The words Vali spoke contain righteousness from his viewpoint, when he said 'How did you hit me without confronting me…' and the meaningfulness in the words like 'a quarrel comes when gold and silver are the cause, I should have brought Ravana without bloodshed, I would have brought Maithili and presented before your…' etc. But these words are with the death time wisdom of Vali, and they become parroted saying but cannot be practical with the kind of righteousness followed by Vali.

Vali's question No. 4] 'I have not done any misdeed either in your country or city...' is answered in this, "when entire earth belongs to us where is the question of a city or a particular country?"

The 'virtuous decree to keep up virtue' dharma kR^ita aadesha is not that of Bharata, but by the king raaaja dharma kR^ita aadesha. Bharata as younger brother cannot order his elder, and that too, a 'would-have-been-king,' but the throne demands it to be done by any subject, and now Bharata is in that throne. Actually Bharata did not give any explicit orders to Rama or others making them responsible for the upkeep of dharma, on his behalf. Rama himself orders Bharata as at:tvam raajaa bharata bhava svayam naraaNaam | vanyaanaam aham api raaja raaNmR^igaaNaam | Ayodhya Kanda II, 1-674-17 'Bharata, you become the king of humans, and I shall be the king of forest-beings...' Thus, taking responsibility on his own shoulders, in his own duty as a Kshatriya to keep up dharma, Rama is trekking forests. Some 'other kings' roaming like this are not detailed.

Vali's question 5. 'Non-guilty being is hurt...' is answered: 'your only guilt is that you have not abided by conduct a king should have...' The nature of that guilt is narrated in next verses.

In another way the above is: 'I am that Supreme Soul residing in the hearts of all beings. So I alone will decide what is right and what is wrong...' Vali's question 8 is taken up. 'Your primary aspiration is to kill without probing into good or bad...' is answered saying that 'I am the decider...'

With this one and only reason Rama suffices all the thirteen questions of Vali, as summarised in endnote of last chapter. Beyond this Rama also answers other paltry questions, later.

Vali being a king, he committed incest transgressing tradition. v˜lŸ t˜vat sva r˜jye sthitv˜ dharm˜ti kramam k®tav˜n | dharma d¨ÿaka× ca r˜j˜ avaþyam daõýanŸya× | dharm˜k¨tam This is the very fault found by Rama when expressing 'vaalii caaritra duuSakaH 'abuser of history/tradition...' in Kishkindha, 4-10-33.

Vali's question 10, 'inveterate killers are hell-goers...' is replied, 'killing a sinner is no sin and no hell is ensuing thereby...' is the reply, establishing Vali's sin.

Vali's question: 2] 'you are not punishing the wrongdoer...' is answered. saama daanam kSamaa dharmaH satyam dhR^iti 'influencing, largesse, forbearance, probity, candour' etc., will work with kings of equal status and worthiness in political strategies. But you are an inferior with an immodest conduct. Then, why should I waste that much of political manoeuvre in your regard? Thus you are eliminated straightaway...' Vali may counter Rama in asking for a lesser punishment than killing, like exiling etc., which he has given to Sugreeva. For this Rama is ready to say that no other punishment is evident than the one said by Manu:sapiõý˜patya d˜reÿu (reta× siktv˜) pr˜õa ty˜go vidhŸyate - - manu sm®ti .

Vali's question 13] 'I would have brought back Maithili in one day...' is given an answer. Bringing Maithili from the captivity of Ravana would have averted Vali's death - so Vali thought. But who will bring Ruma, wife of Sugreeva, and give her back to Sugreeva? Vali does not consider this, and in this alone Vali's transgression is said to have been proved. Thus any truce between Vali and Rama is an impossible and improbable proposition.

What all Rama wanted is the 'search for Seetha...' not bring her to his fore. Elimination of Ravana is to be done by Rama alone, for which Seetha is to be located first. If a truce is struck between Vali and Rama, Vali straightway goes to Ravana and asks for Seetha. If Ravana yields Seetha there is no cause left for his elimination. Ravana for sure refuses to yield her. Then a combat ensues between Ravana and Vali. But Vali can combat one-to-one in a duel and he may not encounter a magical war of Indrajit or Kumbhakarna. Then all the demons will combine to eliminate Vali, thus the epic concludes there haphazardly. Other way round, if Vali seeks help of Ravana and his military to combat Rama, Vali's forces and Ravana's forces will come down on a handful warriors like Rama, Sugreeva Hanuma, and Jambavanta et al. Then the whole of monkey force will be with Vali, and these few warriors will be routed down mercilessly. Above all, Rama has promised Sugreeva to eliminate Vali, the abuser of tradition, and Rama becomes blameworthy if he fails in his word. Hence the simplest formula 'enemy's friend is my enemy too...' works well and Rama followed that only.

In Aranya Kanda he tells Seetha, that he even leaves his life than to feign his promise. api aham jiivitam jahyaam tvaam vaa siite sa lakSmaNaam || 4-10-18. Hence there is no question of his going back on the word given to them that crave for his mercy.

This is according to the meaning derived by ancient commentators which doe not go well with the import of earlier verse 'the king derives the blot if he does not punish properly' or with the next one. Rama's ancestor Maandhaata should have got that blot for not punishing a renouncer in proper way. Other mms has this verse like this: puurveNa mama maandhaataa sampraaptam vyasanam mahat | shramaNena kR^ite paape yathaa paapam kR^itam tvayaa || And which verse is to be kept, it is up to the pundits.

Rama is quoting a precedent from his own dynasty. Maandhaata has to impose capital punishment to a sage, for that sage committed some immoral act. Here also theshramaNa is used for a wandering sage, called yati. Because he is religious person is he to let off; a religious person's sinning is doubly punishable; are the problems of Maandhaata. This word shramaNa yati, need not be equated with a Buddhist monk, for they also have same titles, and Maandhaata is said to have existed long before Buddha's era.

The kings who are otherwise busy may not hanker after thieves and sinners always, thus they become unobservant of each and every individual's behaviour. So the kings used to make amends at appropriate time. It is up to the individual to comport properly or improperly. An offender may escape hundred offences, but if caught once, he has to pay for all his wrongdoings.

They are bound by duty. They are not at their free will to act on their own whims and fancies. Vali's question: 9] 'How do you face criticism by scholars?' is answered. ' None can criticise because I have not acted on my own, but bound by scriptures and precedents...' y˜ v˜ na vadhasya vadhe t˜v˜n vadhasya mokÿõe | adharmo n®pate× d®ÿ÷o dharmastu viniyacchata× - manu sm®ti 9-249 'How much sin is acquired by executing a murderer, that much sin is acquired by executing a non-murderer...' which again is somewhat similar to the present day saying, 'let hundred criminals go unpunished, but let no innocent be punished.'

So far Rama replied Vali with a view that Vanara-s are a species of Vedic-beings who hold fast to Vedic duties likesandhyaa vandana, suuryopasthaana performed by Vali, andswasthyana performed by Tara, and the other their daily routines of Veda-s. But Vali takes a U-turn declaring himself an animal and asks: 6] Why fruits, tubers eating being is killed; 11] Un-wearable is my skin uneatable is my flesh; 12] Five kinds of five-nailed animals are usable by humans...' Rama started to tell how humans deal with animals, should Vali declare himself an animal, if not a specific Vedic-being.

'Whether you face this way or that you are an animal, as you alone said, besides being an enemy of my friend...' For this Griffith says - I cannot understand how Valmiki could put such an excuse as this into Rama's mouth. Rama with all solemn ceremony, has made a league of alliance with Vali's younger brother whom he regards as a dear friend and almost as an equal, and now he winds up his reasons for killing Vali by coolly saying: 'Besides you are only a monkey, you know, after all, and as such I have every right to kill you how, when, and where I like.'

There is none to say that Vali is 'unkillable...' or 'not to be killed...' But to every one a doubt occurs as to why Rama did not come face to face with and killed him? Why hit him from a remote place? For these doubts, the above said arguments may not suffice or satisfactory, either to Vali or to us, the readers. Dharmaakuutam, the only commentary on Ramayana insofar as dharma is concerned explains that for us.

When it is said by Rama that 'today only I will kill Vali...' then it may be countered by saying, 'then why killing him from distance, why not confront him?' If Rama comes to fore, fear may grip Vali, then he may take Ruma, Sugreeva's wife, and to insult, Sugreeva further, Vali may go to a distant place with her. Or, he may seek shelter with Ravana. Or, he may even take refuge in Rama like Sugreeva. Or, on seeing Sugreeva with enough support, he may summon all his Vanara army to fight with Sugreeva and his supporters. Then it will prolong for a time. Then the promise of Rama made to Sugreeva to accord his wife and his kingdom by killing Vali, also prolongs. Justice delayed is denied. Otherwise, if Vali surrenders to Rama, as the killing of a refugee is not a merited act, Rama has to pardon Vali. Whether Vali takes refuse or not, killing Vali on that day itself, and establishing Sugreeva in Kishkindha are the promises made by Rama, at the time of befriending Sugreeva. The word given is to be kept up. So Rama did it and there is no unrighteous deed done by Rama. And Vali also accepts this in the coming stanzas.

From here on Vali's repentance is narrated. ata eva v˜lin˜ sakala dharma abhijñena - bhavat˜ anabhijño aham na prati vaktum arhasi - atra ca dharmo'dhigataniscaya iti viþeÿeõa p¨rva k®tam akhilam api r˜ma d¨ÿaõam ajñ˜na prav®ttam eva | ita× param vakÿyam˜õam akhilam dharmyam eva vadati iti avagatam : dharm˜k¨tam Whatever spoken by Vali earlier is without proper knowledge of dharma, and whatever said hereafter is in conformity with righteousness [owing to the dawn of death-time wisdom.] Dharmaakuutam.

Any combatant is self-assertive until he is defeated. Here Vali is telling that he came here to die on his own. This statement has two kinds of meaning. One is, Vali being an all-daring Vanara came out, in ' come-what-may ' sense and readying himself to confront even Rama, if Rama affronts him. His argument with Tara at the start of 16th chapter details this. He asks Tara, 'If Rama is a virtue-knower and a diligent one, how then he can sin, in killing me?' Vali, unlike Ravana, never goes to a duel unless provoked. Vali being a wilful combatant and Sugreeva is coming for a second time with the support of Rama, he wanted to defeat that unknown Rama, along with suppressing Sugreeva's trivial pride. Vali promises Tara that he is not going to kill Sugreeva, but wanted to take him to task. On coming to field Rama is not evident. Then Vali wanted to see to Sugreeva first and then search for Rama. But what happened is the reverse of it. Perhaps gorilla war tactics started from this point onwards.