Identity and Conflict

The change in political landscape, customs and rituals has not altered the perception of the temple as a sacred place just as it was viewed during the Vijayanagara period. In the final chapter of the book Appadurai analyses the changes in the way the temple was administered and conflict for its control and views it in the as an example of larger changes that took place in South Asian sociopolitical history due to the colonial rule.

The Kings derived their legitimacy from the temple. The deity was seen as paradigmatic sovereign and the Kings portrayed themselves as the devotees and protectors of the temple by providing royal gifts to the temple and in return had honors bestowed upon them by the temples. They played a major role in solving the conflicts which arose over the administration of the temple. Their active participation in the running of the temple gave them the opportunity to justify their rule by invoking their close relationship with the local deity. This has parallels even today as can be seen with regards to the absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia who justify their authoritarian rule by portraying themselves as the custodians of the holy Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina. History shows us that it is quite common for rulers to attribute their authority as a divine right entrusted upon them by gods to strengthen their rule and that of their dynasty. The deity itself was seen as a divine sovereign to whom the worshippers were required to show their generosity and in return they were generously rewarded. The local day to day handlings of the temples were usually entrusted to local sectarian leaders by the King.

The establishment of British rule led to the breakdown of the well established symbiotic relationship shared by the local ruler and the deity as the British did not derive their authority from the temple. The British established separate judicial and executive branches and thus the old system of the rulers as arbiters of conflict was now no longer in vogue. The British wanted to take part in the administrative affairs of the temple as they were involved in tax collections but they were wary of taking part in conflict resolution and hence it was left for the Judiciary to decide. The Tenkalai sect was able to ward off challenge from the Vadakalai sect for the control of the temple during the British rule. But after independence the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department was able to gain a firm control over the temple overcoming the resistance put by the local Tenkalai community.

The conflict can be traced to the fact that the temple encouraged the establishment of identities in a manner which makes it impossible for conflicts to not arise. However, the temples also ensured that compromises could take place by sub-ordination of worshipers to common ritual system. The British radically changed the way that the conflict resolution of handled and this in turn led to more conflict and confusion. The tensions exist even today among the different people due to the identity issues arising from the past especially given the fact that the Tenkalai practices were far more egalitarian in comparison to the more orthodox practices adhered to by the members of the Vadakalai sect.

Appadurai mentions that the almost exclusive focus on caste by anthropologist in the past makes it very difficult to examine the complex relation shared between religion on one hand and economy and politics on the other hand. The power relations which played an extremely important role especially before the British era cannot be just attributed to the caste system as it was done by the British anthropologist. Appadurai advocates a shift from the priest centered notions which relied on purity and pollution to a more general sociological study of the worshipers. Appadurai calls for a critical examination of the change in the socio-religious sphere in South India due to the British colonial rule.

Putting things in perspective

Any analysis within the domain of post colonial studies begins with the acknowledgement of the fact that a post colonial nation has elements of contemporary society in dynamic interaction with the vestiges of colonialism. Understanding the ‘peripheral’ post colonial society which through its ‘boundedness’ defines the Center, is a dialectical process of combining the existing stereotypes with deeper insights to form a coherent identity of one’s own. An exercise of identity formation of such a society is central to the post colonial reading of Appadurai’s book Worship and conflict under colonial rule and indeed has to be grounded in such reality.

However with several chapters dedicated to the minute details of temple management it is easy to miss the larger picture. Appadurai himself confesses that though the very title of the book suggests the relevance of colonialism as a discourse, it has been only implicitly addressed.

This post will look at a few aspects taken up by Appadurai in the book as evidence of these implicit themes. It is an attempt at elaborating upon these implicit themes and laying clear the functional structuralist coherence of this work. By which I mean, understanding the way this work behaves as a ‘functioning cultural and organizational whole’ both within the theme of Authority in sociological terms and a larger implication on identity formation instrumental to development in a post colonial nation.

Consider the theoretical framework itself. The book addresses the temple as a three dimensional unit: a sacred space for a ‘paradigmatic sovereign’, the deity; a ‘metasocial’ space where rituals, symbols are alive and the most salient aspect for the purposes of this study, the redistributive role or the actual day to day management of worship which involves a strong social structural basis. The cultural aspects (the first two dimensions) remain unchanged through the years while the social structure has evolved in response to British colonization, in keeping with Geertzian explanation of logico-meaningful interaction and casual functional integration.

Till date, people see meaning in engaging in temple worship but the colonial invasion has created tensions in the sphere of social structure. The temple is no longer fundamental to existence of the State as was the case during Kingship. However its role in the ‘protection’ of the deity was similar to the King’s role pre British. Juxtapose this function of the State with the role of judiciary in arbitration which brought in the radical notion of universalizing previously context specific or particularistic in the ‘ethnosociological sense’ conflicts.

These are the exogenous factors that were superimposed upon society. The British’ claim to authority rests on the protective mandate, in combination with bureaucratic structure, ideology of legislation and arbitration prevalent at the time. This is one ‘past’ or one party’s view of the past in this issue. The Tenkalai community’s claim to authority rests on an appeal to the golden years of pre British era and the constitutionalisation of their role during British period. This is fragmented too due to schisms within the Vaisnava sect. This constitutes another version of the same ‘past’.

Any conflict existent today cannot be resolved without the understanding of these contesting views of the past. It is through understanding these multiple ‘pasts’ that reconciliation according to contemporary climate is reached. This is a reflexive process where one engages in a dialectical process of synthesizing the impacts of colonial superimpositions and traditional structures to form a coherent framework.

In the meanwhile the reasons for people’s engagement in temple worship have also evolved with the myriad changes in society. The concept of temple honors during Kingship was no longer relevant in British time and in modern society, the existence of several institutions that offer opportunities of ‘honor’ and authority exist. However people engage with the temple on another level even in contemporary politics wherein their donations are seen as attempts at capturing the followings of the masses, essentially trying to share the ‘accessible’ sovereignty of the deity.

In addressing the question therefore, of how did colonialism affect the institution of authority in temples one is only addressing a part of the bigger question of its impact and interaction with the social structures prevalent at large. Treating colonialism as an overarching process, this study would be one of its components or a part of the process (in Victor Turner’s terms). While one can make extrapolations they would only remain nascent ideas. According to Appadurai, if there are studies of similar nature with different actors they would be the other components or parts which can then be compared to complete the processual analysis of colonialism. It is only with such closure of sorts will one be fulfilling the functional structuralist aim of this study too.

In the final analysis the divergent pasts constitute ‘winks upon winks upon winks’ to the contemporary conflicts. It is through a nuanced understanding of this that one can fully comprehend one’s own identity as a post colonial nation. The absence of this self consciousness makes one susceptible to clinical developmental discourses divorced from the complexity of reality.