Draupadi by Duchasana which was enjoyed by all in the court? Drona,Bhishma and Karna stayed with the Kauravas though they knew that the Kauravas were wrong.Hence to slay such people, there is nothing wrong in resorting to unethical ways is what I feel. Destroying evil should be the only goal.
April 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
@ naikutti,
The two great epics, Mahabharatha and Ramayana should be known to all. Lots of virtues and values can be learnt through thes stories. These stories instilled at our early ages will stay throughout in our minds which is required.
@ sridhar,
The great epics are not to perpetuate casteism. There are so many good lessons taught through both the epics, listening to ur parents, one man should have one wife,riches and all the worldly pleasures should not distort a person from his ethical values,good will replace evil, to totally avoid greed which will cause their destruction, to despise “sudhaatam” which will lead to unnecessary trouble and to believe in the fact that if God is there with u, u can achieve anything.
April 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Hi prabhu,
very good post. few ans which i wanted to give is already given by ganesh venkettu..
w.r.to non-ethical methods adapted to down bhishma, dhrona, karna are due to the fact that they kept silent when panjaali was insulted brutally in the courtyard. they might have interferred and stopped the climax atleast.
what made them to keep silent..?
what u sow, as u reap. Yuga dharmas keep changing.
so even krishna has to change his tactics, as he left ravana “indru poi naalai vaa” as Rama.
hope u’ll agree. thanx for dropping by(though not in the latest one, he hee)
April 15th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
ms.congeniality
>>But what about the cunning game of dice played by the Kauravas which cost Pandavas everything and the cruelty inflicted on Draupadi by Duchasana which was enjoyed by all in the court?
well. adhu thappu dhaan i agree. but as i’d mentioned, the events that preced the kurukshetra war is a clear case of adharma.by kauravas..its obvious and known to all.
neenga solra padi partha there is nothing to distinguish them in terms of behavior.
duryodhana was prepared for anything to get pandavas share.
yudhistra was prepared to utter gross lies to win the war…
jeyikanumna ivangalum enna venna pannuvanga/ pannalaam na..well what can i say..
lets leave it at that.:)
ambi,
vaanga:)
yep with due respect to ganesh venkittu, am not convinced though:)
i for one believe war ethics is something which has to be followed.
illena aswatthaama panninadhu kooda oru pakkam seri nu vaadhadalaame?
April 16th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Methinks wars are just our slavish devotion to ego and to obedience. If either is mitigated, there will be no wars.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
all is fair in love and war.
Ethics in mythology…hmmm, lets not have an unethical fight over it
April 16th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
hmm.. i would beg to differ at some places. i would say mahabharata is an indian version of the motto that reflects in The New Testament of The Holy Bible; i.e, an eye for an eye. i would say that none of the sides have been completely ethical, neither kauravas and nor pandavas. well, as far as tricking is concerned there was this small incident when the kauravas feed Bhima drugged laddus and throuw him into a pond. that was not really ethincal according to me. the abhimanyu episode was definitely one of the most heinous acts ever committed. in their case, i will say, as one sows, so shall he reap.
April 16th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
ttm,
adhu seri:)
amrita,
nobody said kauravas are nice and fair:)
we can keep counting the atrocities they commit during the course of the epic at various times.
but i just wanted to highlight that the pandavas were not exactly the epitome of ethics and fairness especially during the kurukshetra war.
in a way its almost like settling scores somehow. which is more or less what our movies show anyway…
April 17th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Wrong and right..dharma and adharma - cannot argue taking sides.
I felt atleast the story is about Pandavas fighting for their right.
So they had a reason.
The epic does not highlight the kauravas sticking to some values…May be just making their subjects happy..if they had then there would be no epic..
Karna was loyal..and was generous..He had some values..So pick up one good thing and fight for your principle..whatever comes against..overcome all hurdles by any means..
This does not depict tolerance..which is so much in our culture today though!!
In my opinion - what a waste fighting for a piece of land..The whole fight could have been avoided if Pandavas..could just be friends with Krishna and had lived happily in the forest - they had akshaya pathram..I would choose not to cook and enjoyed trekking in the forest..!! Path of non violence.
I wonder why our epics do not depict normal life- nor one day sita cooks a delicious meal for Rama..Vali was killed in the wrong way too..I dont think they worried everyday like us….Never goes thru as many tensions even a normal human today in life does..It is tough to live our lifes. We do need new epics with modern day heros..
So I feel these are just stories to tell something about our culture..at that particular time…so we cannot judge anyone.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Happy new year!
interesting post and even more interesting comments!
My dad used to say all the characterisitics that humans could ever possess has been depicted in the mahabharata…
and thats what we are all , arent we, a mixture good and eveil?
and thats what all the characters in the mahabharata are…
since we are so used to the good vs evil cliche, we tend to see who is the hero and who is the villain and then again, who is the anti-hero!!!!
the most cunning was shakuni…he was the one who guided dhuryodhanan…he had a reason too
his sister, gandhaari was married to a blind man, he didnt approve ti and wanted to destroy the entire clan..again this one was told to me by my dad!
but it is a wonderful epic…i knew this wonderful story through the mahabharata serial on DD that i grew up with!
April 17th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
priyums,
>>I would choose not to cook and enjoyed trekking in the forest
adhaan theriyume!!:)
monu,
sades of grey is what makes each one of us special, i agree!:)
April 18th, 2006 at 5:41 am
Dear PK,
Hope you are doing fine. It has been long since I had been to this blogging world and I felt irresistable to comment after seeing your post. As you might be knowing the question of ethics is not so easy to resolve. Why go until the Kurukshetra war, the ordinary acts of Krishna like stealing, having affairs may appear really contradictary judged from our usual moral standards. From what position do we evaluate such ethics and moral code of conduct? IMHO, the epics are not written to measure what is right/wrong, dharma/adharma etc. If that was the purpose then there is no need to create a big story to point out them. Moreover, everybody has a general intution of what is good and what is bad. Change can be observed only with respect to something which is changeless. Similarly, determining dharma/adharma (or measuring the difference between good and bad) can be done only with respect to some absolute position. And I think the basic purpose of the epics like Ramayana, Mahabaratha is to make us think whether there is a such a position and in that case how do we attain it. And that may be the reason why there appears to be lots of contradictions penned down in such great works. For instance in Ramayana the point may be that, rising to the character of Rama may define such a position and in Mahabaratha, the Gita decisively states that there is an absolute position where everything can be judged. And I think Gita is a very fitting end to the contradictions found in Mahabaratha. Besides this, if you look at the works of Vedanta, epics are considered as only secondary texts although they deal with Godhead. This recognition given to them could have been due to the nature of the epics helping in imparting values indirectly and not in a straight forward manner. Such is my HO.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:09 am
Dear PK,
There is another dimension in looking at this. A doc kills a patient while trying to save him and a thief kills a man when trying to rob him. Although end effect is the same in these cases, the cause determines the action as good or bad. So, it is not the way Drona or Karna gets killed only matters, why they are killed also plays a equal role.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:34 am
kasthuri,
very interesting observations and well regarding ethics, time for an example from my side too.
Let’s take India and pakistan cricket team, no matter how fiercely competitive both teams are, is it ok if , say, shoahib akthar bowls a beamer at mahedra singh dhoni or dravid deliberately?
adhu madhiri dhaan:)
April 19th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
There are a few misconceptions about Mahabharatha. Firstly, Drona did not lay down his arms after he heard asvatthama hatah’. He still continued oto fight (Dronaparva ch.191. Since Drona was killing using formiddable weapons like Brahmastra against the norms prescribed, sages like Visvamitra, Jamadagni, Bharadvaja, Gautama, Atri, Vasishta and Bhrgu arrived at the war scene and urged Drona to return to spiritual path.This made drona retire from the battlefield and sit in meditation.
Regarding unfair ways of killing Karna and so on, try reading All about KRSNA, a ramakrishna mutt publication. Its really sad that most of us still dont understand the character of Krishna.
Hari om,
M.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
well To judge a past situation by present day standards is not going to be easy. so camparing the events of mahabharata with current ideals is not right.Mahabharata gives u a glimpse of total humanity.Its definetly not a simple story of victory of good over Evil.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am
The topic here seems to be specifically, the various controversial events during the war. Here is my two cents worth:
Order of Killing of Heroes: Bheeshma–>Abhimanyu—>Drona—>Karna—>Duryodhana
Remember that the method of “felling” Bheeshma was revealed by Bheeshma himself. After the incident, when Arjuna clasped the feet of his grandfather and wept terribly, repenting for the way he brought the grand old man down, Bheeshma consoled him by saying that wearing an armor in War is not adharma. I wore the armor of death by my own wish boon given to me by my father. By that boon, there was no way I could have been killed, and though I know it is unjust, the Pandavas who stood by Dharma would have been defeated. So to protect Dharma, my downfall was inevitable. I was wrong in the first place to make a vow keeping only my father’s interest in mind without considering the long term consequences. Then I selfishly safeguarded my own vow by fighting on the side of injustice. When a powerful man sides with injustice, it brings misery to everyone around. Add to that my father’s boon that made me practically indestructible. I had my own unnatural protection and you had your own unnatural protection to counter that moreso to protect Dharma. So what you did is in now way adharma.
Of course we know how Abhimanyu was killed by a conspiracy that I shudder to recall. Karna and Drona were the chief arhcitects of this plan. Abhimanyu, a mere boy unmatched in valor, was holding the entire Kaurava army at bay. What did the great guru Drona do to counter this? What about the valiant Karna? They both attacked him from behind and unarmed him. When thus disarmed, he was defending himself with a chariot wheel, both Drona and Karna destroyed that cover with their arrows. And when the young hero fell, Karna, Duryodhana and his shameless brothers launched a bloody bestial dance around the dead body.
If Drona felt so shattered when he heard the news of his son’s death, imagine the plight of Arjuna. It was not war, it was cold blooded murder. Aided in everyway by the Guru Drona. So once again when someone reaches the peak of Adharma, they cannot hide behind Dharma. They have to die. So also with Karna.
After having behaved like criminals, and having led a revolt against the just king Yudhishtir (remember that Dhritarashtra was never crowned the king even after Pandu’s death and Yudhishtir WAS crowned the Yuva Raja officially. So any attempt to reverse that position is an act of treason and punishable). A king does not have to wage a war to punish the criminals. He and his people will punish them whenever and wherever they are caught. A death sentence is not awarded in a duel.
Lord Krishna, the knower of all and the keeper of Dharma, supervised the whole drama. Nothing cunning about it. Would you call a judge cunning for ordering death sentence on a murderer, and the convict is hung with his hands tied behind his back when he is alone, unarmed and surrounded by armed guards?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Priyums, even from the time of Rama and Ramayana, the title of King was not a decoration for one’s pleasure. It was a Tapas and Yajna. Thus, Bharata, the ancestor of Bheeshma and the entire line of Kurus, adopted the son of Rishi Bharadwaja to succeed him as king, though he had 9 sons of his own but were not worthy to take care of the kingdom. Arjuna wanted to retire to the forest and live with his akshaya patram, but what did Krishna say? Arjuna does not have the luxury to decide that. It was not fighting for a piece of land, it was fighting to defend one’s duty. Yudhishtir was the only person fit to rule and bring welfare to the people. The people factor is very easily overlooked in the story. OK, he gives up the kingdom to Duryodhana and goes to the forest. What would have happened to all of them under the misrule of Duryodhana? Did he not attempt to outrage the modesty of a Gandharva princess whom he found alone in the forest? If he did what he did to the wife of his blood relative, what safety would other women in the kingdom have? How would you feel knowing your mother, wife, sister, daughter…were living under such a person’s rule? As sons of King Pandu, the Pandavas had the sacred duty to protect the subjects and rule wisely. It was not upto them to simply walk away…that is not an option for them. It would have been the same sin as a father abandoning his small children and helpless wife for his own peace. The first duty of a kshatriya is to protect the weak. Lord Krishna who sets the whole universe on the right path, ensured that this was done.
What you call “normal life” is actually the height of abnormality. Sita never cooked for Rama because Rava vowed to life on tubers and fruit and roots like hermits would. He was under the sacred oath to stay away from all pleasures including that of food. Even when he did Pinda Pradanam for his father on hearing about his death, he used fruit pulp. He did not even enter Sringibera and took only water from his dear friend Guha. Why? Just to ensure that his father’s word would not go in vain. His father himself asked him to slay him and ascend the throne. But Rama being the only normal son the Universe has ever known, tread the path of Dharma. The rest of us are all abnormal because though we love our fathers, we would never even dream of doing what Rama did for his father. Same goes for Vali Vadha. Please refer back to a good translation of Valmiki Ramyana. Read with special care what Tara tells Vali just before he goes for his last fight. Vali says Rama will not attack him because he is a man of Dharma, but Tara tells him Dharma is subtle and its application and interpretation is not so easy to understand. Vali himself being an Adharmi cannot predict what Rama’s dharma would be so make truce with Sugreeva. Vali raised 7 questions against his killing and after hearing Rama out, he was convinced of the justice meted out to him. It is abnormal that our understanding is worse than that of a monkey’s so who are we to talk of normal lives?