LOOSE ENDS

1676 was the landmark year for the residents of Triplicane – they now lived on confirmed British territory. It was a transformation of not just a nominal importance, but also one that had reverberations across the gamut of the self-sufficient ensemble of temple politics. The most crucial point while probing the issue of the implications of a British Rule over temple politics is the matter of perspective. The whole understanding of a matter-at-hand turns on its head when viewed from the opposite angle. Similarly, to understand what happened, we must first understand why it did. Appadurai, in his brilliant analysis, has extricated three reasons for a difference in ‘perception’ between the two involved parties – the locals, and the British.

Firstly, while the temples were absolutely fundamental in their existence for the locals, they were in no way intrinsic in their requirement for the British; in fact, they were functional in the sense of capturing pivotal broker figures that would make territorial conquest easier. So, they were functional, not fundamental. Secondly, the management of authority was informally defined under the local kings wherein the king would leave the power to the churchwardens or dharmakartas, but would have the pricey privilege of interfering with royal authority in case of any disputes. The British, on the other hand, did not interfere in the affairs of the temples while solving disputes, but established a rigid code of authority that went in a vertical flow – much like the modern-day bureaucratic machinery. Finally, while local kings held the reins of both administrative and judiciary authority with them, the colonizers had external division that led to confusion and a ‘struggle for power’ between the two arms – horizontally and vertically. That is, both the executive and judiciary got into a tussle for greater autonomy, while the bureaucratic structure came into conflict with the local machinery, and the ‘flow’ of authority was not as smooth as the British would have liked it to be.

The arbitrariness with which the British wavered favoritism between the Vatakalis and Tenkalis is evident in the petitions illustrated in the text itself. Why did this arbitrariness arise? One reason could be the fact that the control of powerful native merchants and intermediaries exerted through the broker offices in the colonial economy resulted in a skewed form of ‘deliverance of justice’. Another possible reason could be the fact that the ‘outsiders’ were unaware of the dynamics of the native politics surrounding the temple. By the time the British really caught the pulse of the people, and began understanding the subtle flavours of the village of Triplicane, a several judgment had been passed leading to a confused policy-making mechanism, and an even more confused public.

The formation of the Board of Revenue in 1789 was a result of this realization; bureaucratic centralization was seen as the primary method of having some amount of control in this situation. With the increase of governmental intervention, there grew a dichotomy of sorts – an erstwhile autonomous, and now dependent temple administration and an alongside reluctance to intervene in day-to-day affairs of the English colonizers. This ‘gap’ in administration is the pith of the crack that deepened the cleavage between the various factions involved – culminating in the longest period of a ‘temple conflict’, that is, from 1800 to 1820.

What was inherently a flexible and dynamic internal mechanism of the temple to resolve, or dilute, the intensity of the conflicts between the various factions, was slowly being replaced by a ‘self-conscious, rule-governed and systematic’ control. The British saw the internal mechanism of the temple as being insufficient to allay the concerns ‘justifiably’, and this brought into force another angle to the rising tensions, namely, the intervention of the judiciary. Over the years, the executive fiat’s unchallenged resonance was to come into some amount of conflict with the rule-bound judiciary. Also, the issue of what constitutes temple “protection” and how it is different from its “subordination” became intrinsically a matter of agitation, and subsequent, timely cogitation.

The “protection” of the temple was seen as being a vestige from the legacy of the local ruler’s tryst with the temple and so, the judiciary was seen as the platform for ensuring such protection, without interference from the executive fiat. “Subordination”, on the other hand, ran into the some debacles owing to the very structural rigidity of bureaucratic control and the tug-of-war was often seen, as with the case of Annaswamy Pillai, the Board of Revenue and the Supreme Court.

It is important to note the situation of the Board of Revenue in the midst of this power struggle. While the Board recognized their dependence on the judiciary to fulfill their role of being protective agents, they sought to restrict their involvement for the popular view then that courts were a ‘waste of time, a drain or resources and a threat to efficiency and effectiveness of bureaucratic control’.

To conclude, the British came to control the temple by a three-dimensional approach, namely, responsiveness to the explosive nature of temple conflicts, the functional separation between the executive and the judiciary and the often conflicting ideas of protection and subordination.

SNEHA, HS09H034

Kingship and the temple

Appadurai, in his chapter “Kings, sects, and temples: South Indian Sri Vaisnavism, 1350-1700” primarily about two roles of the king, and his relationship with local agents (sectarian leaders) with regard to temple affairs.

First and foremost, one must understand that there was always a sort of interface between the temple and the kings – the sectarian leaders. It was these sectarian leaders who were actually concerned with the day to day running of the temple. Naturally, the position of the sectarian head was a powerful one, subject to many political tensions. The complex nature of the relationship between the king and the sectarian leaders has already been discussed, so I will refer to it no further.

Endowment refers to the gifts and donations given to the temple courtesy the king. This conformed to the tradition that gifting Brahmins was an important role of the king. In due course of time, this process of endowment became inherent to, and absolutely necessary for the sovereignty of the king.

At the same time, it contributed to the redistributive process on the whole. Indeed, Appadurai goes on to outline that the temple played a crucial role in extending the control of the Vijayanagara kings into new constituencies, absorbing them into the empire. It is, at the same time, interesting to note while temple building and related activities gained popularity among the kings of South India, there was a decline in the status and favours granted to the ‘brahmadeyas’ (settlements of highly learned Brahmins, which were granted favourable tax settlements).

At the same time, the relationship between the ruler and temple was quite a complex one. This brings us to the second role of the king, namely, protection. While the administration and day to day affairs were in the hands of the local agents, the kings were called upon to settle disputes, in a purely administrative capacity. The distinction Appadurai tries to make is that there was no legislative power in the hands of the kings.

This is a very important distinction, and needs to be examined properly. What it essentially means, is that the judgement of a king was case specific, and context specific. It was not binding on other members of the public, or to those not involved in the case. Crucially, the judgement did not become a ‘law’.

One can immediately sense the point Appadurai is driving at when he takes the trouble to expand upon this aspect. The British rule brought with it the concept of courts, and laws. To put it simply, any judgement would pass into law, while the concept of ‘precedents’ was established, meaning that to decide the outcome of one particular case, the court could always refer to the judgements delivered in an older and similar case. The implications these alien and momentous changes had on the society at the time of their introduction, and the confusion it caused can only be imagined.

The depth of Appadurai’s analysis can be seen, when in the later parts of the chapter he goes to great lengths to trace the split in Vaisnavism. Similarly, he traces the rise of the Sanskrit School and the Tamil school (the debate between these schools being whether to give religious discourse in the restrictive Sanskrit, or the vernacular Tamil).

Having explained the rise in position and status of the ‘Tirupati’ temple complex, Appadurai proceeds to his study of the Parthasarathi temple. His conclusions, based on the dated inscriptions relevant to the time period we have been talking about, are that the Parthasarathi Temple, in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, was subject to a vast and complex relationship between the kings, the sectarian leaders, and the institution of the temple itself. It is noticed that this relationship conforms to the patterns that have been discussed in this blog post, and the earlier.

Contextualizing the Framework: Understanding the Relationships surrounding the Temple Culture

One of Appadurai’s primary aims in his book ‘Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule’ is to underscore the complexity of the relationships between the different people involved in the temple culture of the Sri Partasarati Svami Temple. This complexity can be only understood if it’s contextualized to that point in time and place, as Geertz establishes in his highly relevant idea of ‘Thick Descriptions.’

In view of the Sri Partasarati Svami Temple, the cultural dynamics surrounding the temple was ruled over by the inter-relationship between the Kings, sectarian leaders and the Temple itself. Very simply put, the sectarian leaders played the role of the intermediaries between the Kings and the Temple. The need for them slowly emerged as the relationship between the King and the Temple deity concretized. While initially it was assumed that the King was merely the voice of the Temple Deity, this spun into a more layered and complex relationship such that by the late 13th century it was understood that the King was the human sovereign, a role that was more revered. Apart from the title of sovereign, the King also began to bear the responsibility of arbitrator. His administrative duties increased and became broader. To adjust this gap between the King’s Actions and the Temple’s Voice, the need for intermediaries, i.e. sectarian leaders, grew. It was in this context that the once bi-angular relationship evolved into a triangle compromising of the King, the sectarian leaders and the Temple.

Using this triangle as the foundation, Appadurai examined the various institutional frameworks that lay atop this triangle. To break it down easily, Appadurai looks at two types of transactions between these three points: endowment of material resources and exchange of honours. While it’s tempting to conclude that the latter is a consequence of the former, this conclusion is fairly presumptuous. The movement of material endowment was such that the King donated to the Temple (as per the length of his control over the territory), the sectarian leaders donate to the temple (in their acceptance of dependence on the latter) and the Kings donate to the sectarian leaders (as these intermediaries only sought to make the rule of the King more in the interest of the temple and hence, more powerful). On the other hand, the exchange of honours was based more on the principle of acceptance of the other’s role. Not only is it acceptance of the role, but acknowledging the importance of the role. With the idea of ‘exchange of honours’ then, Appadurai notes that this transaction took place as follows: The Temple bestowed ‘honour’ to the King and the sectarian leaders (based on material resources), the King bestowed ‘honour’ to the sectarian leaders (based on their resourceful-ness) and apart from this, Appadurai makes especial note of the exchange of honour from the sectarian leader to the King. This last exchange is of particular importance and can only be explained by digging into the pits of contextual history.

The reason for Kings seeking the blessing of sectarian leaders can be traced to the beginning of the King’s conquest. As the King chooses to expand his territory, the only way in which he can ensure complete and absolute obedience is if he bends the people’s minds to his will. An observation most emphasized by Machiavelli in his book ‘the Prince’. Sheer military strength will not guarantee complete authority over the territory. In view of this then, it’s best perhaps for the King to rely on the blessings of the sectarian leaders who are capable of giving to them the scope and space to establish territory. Most importantly, sectarian leaders represent the assent of the Temple and hence, the assent of the people. Thus, it’s in contextualizing that one understands the reason for Kings requiring the blessings of sectarian leaders and yet not expect material endowments from them.

In conclusion then, Geertz’s ‘Thick Description’ notion can be seen at play here. One cannot merely understand the wink to be a wink without understanding the baggage that underlies that wink.

Chetana Sabnis
HS09H015

Worship, Redistribution and Honour

The methods of worships in the South Indian Temples, puja and arccanai, contrast in their transaction/economic transaction, between “Reciprocity” and “Redistribution”. Marshall Shalins provides the contrast between “Reciprocity” and “Redistribution”. The social relations of pooling (Redistribution) and reciprocity are not the same. Reciprocity is between relations between two parties, an action and reaction, creates a social duality. The transaction happens between these two parties and each benefit from it. In case of pooling kind of implies a social unit among a particular community creating a social centre. By particular community it implies that it has a social boundary. Arccania belongs to the “Reciprocity” method of transaction at most times. Religious sacrifices also belong to “Reciprocity”. For example, in case of arccanai, there is no sharing of the benefits. The parties involved are only the worshipper and the deity. The offerings are trans-valued by being offered to the deity and returned to the worshipper. There is a one-one relationship, nothing else. The staff/Priest related to the arccanai don’t get any real share of the benefits, they merely fit the category of middle men. In the other forms of worship such as Puja and Utsavam, the model of “Redistribution” fits in. The stone image of the deity forms the centre of the whole distributive process. In the event of the Puja or Utsavam, the donor (Sacrificer) might place the gift to the deity for his own good. But it actually starts the process of redistribution. The offerings are shared by the donor himself, the priests, the staffs of the temple and the mass of the worshippers. This group of people involved in the rituals of the puja share the sacred water and the holy food, though not equally.

Though in case of “Redistribution” everyone gets a share, over the years, it has involved a lot of controversies and debates. The reason for this is the variation and discrimination in both content and recipients of the offerings. Political and Sectarian leaders might be given more honours. But this variation doesn’t imply rank or status, but these are privileged roles that has with the deity. So, in a ritual process, all the participants will have role or a duty to perform and they will be rewarded appropriately. When all the duties and rewards are summed up over a period that particular ritual, it would constitute one's share in the ritual and redistributive process of the temple. But it becomes a serious issue when the people who are supposed enjoy specific privileges are deprived of it. Especially in case of donors who must have made a lot of contribution for the temple. Various cases have been explained in the book about this issue. The Temple staff are also very sensitive about their privileges they enjoy especially the priests. Only some of the priests are eligible to do service which involve physical contact with the deity. When such staff are challenged with their duties and privileges it becomes a very sensitive issue. Example for such a case is explained in the book. But these specific groups of people who enjoy special privileges in a temple have been challenged by various non-Brahmin groups about certain practices, like the ones in which the certain priests have the holy water in a specific type of vessel. Such issues have been contested with petitions to the temple authorities and then a quasi-legal action. But such actions failed as they were not a single large movement and moreover they lacked power in arenas of religion, politics and society. Such several cases of conflict over honour have been cited in the book. In today’s world , division of labour is established, priests monopolizing the act of performing the worship, “Inner” and “Outer” staff of temples , Trustees to oversee the ritual process , amina to supervise the ritual process, executive officer and his staff who connect the temple with the outer world, the donors and finally the mass of worshipers.

Vigneshkumar S

HS09H038

Protection of temple; the role of South Indian King

Appadurai outlines the organizational and cultural complexity of the process of redistribution. He cites a few examples of legal conflicts over honors which illustrate the complex constitutive function of honors and complex sociopolitical clashes that tend to express themselves in honor disputes.

Irrespective of who is involved in the conflict (the donor, trustees, temple servants or worshippers), the issue in common pertains to the relationship of their service to the sovereign deity. Service, in whatever form it may be, is a self-governing form of participation in the ritual. Each individual involved in the service possesses an inalienable and privileged relationship with the deity. This relationship is acknowledged by some sort of honor. It is this shared dependence on the sovereignty of the deity, along with the sense of functional dependence which holds participants of a temple together.

There is no clear hierarchy in the managerial roles and the chains of command which exist are governed by norms which vary from one temple to another. The norms are legitimatized by a shared idea of the past, of sacred convention which is based on fragile consensus. Hence changes in socio political environment can fragment this consensus fairly easily.

The boundaries within which orders can be given and be expected to be obeyed are tightly defined. Conflicts erupt when these boundaries are overlooked and the share of an individual or a group is threatened. The problem arises of how to arbitrate these conflicts (conflicts over honors and shares). The South Indians addressed this issue by invoking another relationship to the deity, the relationship of ‘protection’.

“To protect the temple means to ensure that the services resources and rules that define the redistributive process of any given temple are shared, allocated and defined so that conflict does not arise and disharmony does not set in.” In pre-British era the duty of protection of the temple was rested with the King. However, the King does not rule the Temple; he himself is a servant to the deity. Appadurai quotes examples of Kings of Vijayanagara and Travancore who handed over their kingdom to the deity and subsequently ruled the land on his behalf.

Also the protective function of the King is not monopolistic. The King is only the ultimate recourse and conflicts may be resolved informally by local assemblies. It is not just the King’s service of arbitrating conflicts but also the normal day to day organized relationship to the deity and systematic service which play a ‘protective’ role. These services and relationships safeguard, nurture and maintain the redistributive process.

The King’s exclusive right of being a protector gives the relationship between human Kings and the temple deities a new dimension - symbiotic division of sovereignty. The sovereign deity is a model of royal authority. By being the greatest servant of this deity human Kings get a share in this paradigmatic royalty and establish their rule over men.

Human Kings are obliged to interact with the temples. Enshrining the deity is an act of reinforcing and legitimatizing Kingship. The act also simultaneously reinforces and legitimizes the sovereignty of the deity.

The temple greatly relied upon a generous and beneficent relationship with those in positions of authority and power. The temple, in almost all cases required the financial aid of the Kings in order to expand and grow. It was through grants of land and money by the Kings that temples were able to be founded and financed. Temples also happen to be the foci of economic, political and cultural resources of the land.

But in practical situations this model becomes problematic. The administrative and political boundaries still remain undefined; so do the boundaries of ritual process. Even the protective mandate of the Kings cannot do away with what are perceived to be appropriate shares in relation to the sovereign deity. Conflicts concerning shares and rights derive from this structural aspect of the shared sovereignty of human Kings and temple deities.

Asha Chigurupati

CH09B083