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
Codification, as a concept, is itself a highly debatable concept. The concept of codification, as it stands today, is essentially Eurocentric in terms of the 'standard'. Indian history, anthropology and sociology may not be documented, but it is codified. It is codified in a manner different from present-day codification. THIS is the reason for ensuing conflict and legal battles. The intrusion of an alien concept, in the garb of something familiar. What constitutes 'codification' is a question one needs to ask oneself, according to me.
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely what Appadurai addresses. In his view of social processes as defined by a culture-social structure dynamic.(Recall Geertz' logico-meaningful integration and causal functional integration), he is essentially referring to an interaction between these informal codes and formal codes.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting aspect to the conflicts addressed here is that one can see how a society functioned and its context based on the 'legal dramas' enacted. This is in keeping with Victor Turner's processual analysis by analysing individual social dramas.