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
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
The 'bending' of people's will to his own, I think, is a very important concept of political sovereignty that has outlasted all whirlwind changes to survive as a political tactic even today. Sectarian leaders, though the term might be too blatant an allegation for some, still play a crucial role in determining the stakes of a reign. I think this particular extrapolation makes for a simplistic one, but one with some promise of further exploration nevertheless. Also, kudos to Chetana for putting up a succinct, yet logical, blogpost. Enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDelete