On The Impact of Colonial Bureaucracy and Judiciary

The concept of codification is an important aspect of modern administrative and legal function. Arjun Appadurai critically analyzes this element during his attempt to understand conflict during the colonial period. Here I will be addressing the issues discussed in the chapter “From Bureaucracy To Judiciary 1826-1878” of the book “Worship and Conflict Under Colonial Rule: A South Indian Case” which deals with the period from 1841 to 1878 in the history of Sri Parthasarathi Swami Temple.

1841 is considered as a turning point in the story of Sri Parthasarathi Swami Temple as the Court of Directors of East Indian Company decided to withdraw all interferences with ‘native’ religious establishments. Appadurai credits the missionary lobbies in India, as well as in the English press and Parliament, for influencing the withdrawal of British bureaucracy from the "patronage" of ‘native’ religious institutions. British bureaucracy withdrew from all activities of temple management and dispute resolution, leaving the judiciary to maintain peace and to resolve the disputes which arise with relation to the temple.

In the process of severing its connection from the temple British government dropped two out of four payments which they were making to the temple. These were compensation for taxes on shops and carts in the temples vicinity, previously collected by the temple but interrupted in 1832 and the makamai allowance, in compensation for certain taxes on sea and land customs, which had been assigned to the temple in the eighteenth century through the influence of native dubashis who were also temple mangers. The continuation of the other payments to the temple meant that severing of connection was not complete. In 1857 attempt was made to force the temple trustees to choose lands in lieu of the cash tastik (so as to aid bureaucratic disengagement) which was also not successful.

Collector of Madras was assigned the task of systematic withdrawal of the bureaucracy from the temple related activities. In the process, three trustees were selected and as for the selection of the successors were concerned he made a statement saying;

 “The selection of a trustee on the occurrence of a vacancy may be left to the suffrage of the community of the Tengala sect as has heretofore been customary on the occasion of the appointment of a Dharmakarta.”

While ratifying the order for the appointment of the three trustees board implicitly rejected the collector's suggestions with the statement that the government was considering legislation that would provide a standard for judging various claims to the vacancy, but as the time goes on this comment by the board would be forgotten and Collector’s suggestion becomes the dictum for all the discourse surrounding the claim towards the trusteeship. This suggestion gain prominence when in 1847 when then collector of madras reiterated the words for the Collector of 1843.

In 1863 through legislation government enabled the creation of Native District Committees to oversee temples within their jurisdictions. In 1865 there was a move toward creating committee to oversee the Triplicane temple, consisting of Tenkalais, Vatakalais, and Smarta Brahmins. Along with this resistance also took shape against this suggestion, anti-committee group referred to the 1843 dictum and its 1847 reiteration as a charter for Tengala control over the temple.

In 1875 conflicts came out of the oblivion once again with the death of one of the trustees and the attempt of other two trustees to make the son of the deceased trustee his successor. The surviving trustees claimed that their selection the dead trustee's son was by the suffrage of the Tengala Community and It was also argued that the previous practice had been for the surviving trustees to appoint a successor from among the heirs or the nearest male relations of the departed person. They also pointed out to the government no interference in 1846 succession issue as an assent to their authority to appoint the successor. They went on to argue that;

"In the event of leaving the selection itself to the community of such a large populous place it was to be apprehended that the selection would not be likely to fall upon a proper person considering the transition state of the Hindu society as well as the anxiety prevailing generally among all ranks of the Hindu community especially among those in opulent and influential circumstances to get into the management of such a rich and reputed Pagoda and the consequent facility for the latter to canvas votes.”

The people who were against this appointment of hereditary nature argued that  argued that attempt to nominate the son of the deceased trustee is done with an agenda to make their place hereditary. In countering the trustee’s argument which based the appointment on the tradition they argued that that the selection and nomination of new trustees had always been made by the Tengalai community and there never existed hereditary rights to the trusteeship. They accused that people who supported the appointment of the new trustee as being not concerned members with the temple community or the relatives of the proposed candidate. On the other hand opposition retaliated.

The most important point to taken from this is common ground they had which was the acceptance of collector's dictum of 1843 according to which trustees was to be appointed  based on the suffrage of the community of the Tengala, this was accepted to be customary.  Appadurai argues that withdrawal of the British administration from the temple related issues were the inevitable outcome of the separation of executive and judiciary under British rule. He also put forward the proposition that the tendencies of British bureaucracy towards codification lead to the disruption in the local harmonizing process and this problem was made acute by the reluctance of British bureaucrats to arbitrate temple disputes.  

Akhil Bharathan O

HS09H002

Litigation and the Sri Partasarati Svami Temple

After discussing briefly the broad nature of the dynamic interaction between the English judicial system and the temples, Appadurai focuses his attention on the specific case of the Sri Partasarati Svami Temple. The complex and uneasy interaction between the temple and the British legal system had very important and far reaching consequences. Firstly, it consolidated the control of the Tenkalai community over the management of the temple. Secondly, it brought forth and concretized the underlying tensions and animosities between the various groups like priests, attiyapakas, donors, trustees etc associated with the functioning of the temple. Thirdly, an increasing number of such groups gained mastery over the intricacies and nuances of the legal system and tried to use it to advance their claims over temple affairs; this was important since many felt the need to legally establish their traditional rights and setting legal precedence was crucial in maintaining their position under the new legal system.

The first important case concerning the temple came up in 1878 (Vencatanarayana Pillay v. Secretary of State for India in Council). It concerned a vacancy in trusteeship of the temple and the attempt made by the remaining two trustees to fill it by making their own appointment. The judge ruled that the trustees had no such right and that the third trustee could be appointed only if he was ‘indicated as most eligible by the voice of the community’. In subsequent suits one finds detailed deliberations on how to conduct elections to elect the trustees while ensuring that the electorate is restricted strictly to the Tenkalai community. Eventually the trustees were given the right to determine the members of the Tenkalai sect and define the boundaries of the electorate. But the elections themselves, as Appadurai mentions, turned out to be ‘unruly and violent affairs’ and caused further court cases and litigation.

Many of the tensions between individuals and groups also came to the fore in such court cases. In a particular case, V. Raghavachariar, one of the trustees colluded with a section of voters to challenge the validity of the election of the other two trustees with whom he was having problems. The election was later held to be invalid. The other trustees retorted with allegations of mismanagement, breach of trust and neglect of duty against Raghavachariar. Though disputes regarding trusteeships and unfair elections formed the basis of a majority of major court cases, there existed other tensions as well. The trustees, the priests and the attiyapakas (Brahmin hymnists) existed in a state of mutual tension over legally asserting their rights. The priests argued and won their case to conduct worship without any interference from the trustees. The attiyapakas also successfully asserted that the trustees (many of whom were non-Brahmins) had no authority over them in the recitation of prabandhams and vedas. Meanwhile, the relations between the Brahmin and non-Brahmin worshippers also soured (this has to be seen in the larger social and political context of the time) with many non-Brahmins challenging the literacy and cash fee requirements imposed on the electorate as a Brahmin conspiracy to exclude non-Brahmins from the affairs of the temple. The challenge was rejected and a large portion of poor and illiterate non-Brahmins from the Tenkalai community were excluded from the electoral process.

The legal system was used by many groups to establish their rights and advance their claims in the management of the temple. The wealthy Komatti Settis resorted to legal means trying to use the power of their large benefactions to claim space in the temple affairs. This provoked the Pillai caste to make similar claims. There were also attempts by the Vatakalai residents of Triplicane to claim some control in the redistributive processes of the temple. Though all such attempts made by the Vatakalais were rejected they were reflective of the prevailing mode of thought in which claims were asserted and conflicts resolved through legal ‘dramas’ and win-or-lose court battles with high stakes.

Appadurai believes that the judicial system made a fundamental error in understanding the Indian temple as being analogous to the ‘charitable trusts’ of England. By adopting this perspective, the system failed to give itself the chance to understand the temple in its proper context and develop mechanisms to deal with the disputes arising from it. Every legal effort to solve a problem or codify rules led to a fresh series of litigation and opened up new spaces for conflict. In the race to legally establish their rights and claims every group felt threatened by every other group and codifying their various rights into legislation became the priority. The relationship between the temple and the courts came to be characterized by many such codifications and the ensuing legal battles over it. 

Binny Alexander

HS09H013

Temples & the English Legal System

Appadurai studies the dynamics between the English legal system and the temples of South India, while also examining the different dimensions involved in the interaction. The Hindu king, before the British rule was the one who resolved conflicts regarding the temples, and his role was that of an administrator rather than a legislator. There were no clear written set of laws to be followed at all times, and decisions were made based on the context considering what the King deemed right at that point. This is in stark contrast to the English legal structure which works on a fixed set of rules, while taking into account judicial precedents. 

The British policies in law tried to keep the tradition and culture intact, while adding large doses of reason to the process. When the British Crown assumed direct control over India in 1862, a system of courts were established with High Courts in the three major presidencies, and provincial courts. The only difference between the English judicial system and this model set up in India, Appadurai says, is that it lacked the difference between law and equity that the English system boasted of.

This change in the legal system brought with it an inevitable change in the Indian society. The English principles of law introduced concepts like equality before law, economic relations based on contract rather than status, settling only the case at hand without considering setting examples, and the need to make decisions more than compromises. Another dilemma created by this system was the constant disagreement of the civil law with personal laws like those pertaining to marriage, inheritance, etc. especially with the high level of influence that religion had on these issues. This became much more complicated due to the fact that these religious laws were unwritten and vague. The British tried to mobilise Hindu texts to create a basis for Hindu law, but even this did not help. Cases were mostly solved based on precedent, rather than law when it involved personal laws but the cases of religious endowments were too important and frequent for it to be ignored. 

It is in these circumstances that the British were forced to affect the Religious Endowment Act XX of 1863. Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1877, and the slightly altered Section 539 of the 1882 and 1908 versions are other statuettes of law that are vital in the attempted British resolution of the temple conflict. Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1877 and 1882, revised as Order 1, Rule 8 in the 1908 Code is the third important provision.

The English administration brought in the model of "charitable trusts" to the Indian temple scene, and this did not go down well because endowed property was transferred to, and vested in, a trustee for the benefit of others, called "beneficiaries". The property was to be vested in the idol and only managed by the trustee according to the Hindu concept. It was in this scenario that temples were exempted from the Indian Trusts Act of 1882. The Religious Endowments Act was based on the English view that the protection of trusts was under the ambit of courts. This was heavily based on parallel legislature passed in England, refining the working of charitable trusts, without direct administrative involvement.Section 539 defined the powers of the court with respect to conflicts, and Section 30 was a practical solution of using representatives, to solve the problem of trial without presence. 

All the laws evolved over time, after hundreds of cases of conflict all over India. However, one constraint that remained was the impractical nature of  the difference between private and public rights, with respect to temples and charitable trusts related to it. The legal scuffle surrounding the case between the Sri Partasarati Swami Temple and the British courts was monumental with respect to this evolution of the legal aspect of temples and conflicts related to them.   

Effects of British Involvement in Bureaucracy and Temple Culture

In understanding the colonialism from a cultural point of view surrounding the Sri Parthasarathy temple, we have seen till now how the temple culture have evolved and simultaneously how the conflicts were taking its shape, this chapter would essentially look into the intricacies of the conflicts and this post would throw light from a period from 1826-1840.

The temple had been largely a self regulating institution, but its incapability to arbitrate its own conflicts in terms of temple property, material inputs and people had invited the state to interfere itself in the temple affairs. The British bureaucratic involvement had reached its zenith, and gradually withdrew itself. The chapter basically looks into the new connotations that were attached to the term Tenkalai as a local socio-political category that designated the political constituency of the temple. While examining the British involvement in the logic of this development, three process play a lead role, which are i) exacerbation of the temple conflict resulting due to directness of the British bureaucratic control, ii) the transformation of the pre-existing tensions in the British ideology of “protection” or “subordination”, iii) the beginning of a new sectarian politics.

The argument establishing the causal relation between the expanded British control and exacerbation of temple conflict can be disintegrated into these different issues:

• · The turmoil around the Mirasi rights issue, the contradiction between the “extractive” function of British rule through abrogation of economic rights and “investive” function of British rule to preserve the stability of society through guaranteed economic rights. This dual objective of the same system led to a “codification” of local rights and privileges which was necessarily both arbitrary and stimulative of conflict.
• · This loosened rights and privileges initiated disputes over honours and shares in the temple processes and proceedings for many interest groups.
• · The extended govt control leading to an altered cash flow of the temple’s local capacity, reducing its economic autonomy. And finally
• · The capacity of the dharmakartha to arbitrate redistributive conflicts was diminished because of lack of an obligation to a legitimate authority, the court.

The second kind of British involvement which created a tension was between its methods of interference versus that of self sufficiency. By 1840 the British bureaucracy’s wish to protect the temple was extended to a control of the temple leading to graver conflicts which could not be arbitrated. The conflicts regenerated itself at all levels of bureaucracy and neither the accusation of misappropriation was eliminated nor there was any attempt to shift the conflicts to court. Thus the tension between the objectives of protection and subordination had not disappeared; even if it was not so evident it was more or less systematized.

The inception of the new sectarian politics was the final process and outcome of the British involvement. The schism between the Tenkalai and Vatakalai sects are quite age old over the issue of control of temple. However during this period apparently the Tenkalai had de facto control over the temple ritual and management. It’s in the context of above mentioned forms of British involvement that the idea of Tenkalai monopoly of temple control had taken root in the interaction between changing native self description (as Mirasi Servants, Ghosty Brahmins, Nadars etc) and the British bureaucratic formalization. Nevertheless the term Tenkalai has remained essentially contrastive with (i.e. Vatakalai) claims and pretensions.

The British involvement had resulted in these many changes in the temple culture, which does not really end with these, rather continues to manifest itself in different forms. The arguments in the book “Worship and Conflict under the colonial rule “are a result of combination of ethnographic fieldwork and archival research. An enquiry into how these discourse analysis and conclusions of participant observer would coincide with the reality requires attention. A discourse analysis might have the risk of being subjected to alteration due to interpretation. The conclusion of a participant observer is also not devoid of alterations either; ideology of observer, problem of recollection etc would further affect their representation of reality. But a method of “thick description” which is not merely factual but theoretical as well as analytical research would give us a description of culture, context, especially a relation of conflict between the temple culture( by which I meant all those people who are related to the temple) and the Britishers. The readers of the story would tend to generate a more empathetic and experiential understanding of the situation and this is essentially the positive of a qualitative research like the thick description.

Contradictions in policy

In recent years, the status of temples in India has come for public discussion. Today, the state governments exercise administrative control over the temples in their respective states. The initial Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act that came out in 1925 has undergone several changes. It has been quite accommodative of religious sentiments so much that in 1991, it was decided that spiritual and religious leaders should be involved in the annual maintenance of temples and that their suggestions should be obtained regarding the administration of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board (HREB). Before one delves into the functioning of the Board, a proper understanding of the transition in temple management during the British era is essential. Many of us are still looking to the past to understand public policy with regard to religious monuments. It is very easy for the locals who were against the government intervention through the Board to condemn that justice and efficiency of the British rule was filled with despotism and cruelty. But what we have to recall is that the Mughal rulers that preceded the British rule were nothing but sympathetic. Aurangazeb’s policies were aimed at destroying Hindu temples, while Mahmud of Ghazni looted the Somnath temple. The British rule in India has brought an equally eventful era in Indian history. It is quite interesting to consider the history of temple politics during the British period.

In the chapter titled “British rule and temple politics”, Appadurai has used British records to analyze how the British had dealt with problems that arose due to the administration of the Sri Partasarati Svami temple. Initially, the British considering the explosive nature of ‘religious’ disputes, tried not to interfere with such issues when the temple was in need of external interventions. After the formation of the Board of Revenue in 1789, the temple came under direct supervision of the Board. And the formation of this board marked a major transformation of the East India Company’s role from a trading power to a political regime in South India. Though the British wanted to distance itself from any ‘religious’ dispute, the year 1799 saw a major overturn of such a policy. In 1799, petitions were raised to the Board claiming that the Churchwarden had ‘embezzled’ the temple’s revenue. The issue had divided the temple community and also challenged its leadership. This appealed to the moral responsibility of the British. Hence, after being invited by one of the factions, the British felt its interference necessary. The British’s role and the conflict with the Churchwarden is laden with a lot of confusions and contradictions. In 1817, the Board had interpreted the Regulation VII to mean that it had to place the temple under the control of Supreme Court of Madras. So it directed the Collector to distance himself from the temple’s control and merely direct his functioning just to fulfill the ‘protective’ function. Whereas, the Collector interpreted it to be an order from the Board to withdraw from all his involvement in temple affairs. On the one hand , the Board felt that it had to rely on the Supreme Court to fulfill its protective mandate. While on the other, it recognized the tension between the Judiciary and the Executive with its anti-litiguous attitude. The two main conflicting ideologies were protection and subordination. The main question that one can raise is that how can the Board seek to protect without ensuring subordination, considering that the temple has lacked self-sufficiency in dealing with disputes, and has more often been a prey to constant abuse. So, a proper clarification on hierarchy, duties and responsibilities was required to be given to the Churchwarden and at the same time, the Board had to offer support and protection while he performs his functions. This would seek to balance the contradiction between protection and subordination. The shift in the provision of paying wages by Collector in the Collector’s office instead of the Churchwarden’s sought to shift the client role of the workers, from the Churchwarden to the Collector himself.

Appadurai has analyzed the conflict with in-depth scrutiny of how different parties viewed the conflict. Each of the parties viewed their rights quite differently as well. The Board for instance viewed the Collector only as an arbitrator rather than a controller, while it viewed the Churchwarden to be only a trustee and the Collector to be a superior trustee in the conflict. Whereas, the Churchwarden considered himself to be in possession of the temple property and did not ever consider himself to be a trustee. The locals were however thoroughly divided in their opinion about the conflict. It will be right to conclude that the whole conflict is marred by these contradictions of the British policy with regard to the temple which has led to certain confusions that are worthwhile to be considered.

Gayathri M (HS09H018)