Hindu Temple Priests under Secular Government : A Case of Nataraja Temple of Chidambaram, South India (Not to be quoted)

Masakazu TANAKA

In this article I would like to consider the reaction made by the temple side to the establishment of laws concerning the property (land) and administration of Hindu temples from the beginning of the 19th century, and how the temple became caught in the web of the judiciary system. I will first take a look at the changes in the policies regarding Hindu temples of South India. Then I take up the Nataraja temple as a case study, giving an outline account of the temple before considering the establishment of its management rules and its contents, and investigating a series of lawsuits which started off from an incident involving bloodshed. I will also discuss major related disputes after the Indian Independence and finally make some general observations on the relationship between religion (represented by the temple) and secular authority (represented by the state government) before and after independence.

In South India, especially in the present State of Tamilnadu, many huge temples have been constructed since the 10th century and have received generous support from the king. As a devout Hindu, the king donated vast amounts of land and supported the temple financially. Moreover, the temple priests prayed for the prosperity of its patrons and authorities headed by the king. The temple not only legitimated the position of the king as the paramount authority of the land, but also played an important role in economy and in the development of the arts.

The British had engaged in trading and commercial transactions from 1639, when the East India Company acquired the area which later came to be known as Saint George, Madras, to around 1790. Later on, however, as the colonial rule became more established, they started taking up the traditional role of the king mentioned above. That is to say, need arose to deal with the reported appeals from many places that the trusts based on donated land etc. to the temple were used personally by the managers against the donators' will, and that the temple management was neglected. The colonial government also understood and accepted that the temples were economically and politically important. The first law that regulated the temple property management (Regulation VII of 1817) was established under general agreement between public opinion and the colonial government in 1817.

However, around 1833 onwards, the policy of the colonial government in Madras was criticized in mainland Britain, and they were forced not to intervene by the 1840's. This policy of non-intervention was established through the new law of 1863 (Act XX of 1863). This law is directly relevant to the present article. The extent to which this law was actually effective, however, should be carefully considered. Moreover, the policy of non-intervention was overturned again after the First World War.

According to the reform under the Montague Chelmsford Report in 1919, jurisdiction of each region (Presidency) was recognized and a council was established in which over half of its members were regionally elected. The rights concerning temple management were also placed under the regional council's control. With this, the Justice Party, which came into power in Madras district in 1920, promoted the centralization of temple policies and established the Board of Hindu Religious Endowments (abbreviated below as the HRE Board) in 1926 (Act I of 1926). After some amendments a new law was established in 1927 (Act I of 1927).

It was not, however, that a complete centralization had been established at this point. One of the main reasons for this was the presence of the temple committee that was placed in each district and another reason was the presence of temples that were not subject to the legal regulations. In the beginning when a problem concerning management occurred, the temple committee, consisting of an elected body of distinguished persons in the region, dealt with its regulation. At that time, the opinions of the HRE Board were only executed through the temple committee. However, in 1935 this was amended so that the temple was notified and an executive officer was directly dispatched in order to manage it instead of the temple managers (Act XII of 1935). In this way, the temple committee became practically powerless, and the committee itself was abolished in 1944 (Act X of 1946). In its place, an assistant commissioner was appointed. Furthermore, up till then it was the principle that if the manager was hereditary or was appointed by the person who established the temple, the temple was considered as a private establishment and there was no government intervention. This agreement, however, was also excluded. On the other hand, the HRE Board was not able to be politically completely neutral, since it was influenced by the government policies of the time. The majority of the staff also consisted of government supporters. There was a tendency to appoint party supporters as the managers of district temples.

After independence, according to the Law established in 1951 (Act XIX of 1951), the HRE Board came under the control of a minister as a department known as the Department of Hindu and Religious Charitable Endowment (abbreviated henceforth as HRCE Department). As a result, it became more and more difficult for it to function independently of government opinion. An area committee was established in place of the abolished HRE Bord. However, the HRCE Department appointed its members. In this way, it was not given independent and autonomous rights, but became an extension or a mere tool of the central government. In addition, the members were also given the right if it was necessary to enter the inner sanctum reserved only for the priests. In this way, the centralization of the temple management was strengthened. However, this law, as we will see later on, was judged as unconstitutional in the disputes concerning Nataraja Temple of Chidambaram.

Chidambaram is situated 245 kilometers south of Madras, the capital state of Tamil Nadu. According to the 1981 census, the population is approximately 5600. The presently existing main buildings of the Nataraja Temple were constructed during the period from 10 C to 13 C. Since then, there have been countless renovations and additional buildings built till now.

The priests of Nataraja Temple are called Dikshitars. In 1988 the Dikshitars constituted a small community of 196 households with a total population of 686. What is to be noted here is that as well as being priests, the Dikshitars are also the joint administrators of the temple as their collective property.

The temple is administered by an executive organ called the ﾔpotu Dikshitarﾕ and composed of all the married male Dikshitars. Once in every ten days they hold regular meetings and discuss various matters of concern. It may happen that several married men from the same household will be participating in the meeting. The potu Dikshitar has a supervisory organ in the form of a committee made up of nine members. Their term of office is from 1 April to 31 March of the following year. The committee chairman assumes in particular the role of representative of the Dikshitars when dealing with the outside world, but he is neither leader nor head of the Dikshitars community, for the Dikshitars maintain that their leader is Siva himself. This committee is directly concerned with the administration and maintenance of the temple. If, for example, a priest on duty has not been discharging his duties properly, the committee will hold a hearing and impose a fine which is according to one of the laws from the law book compiled during the end of the 19th Century.

In 1988, there were 265 married men, and there was a roster listing their names in the order in which they had married. Teams of twenty are formed following the order of this roster. The members of these teams are called muraikkarar, and they serve as priests for twenty days, or one vattam, at the five main temples. To this end each team of twenty is further subdivided into five groups of four members each. Each group is in charge of one temple for four days. The four members of each group take in turns in acting as the officiating priest (pujakkarar), and the other three act as his assitants. After four days, when each has taken his turn as the officiating priest, they move on to another temple. By moving as a group through all five temples in this manner, one vattam is concluded.

From the tenth century onwards Nataraja Temple grew under the patronage of successive kings, and it is to be assumed that, as in the case of other temples, the land donated by kings formed the foundations of the temple. But with the passage of time this supposedly donated land lost its economic significance. Details of this process are unclear, but it does appear that at least by the second half of the nineteenth century Nataraja Temple was looked upon as having no land, and in its place contracts with specific patrons (kattailaitar or upayatar) came to play an important role.

The practice whereby a patron (kattalaitar ) would financially support a certain ritual through the agency of a particular Dikshitar (kattalai Dikshitar) had taken root at Nataraja Temple by the nineeteenth century at the latest. These patrons are only the patrons of specific rituals, and they do not administer the temple itself. The administration of the temple remains in the hands of the Dikshitars.

Patrons are divided into three types. Firstly, there are the patrons who provide financial support for the daily worship that takes place six times a day. They are called ﾔpotu kattalaitarﾕ(common patrons) or ﾔkoyilkattalaitarﾕ (temple patrons), and they meet the expenses for worship with the interest accruing from their savings.

Secondly, there are the patrons of particular ceremonies. In the case of Nataraja Temple, these include not only major festivals lasting for several days, but also the monthly new-moon ceremony and the ceremonies celebrating the birthdates of saints, of which there is one held almost every week. The execution of these ceremonies is all made possible through the patronsﾕ support. Because these patrons of particular ceremonies have become fixed over successive generations, it is difficult for a newcomer to become a patron of this type. To each patron is attached a particular Dikshitar. The basic rites of large festivals are performed by the archarya but the minor rites incorporated within these festivals and ceremonies in which the arcarya has no incolvement whatsoever are performed by this kattalai Dikshitar in his capcity as priest. This does not follow the roster system, but is a right that is inherited by particular Dikshitar families.

Because the number and services and rituals is limited, not all Dikshitars can become the Kattalai Dikshitar for a particular ritual, and since this position is an inherited one, some sort of adjustment becomes necessary in cases where there are two or more sons. If the father should be in charge of several rituals, then they will be shared equally among the sons, while if he is responsible for only one ritual, the sons will serve as kattalai Dikshitar in turn.

Thirdly there are people referred to as patrons who are not associated with any particular ritual. They will ask a Dikshitar (occasionally several Dikshitars) to become their kattalai Dikshitar and then have him perform private ritual acts such as arcana(offerings of coconuts and bananas). In some cases this relationship will continue from one generation to the next. Insofar as this relationship is unconnected with ceremonies, services and similar public activities of the temple, it is a private affair. Typical of this relationship is a sort of indenture system whereby the kattalai Dikshitar undertakes to make arcana offerings to Nataraja on behalf of the patron every month on the day corresponding to his birth star (naksatara) and to then send him some sacred ashes and vermilion powder as the prasada. There are some Dikshitars who have as many as one thousand patrons of this type. If this type of patron should wish to have the rudra-abhiseka (the same type of large scale ritual) performed, he will again approach the same kattalai Dikshitar. The rudra-abhiseka (large scale rituals) differs from the arcana in that the kattalai Dikshitar only makes the arrangements for the rite, and the rite itself is performed by the priest on duty for that particular day. Coliya Brahmans and more than ten Dikshitars who chant mantras also participate in this rite.

A person may be introduced by an acquaintance to a particular Dikshitar, but it is commoner to make the acquaintance of a Dikshitar at the temple and to pay him a sum of approximately 100 rupees to cover the expenses for one year. A Dikshitar may acquire as many as one hundred new patrons of this type in a single month, but the relationship with patrons gained in this manner does no last very long. Especially in the case of pilgrims from afar, there is a tendency for them not to send the fees for the following year, and so the relationship dissolves after the first year. These private patrons do not belong to individual Dikshitars, but are rather the common property of the household. Therefore, if the household should split up, they are shared equally among the sons as in the case of the festival patrons. In order to keep a large number of patrons, it is necessary to go almost daily to the temple to make arcana offerings, and in order to acquire new patrons it is to the Dikshitarﾕs advantage to be placed in charge of arcana at a particular temple by auction or some other means, for it is in such a situation that he will find pilgrims who may be prepared to enter into an annual contract.

In some cases the relationship between the patron and kattalai Dikshitar will develop beyond a contractual one into a more personal relationship. For example, when a domestic rite is performed at the kattalai Dikshitarﾕs home, the patron will offer a special gift of money, and they may also become trusting confidants.

Dikshitar households may be said to stand in the relationship of competitors to one another in regard to the acquisition of patrons, for the greater number of their patrons, the more stable their level of income becomes. But to the best of my knowledge there have in recent years been no major disputes among the Dikshitars concerning patrons.

A major change that took place during the nineteenth century other than the legislation of the temple management was the framing of the regulations for the templeﾕs self-management. The Religious Endowment Act would have been applied if the temple management were not executed properly. Hence the Chidambaram priests framed the already existing rules for temple management and supplemented necessary changes and new rules to put the management regulations in order. As a result, they were able to prove that the temple administration was being executed in a completely democratic and rational manner at the disputes which occurred later on. They could deny the criticisms which came from outside that their management was corrupt and that the priests were filling their own pockets.

Take for example the judgement of 13 December 1951 (Writ Pet, No.s 377 and 388 of 1951, The Madras Law Journal Reports, Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras). Here the following statements were made.

They framed rules for the management of the temple, for the custody of the properties particularly the jewels even as early as 1849 and printed a copy of that has been filed as an exhibit in these proceedings (1952 MLJ 598). It (the procedure to notify a temple under the earlier and the new Acts) completely supersedes the machinery of management by the Dikshitars established and regulated from time to time by rules framed by the denomination in 1849 and reprinted in 1900 which have been filed and exhibited in the litigation in which the scheme was questioned. ﾉThe rules cover every detail of the administration of the temple by the Podu Dikshitars and it is really surprising how more a century ago they could have thought of framing detailed rules regarding the administration by them with a view to make it more effective (1952 MLJ 601)

From this point of view one can say that their attempt was a success. The regulations were established twice, in 1849 and in 1894. In this article, these management regulations will be analysed and compared.

What will be dealt with here is a series of collection of rules called the Sri Sabanayakal Koil Shattam which were established in 1849 and in 1894. Sabanayakal is another name for Nataraja, so literally this would be the collection of rules for Sabanayakal Temple. The two series of collection of rules were reprinted in September and October 1966 respectively. It goes without saying that Of course it is unlikely that these regulations are still in practice today without having undergone any amendments, but there has been no revised collection of rules since. The two were reprinted in 1966. In principle, it can be assumed that the 1849 version was largely amended in 1894, and then partially amended in the 1894 version.

It is not evident whether it was framed before 1849, but there is no doubt that the colonial rule in the nineteenth century and the establishment of the judicial system activated similar movements within the temple. In a broad sense, it can be said to correspond to the writing down of legends by different castes.

Now, let us first examine the collection of rules of 1849. This comprises of a total of 43 articles (37 pages). The 43 articles can be divided broadly into three topics of politics, economics and ritual.

Articles dealing with politics are centred on the general meeting, which is the superior executive organ. Those dealing with economics are concerned with the management of communal properties (movable and immovable properties), and matters regarding the execution of personal donations. Those dealing with ritual are mainly concerned with the performance of rites, the qualifications of the priest, and the regulations regarding workers other than priests. This paper will not examine this in detail, but there is a regulation that a small penalty (aparadan) has to be paid by those who break this law. For example, Article 23 states that the priest on duty or other Dikshitars of each temple must utilise the offerings (naivedia) of the worship (abisheka) to the gods supplied by the patrons or VIPﾕs properly. It is written that one is fined up to six rupees if one steals or breaks this rule. Article 42, which states that there should be groups consisting of ten people is the only unnatural regulation and at present there are no signs of it being applied. The following is a brief line up of each article. The numbers within the brackets are the article numbers.

Rules regarding the priestsﾕ general meetings (Poduval) and agenda procedures etc. (1-6)

Where the meetings are held, who decides to hold the meetings, the penalty to those who are late for the meeting, the priests excluded from the meeting (the disabled, the sick, priests in impure states etc.), the necessity of non-Dikshitar staff to lead the meetings (podumanidan), on the principles of unanimous votes.

The penalty to the one who gives information regarding temple matters to government officials without permission. (7)

The penalty to the person who hides and destroys documents. (8)

The management regulations of offerings and communal property (put on auction) (9)

The priests on duty put the offerings from the major festivals on auction, regarding the instances for other festivals, which temples or shrines are to be financially supported by which gardens that the (Nataraja) temple possesses, gardens and small temples are rented out through auction and the Dikshitars who are the borrowers are called Kattakaikalals (they are different from the priests). Regarding the loan payments.

Management of jewels and charities etc. (10-14)

Deciding the time of rotation for the priests on duty, management of the storeroom, on dealing with theft, the representative (5-9 people other than Dikshitars) to meet with outside officials, the inventory of the jewels etc., penalties given to priests who stole jewels (the expelled priests), regarding marriage of the children of expelled priests (the prohibitions and restrictions), the penalties given to stolen temple properties other than jewels, theft cases by workers other than Dikshitars, the compensation procedure (on how to decide the value of jewels, the responsibility of the priest on duty), attitude towards the suspected, the case of jewel donations.

The distribution of things other than jewels. (15)

The arbitration of disputes concerning distribution. (16)

The selection of the person (mamiyam) to be in charge of the festival funds. (17)
The selection of the festivalﾕs main priest Archarya. (18)

On switching over the priest on duty. (19)

The duties and rights of the priest on duty. (20)

At the four temples (during this period Pandiyanayakal Temple did not exist) the times for the priests on duty to perform the rituals, supplying the offerings, the rights towards the offerings, the distributed work amongst the four priests on duty at one temple.

Regarding gifts from the VIPs (21)

The priest on duty receives up to 5 rupees, the rest goes to the general meeting. The penalty regulations undertaken when this is not obeyed. The ritual procedures for VIPs.

The difference between unmarried and married priests. (22)

The distribution of offerings at each temple. (23-25)

The distribution rate amongst workers other than Dikshitars of the temple.

Activities of the priest on duty at each shrine and temple. (26,29,30)

The duty rotation order, procedure of switching, the representative of the priest on duty, distribution of money offerings from the name giving ritual of the VIPﾕs children and other offerings, the alms payed to the temple by devadasis (dancers of the temple) at times of ritual, things not to be done towards the devadasis, the age limit of the priest on duty, the priestﾕs bath after coming from outside.

The duty of the assistant (parisaran)who manages the Patronﾕs trust funds. (27,32)

The handling of the VIPs. (28)

Regarding assistance (the assistance of Tilmanjanam and Tiruttamarai, the chores regarding the rituals) (31)

The duty of the Katiyam (messenger) (33)

Attending the patrol, reporting data of festivals to government officials etc.

The duty of the Sorya Brahman (34)

The funeral rites of the priest who committed theft. (35)

The duty of the Podumanidan (the director and secretary for meetings etc.) (36)

Maintenance of the templeﾕs festival utensils.

Maintenance of the storeroom (36,37)

The representative of the patrons. (38)

The duty of the persons who sing hymns (Oduval) (39)

The duty of the florist. (40)

The duty of the watchmen(security guards) (41)

The attitude of welcoming a VIP to the temple. (42)

Dividing the Dikshitars in groups of ten and deciding the representative (42)

Prohibition of gambling (43)

What is notably different from today is that the duties of the officiated priests were restricted to the four temples, and that there were six Sorya Brahmins. It seems that this collection of rules was neither compiled particularly to show the officials nor referred to during oncoming disputes.

The collection of rules of 1894 is comprised of 59 pages, 8 chapters, and 362 articles. Since the collection of rules of 1849 had 43 articles, by straightforward calculation, it means that this version was expanded by nine times. The following reasons can be assumed for this expansion: the establishment of the 1863 Hindu Religious Endowment of Madras District, the bloodshed incident of the Dikshitarﾕs factional disputes that occurred in the 1880ﾕs which will be discussed later on, the cancellation of the Grand summer festival, and the lawsuit movements that followed.

Below we will introduce the contents of the collection of rules of 1894.

The Bylaws of 1894

Chapter 1

The procedures of the General Meeting (Mahasaba) (1-17)

Place of meeting, the convening procedure of the general meeting, calling the roll of meetingﾕs, convening the absent members, on resolutions, setting up committee meetings (Arosanai Saba), selection of Maniyam, attitude to be taken at the meeting.

The duty of the representative. (Podupiratinitikal) (18-40)

the duty of the representatives, regulation of funds, supplying funds to lawsuit problems, requirements of the representatives, selection, the license confiscation of disqualified representatives.

On different types of meetings. (41-43)

Chapter 2

On the meeting leader (shinkougakari) (44)

On the preservation of documents (45)

The duties and rights of the priest on duty. (46-67)

Storage of the keys. (68, 72, 114)

The age limit of the priest on duty. (73)

Regulation of jewels and communal properties(treasures), (74-97)

On deciding the distribution of flowers used for offerings and sacred ashes at worship etc. (98-108)

On worship (abiseka) (109-110)

On shrine and temple worship. (111)

Distribution method of sacred ashes or offerings (prasada) to devotees (112)

Selection of watchmen (security guards) (113)

On new priests. (115-117)

The usage and regulation of items donated by patrons. (118-121)

The distribution of prasada (122-123)

On the representative for the patron. ((124)

Regulation of communal properties(125-128)

The worship schedule (129-139)

The selection and duty of the mariyam (142-146)

Relationship with the patrons (147-155)

The procedures of the ritual and grand festivals (156-179)

The duty of the Acharya (festival representative) (180-194)

Regulation of shrines and temples etc., the duties of the borrower (195-201)

On offerings and donations towards personal rites (202-247)

The duty of the assistants of Tilmanjanam and Tiruttamarai etc., and the patronﾕs representative (248-253, 264-269)

Preparation of offerings, duty of the cook (254-263)

Regarding watchmen. (270, 274-280)

On Katiyam (271-273)

On people who hold the torch (281)

On passing on, theft, compensation of jewels or ritual utensils (282-289)

On Dikshitars who are expelled due to theft. (290-301, 304-306)

The management of jewels or offerings donated by VIPs. (302-303)

Cases of handing over distribution rights due to illness. (307-309)

The requirements of a priest (310-314)

The duty of a Sorya Brahmin (315)

The duty of the Acharya (316)

The duty and rights of the people who sing hymns (317-318)

The duty and the selection of the florist (319-320)

Personal rituals such as name giving rituals (321-322)

On the patronﾕs representative and festivals (323-326)

Attitude towards pilgrims. (328-329)

Prohibition of recreation and theft within the temple. (330-333)

The disposing of corpses. (334)

The usage of flowers etc. from the garden. (355-399)

The patronﾕs support. (240-341)

On unmarried Dikshitars. (342)

Manners, duties, rights regarding rituals. (343-355)

The duty of the representative. (356-366)

Repairing buildings. (362)

The major difference between the 1849 collection of rules is the number of representatives that are comprised of nine members. This is still accepted today, but today the term of office is no longer three months but one year. It cannot be simply judged that just because there is a rule in the 1894 version which cannot be found in the 1849, there was no rule regarding the matter in 1849. It may be the case that there was an increasing concern over the will to inscribe which led to more interest in the details. It is certain that what ever was doubtful or changeable until then became fixed through inscription.

Next, let us observe a series of dispute records that occurred during the 1880ﾕs. The disputes started from the 1882 bloodshed incident, which was a quarrel amongst the priests. What directly triggered the disputes was the bloodshed incident, but the root of it all was a factional confrontation among the priests concerning the administration of the temple. Furthermore, there was an incident when an opposing group plotted to prevent the temple renovations. Furthermore, there were cases of the templeﾕs jewels being stolen. Regarding this incident, a lawsuit took place in 1887 and 1888. In this article, I would like to observe how this quarrel amongst the administrators appealed for the templeﾕs autonomy on one hand, actually resulted in the judicial intervention of the temple administration. The main materials are the decision of the district court, the documents submitted to the district court and the decision regarding the appeal to the higher court. These are all are written in English.

Let us take a look in detail at the following sentences that were delivered. Firstly we will consider the lawsuit from the district court of South Arcot (OS No.7 of 1887). The petition is dated 30 March 1887, the plaintiffs are Ganapati and six others (all Dikshitars) who represent the majority group, and the defendants are Nadeshya and seven others (all Dikshitars) who represent the minority group.

The contents of the petition are as follows.

The defendants obstructed the auction that gives the rights to obtain offerings etc. of each shrine and temple. This problem got complicated and one person caused a bloodshed incident in 1882. Due to the obstruction of the auction a few important festivals did not take place. The mountain cart pilgrimage also did not take place but this was due to not being able to raise enough funds for the restoration. The worship held six times daily was also obstructed. The support from the patrons was also obstructed. The silver cart and jewels for the festivals could not be used. The templeﾕs restoration was being obstructed. The Grand Summer Festival, which starts from 29 July 1886, was obstructed. They dominated the keys to the storeroom. Then many of the jewels disappeared. The defendant should immediately return these jewels and co-operate in bringing back the regular religious activities of the temple. Furthermore, their qualification as priest and manager should be confiscated.

On 29 July 1887, the defendant side made their statements and three people claimed they had absolutely nothing to do with the case. Then they questioned ﾒwhether the law of 1863 applies to this templeﾓ. Moreover, for other points of issue the following statements were brought up.

There is no list of the jewels. The factional dispute broke out because the majority group enforced the renovation of the temple. The financial supporter is Chidambaram Chetti and he attempted to usurp the temple. The auction has not existed from antiquity, and this sort of custom was established (the rules regarding the auction are already mentioned in the 1849 collection of rules) in the 1840ﾕs (in the statement it expresses approximately thirty years ago). Until then the priests on duty had it all to themselves. This all started in 1881, when one of the plaintiffﾕs brother broke a regulation but did not later pay the fine of one rupee. This matter grew complicated and then the auction system stopped. Then it came back to the same situation as before the introduction of the auction. Regarding this the defendant has done nothing wrong. The defendant also has nothing to do with the bloodshed incident of 1882. Regarding the obstruction of the festivals and restoration of mountain carts, there is no evidence to even be accused of. The daily worships are properly executed. The reason of locking the doors and obstructing the festival was for our self-protection from danger. Theft of the treasure room keys and jewels is also just a suspicion that basically has no evidence.

On 4 April 1888 the judgement was delivered at the district court. The plaintiffﾕs case was accepted and they won the case. The following is the content.

Temporarily confiscation the managing qualifications of five of the defendants. The cases for the other three defendants were dismissed. An order for reparation of the jewels etc. was made.

What is important in this article is whether the law of 1863 would be applied. According to the judgement, what the problem for the application of the 1863 law was that temples were divided into two categories. One was that the government appointed regional temple committees to manage some temples, another was that this governmental intervention was not accepted at other temples. However in these cases a lawsuit was possible and it was possible to eliminate the managers through trials. They argued that even with the preceding law of 1817, both categories were not exempted from the law, and they expressed the application of the law for both cases (the effectiveness of fighting the lawsuit). In short, notwithstanding the principle of non-intervention, the administration of justice did not hesitate to intervene with these problems. Non intervention solely applied to the management and whether or not to directly intervene was the problem.

On 17 March 1890 the Madras High Court passed a judgement concerning the above two appeals. They judged that they basically support the decisions of the district court but suspend the decision concerning the confiscation of the defendantsﾕ management qualifications (in exchange) with a compensation of fines. It can be said that the internal dispute of the Dikshitar priests mentioned here and series of lawsuits certainly influenced the revised edition of the 1894 bylaw observed in the previous section.

As we saw in section 3, the disputes concerning the Nataraja Temple were basically the same as in the other instances. These were not only disputes among the priests, and the adequacy of applying the law was also questioned. But it had not developed into a direct dispute between the government and the temple.

5. The dispute with the state government during the early 20th century (1930-1951)

The dispute between Nataraja Temple and the government (Madras district and Tamilnadu state) goes back to the 1930ﾕs. The following is a brief explanation of the development. When the previous law was established in 1926, Nataraja Temple sent a written petition to the governor for an exemption from this law. The templeﾕs plea was accepted but with conditions. After that, in 1930, the people who were dissatisfied with the Dikshitarsﾕ temple management appealed to the HRE committee. The committee compiled a reformation proposal but for practical reasons this was not carried out. In 1932 the same committee again brought up the topic and in 1933 compiled a reformation proposal. The Dikshitars objected to this and brought a lawsuit to the district court. In the1936 judgement, the court amended the committeeﾕs proposal. The priests appealed to the Madras High Court in opposition to this. According to the 1939 judgement, the High Court agreed with the district courtﾕs decision, but part of the reformation proposal was further re-examined. In the process of this lawsuit, the exemption acquired in 1926 became invalid.

Some of the main points of the reformation proposal are briefly stated as follows. The Potu Dikshitar, which is the official executive organ of the priests, has the trust management rights. The actual administration is executed by a committee formed of nine members. Out of the nine members six are selected through elections and the remaining three are selected through rotation of duties. In opposition to this, the following is a brief line up of the duties of the administration committee. The administration committee needs the permission of the HRE committee in order to hire managers, they should prepare an offertory chest, they should declare the offerings and worship fees of the temple, they should keep an account book, they should select an honorary manager from the devotees for its inspection, they should make a catalogue for the jewels and submit it to the HRE committee.

After that, new reformation proposals were compiled in 1946 but abandoned the following year. However, the procedures started to take place for the 1950 appeal, and on 28 August 1951 the HRE Committee appointed the Executive Officer. The temple side was dissatisfied with this and brought a lawsuit. The problem was that the reformation proposals, which were sentenced by the district court, were not being followed. However, during this dispute, as the new law of 1951 (Act XX of 1951) was established, the propriety of this law was under question. According to the judgement made by the Madras High Court on 13 December the same year, the Dikshitarﾕs livelihood is totally dependent on the income received from religious activities. From this point of view, they cannot be considered as trust managers who keep to the principle of not receiving profits from the property trusts (in this case the templeﾕs). The point of the argument is stated as follows.

The Dikshitars, citizens of the State of India, are guaranteed individual property rights. Henceforth, would not the declaration made by the HRE Committee deprive them from these rights? Furthermore would not this sort of declaration restrict their rights to obtain, possess, and dispose properties?

According to the judgement, the appointment of the Executive Officer would threaten the Dikshitarﾕs property rights, which are guaranteed by the law.

Furthermore the judgement considers the Dikshitars as a closed religious group (denomination) and that the appointment of the Execution Officer would threaten their rights to execute religious matters. In the first place, an Execution Officer is appointed when some sort of misconduct over the management arises, and the court rejects the position that there was some such misconduct in the Nataraja Temple. From there it questions the reformation proposal of 1939 itself and justify that the fact that the Dikshitars did not observe this.

What was evident from the decision was that it fully considered the uniqueness of the Nataraja Temple. In comparison with other temples of the same scale, the priests are entrusted with the management, financial support is supplied from outside but the patrons are not to directly participate in the temple management, for the financial infrastructure of Nataraja temple they have hardly any land and there is no necessary strict management regarding that. Regarding the administration of the temple, regardless of its situation in the past, a proper collection of rules had been edited over a century before, the effort in evading the mismanagement of the temple's communal assets and administration had been accepted, etc.

In this way, the judgement of 1951 considered that, the declaration of the Execution Officer threatens the individualﾕs property rights and religious freedom which are guaranteed by the law. However the state government established a new law in 1959, and the related disputes with Nataraja Temple are still continuing to this day as we discuss below.

6. Recent Movements

Finally, I would like to introduce the related disputes that occurred from the end of the 1950's onwards.

The first is a lawsuit concerning the confiscation of duty rights. In 1958, the temple's money was stolen, so the priests themselves introduced a duty system of keeping watch. However, there was a priest who did not agree with this. He was ordered to pay a fine but ignored it. For this reason, his right to carry out his duty as a priest was taken away. This decision was objected to and an appeal to higher court was made.

The sentence was passed at the Chidambaram sub-district court in 1959 (OS No 112 of 1959), at the Kadarol District court in 1961 (AS no.216, of 1961), furthermore a judgment was passed at the Madras High Court in 1967.

According to the sentence, the decision of incorporating the duty system of keeping watch had not followed the proper procedures, so the decision was invalid. Whether the court could intervene in the temple's internal disputes was also a point of discussion. Regarding this point, it was judged that it could intervene. Although this was a case between one priest and a group of priests, and thus an internal problem of the temple, it brought into question the extent to which the law was applicable. This sort of problem regarding legal procedure had already been considered as one of the points of issue during the 19th century.

Next I will introduce the conflict between the state government and the temple, and this was again a case of disputes relating to management. Here I will only introduce the process.

On 29 February 1974, the government notifies the Chidambaram Temple to make reforms. However, the temple ignores this. On 14 April 1980, the same problem occurs. On 24 April the temple replies.

On 27 October, again the same problem occurs. On 31 October, the temple replies.

On 31 January 1981, the appointment of an honorary member of the judging committee is notified (RC55342/80/H4). Temple investigation is then ordered. The temple objects to this and makes an appeal (WP No.616 of 1981). Sentence is passed in favour of the temple on 20 January 1982.

Around this period, one priest complains of the deficiency of the temple's management on 2 April 1981. Another priest makes a complaint on 11 May, which is related to the report of the temple's assets. This is followed by complaints from the local residents on 15 June. On receiving these complaints, the HRCE notifies the temple to enumerate and clarify the points of deficiency on 22 June. Furthermore, a devotee makes a complaint on 8 October. In the following year on 9 March 1982, there are internal complaints made by five priests. The temple replies to this for the first time on 8 April, but the HRCE Department objected to this, passing a notice (RC No.5275 A/8 B-6) on 20 July, and appointing an executing officer. The temple objects to this move and makes an appeal (WP No.5638 of 1982). On 8 August 1983, a sentence is passed to make the appointment of the executing officer invalid. The HRCE Department declares their objection to this on 9 January 1984.

The HRCE Department sends a notification (P 52754/82/L.1) and appoints an executing officer on 25 July 1987. On receiving this, the temple again makes an appeal on 10 August (WP No.7843 of 1987). The HRCE Department declares their statement of objection on 7 November.

This dispute is still continuing, but from these case examples above it is clear that the government side will lose.

In spite of the past, the Siva Temple of Chidambaram has a good reputation. The reason for this, ironically, is because it is only major temple in Tamilnadu that has succeeded in rejecting the state government's intervention. At present, there are no factional conflicts among the priests or power struggles within the local society taking advantage of such conflicts. There a realm of "pure religion" is realized outside the influence of politics.

The government tries to justify its intervention by saying that the temple's financial situation is in chaos due to the power struggles among the local leaders and trouble between those close by, and that it is necessary to rescue it from corruption by introducing law and order. Here it can be interpreted that the government is comparing itself to the Dharmaraja, who maintains righteous law (dharma). The government presents its argument as follows. The land owned by the temple was donated by the leaders of the time in order to execute rituals etc., so it is necessary to respect the will of the donators and utilize it according to the original purpose. However, in reality it has not been utilized in this manner and the managers have been filling their own pockets. Moreover, the priests are not sincere and spend their time importuning money from the devotees. Priests who should be religious specialists are completely ignorant about rituals. For these reason, if the temple management is corrected, the management situation will also take a turn for the better. In addition, it is also possible to use part of it for the education of the priests in order to enhance their abilities. In this way, the tradition will be restored and this will lead also to the development of Hinduism.

It can hardly be said that the government's reforms from above have gained support of the people in general. The politicians and the bureaucrats are not accepted as the dharmaraja or the faithful devotees (bhakta), and have deepened the conflict with the temple.

It can be said that what has actually happened in South India is the nationalization of temples or the centralization of temple management. In spite of the principle of separating politics and religion, religious spheres were also brought under control, and the process of politicization continued. Situation has arisen where the government appointed even an untouchable or Harijan as a manager, who would not have been permitted inside the temple half a century ago. This was a government tactic to gain popularity and collect votes from the untouchables. It is not that the politicians themselves are donating to the temple, or that they are particularly pious. A politician of a minister's rank might ignore the religious feelings of the common people by not having to remove his shirt and shoes. Furthermore, even if the donations were utilized for the management and renovation of other temples, and for the educating the priests, it still goes against the management law that emphasizes the original purpose of the donations.

However, in reality, the government's policy faced resistance from the temple in the form of lawsuits, and things have not been proceeding according to its will. As it can be seen from the case of the Nataraja Temple, after Independence the judiciary has put emphasis on past traditions and criticized the temple policy of the State Government for violating rights over private property and freedom of religion guaranteed by the law. The original significance of the HRCE Department (as well as the HRE Board its predecessor) was to mediate conflicts concerning temple management among the local men. However, in reality, situation arose where the administration of justice arbitrated between the HRCE Department and the temple. The temple is faced with a situation in which it has to depend on another state organization, namely the judicial system, in order to protect itself. The judiciary has the tendency to support the temple's opinions in principle, but this is as the result of interpreting the law according to a modern mentality and does not come from dharma. Here dharma is subordinated to modern secular law and restated in the language of the latter. The fact that the temple also requires the law may be interpreted that there is an increasing secularization of the temple. In this way, today's Hindu temples are forced to fight for its existence in the world of modern law that has nothing to do with either righteous law (dharma) or devotion (bhakti).

The temple side is also taking positive action. In 19th century India, the judicial system was gradually coming into order and various laws were established and executed. The laws related to temple management were established in the beginning of the 19th century, and it is probably as a reaction to this that the Dikshitars compiled their first internal collection of rules in 1849. During the last half of the 19th century, the internal conflicts of the temple became apparent, and even an incident involving bloodshed occurred. It also came to a point when the temple had to be closed down. Detailed records of the lawsuits concerning these matters have been preserved. Similar internal disputes and judicial decisions etc. became apparent and increased during the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. In the Nataraja Temple, a new collection of rules was compiled in 1894. This kind of move by the temple can be interpreted as a positive response to the increasing control by the law. It is a move by the Dikshitars themselves to incorporate and frame the judicial point of view. In this process, the duties and rights of the priests and other people were outlined in detail, and at the same time the people were put into categories.

However, in 20th century the conflict between the priests and the state government became more apparent. But even here it cannot be said in a straightforward way that the temple boldly resisted government intervention. This is because there were internal indictments amongst the priests and also indictments from local residents as it can be seen in the lawsuits of the 1970's. Above all, there is the growing independence of the judicial activities from government administration. There are various problems concerning the Indian judiciary, but it seems that it is consistent in supporting the temple's views after independence, at least as far as the lawsuits concerning Nataraja Temple are concerned. However, from a broader perspective, this is also a process in which the temple is getting caught up in the web of the judiciary system.

The temple is the basis of the Dikshitars identity. The establishment of the collection of rules was part of a series of responses towards the increasing legal control over temples in the 19th century. At the same time, however, it was also a written record of their tradition as a caste group. In that sense, this collection of rules is similar to what is reported in other regions as caste regulations existing from the beginning of the 19th century and the caste records that were compiled from the end of 19th to the beginning of 20th century in response to caste ranking by the national census. According to the collection of rules, the theft of jewels meant caste excommunication and the confiscation of management rights was considered as having the same significance as caste excommunication. However, not only that, later on these rules became important evidence to prove the temple's autonomy (this meant the autonomy of the Dikshitar as a sub-caste group, but after independence it was seen as a matter of religious freedom of a particular sect or denomination) for the oncoming disputes.

What is clear from the lawsuits of the 1880's are the factional disputes of the temple, the position of the Chettiyars (the patrons), and the history of auction etc. A more general point is that these factional problems were entrusted to the judiciary and that there is the establishment of an attitude that the temple's problems were subject to legal judgment. This example may be taken as one that regards these changes as positive if the policy of non-intervention was the logic of the government and the Indians sought intervention. However, it should be pointed out that the plaintiff side expressed their doubts regarding the appropriateness of applying the law.