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