Shloka 4.17.48
वालिवधः — Vālī’s Fall and Dharma-Accusation (Kiṣkindhā Sarga 17)
मामेव यदि पूर्वं त्वमेतदर्थमचोदयः।।मैथिलीमहमेकाह्ना तव चानीतवान्भवेत्।सुग्रीवप्रियकामेन यदहं निहतस्त्वया।कण्ठे बद्ध्वा प्रदद्यां ते निहतं रावणं रणे।।
mām eva yadi pūrvaṃ tvam etad-artham acodayaḥ | maithilīm aham ekāhnā tava cānītavān bhavet | sugrīvapriyakāmena yad ahaṃ nihatas tvayā | kaṇṭhe baddhvā pradadyāṃ te nihataṃ rāvaṇaṃ raṇe ||
Had you approached me earlier for this purpose, I could have brought Maithilī back to you within a single day. Since you have killed me to please Sugrīva, know that I would even have slain Rāvaṇa in battle and handed him over to you, bound by the neck.
'Had you sought my help earlier(before you met Sugriva), I would have restored Sita to you within a single day. I have been killed by you to oblige Sugriva. I would have handed over Ravana by the neck after killing him in the battle.
It highlights dharma as discerning right means, not only desired ends: Vāli suggests that political aims (pleasing Sugrīva) shaped Rāma’s action, raising questions about impartial righteousness.
Vāli argues that Rāma could have secured Sītā and even neutralized Rāvaṇa through Vāli’s help, implying Rāma chose a path tied to Sugrīva’s interests.
Strategic capability and confidence (vīrya), alongside the implied virtue of choosing allies and methods carefully under dharma.