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