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