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)
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)
It is a paradox worth mentioning that while law is supposedly objective in its place, its interpretation is perhaps more subjective than the folkways and mores of society. Jeremy Bentham, the Enlightenment philosopher and political economist, was very skeptical of the claim that British legal system rested on objective premises. He, in fact, found morality to be playing a dynamic role in law-making. Even if we give laws the credibility of being objective, we need to be cautious in lending that label to the interpretation of law, as such.
ReplyDeleteIt is this interpretation of law that leaves scope for the social structures to be a dynamic process. Interpretation is done according to the newly emerging contexts and is no longer static. With cultural changes, social structure (interpretation here) has to necessarily change
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, objective interpretation is more subjective than a subjective one. An objective interpretation will reject certain interpretation of data and stick to the text itself. In that sense, we can say that objective interpretation might lead to indefinite results than the subjective interpretation, leaving more scope for the Judge's freedom. It will include presumptions of social considerations made by the Judge himself. In most cases, it is impossible for the Judge to distinguish between those evaluations preferred by him and those evaluations that are ascribed to him, which is nothing but the information that will lead to a pure cognitive interpretation.
ReplyDeleteBut at the same time, it cannot be denied that subjective interpretation results in uncertainty. It makes it hard for the people to decide and regulate their behaviour accordingly.
One could perhaps read that the introduction of a 'universal' legal system in the Indian context didn't only change the Indian society structurally; the legal system that has gradually become embedded into the present Indian context also brought with it the moral presumptions of the English, which underlie the very base of law. In view of this, one will recognize that the idea of law, when implemented in a certain framework, isn't merely a concept. It's bound by the threads of Western morality. Postmodernists will argue here that eurocentrism had once again defined the dynamics of 'Third World' countries.
ReplyDelete