Policy of State’s Intervention

The state showed its interest in fairly straightforward terms. Regulation VII of 1817 was the first legislation on religious institutions in Madras Presidency. Its Preamble run thus: “Considerable endowments have been granted in money, or by assignments of land, or of the produce or portions of the produce of land by the former Governments of this country, as well as by the British Government, and by individuals for the support of mosques, Hindu temples, colleges and choultries, and for other pious and beneficial purposes. But endowments are in many instances appropriated, contrary to the intentions of the donors, to the personal use of the individuals in immediate charge and possession of such endowments. Hence it is the duty of the Government to provide that such endowments be applied according to the real intent and will of the grantor.^[1] To fulfill this duty, Regulation VII authorized the Board of Revenue and its district officers for the general superintendence of all endowments in land or money.

This Regulation was considered not only a very broad mandate but also an equally broad concept of the duty of the colonial government. This Regulation immediately allowed the Board of Revenue and its officers to involve into temple administration. Thereafter the government officials effectively became supervisors of temple trustees. The Board recognized two categories of temple trustees: those who acquired their office through some form of inheritance, i.e., direct descent, election by a hereditary electorate, selection by the heir of the founder; and those selected by an officer of the state. In this regard, the District Collectors determined which category applied in each temple, and then either supervised or themselves appointed the temple trustees.

The Collector’s control was also over the temple finances. The collector was authorized to take over the temple’s management himself in case he discovered that temple land was uncared for or was misused or usually because it was appropriated by a trustee. His office then looked after cultivation, collected rents, spent what was necessary for maintaining irrigation or other facilities and remitted the balance to the temple for worship and other activities.

All this was done for a fee. The Government did not provide the services of its administrators free. All the temple payments or fees were collected. This collection furnished a fairly sizeable income for the government over and above expenses. Thus, in 1837, it was reported that the government would lose Rs 81 636 if temple supervision was terminated.^[2] Besides, the temple’s own funds were kept in the government treasuries.

In due course, many temples were found with mismanagement. They were taken over by the Government. The Board of Revenue defended this policy as an “absolute necessity” in 1838 thus: “Instances are constantly brought under the Collectors’ consideration in which villages entrusted to the administration of the Pagoda Functionaries are entirely neglected, the sources of irrigation permitted to decline, the fair dues of Government thereby rendered insecure, and the revenues of the Pagodas decline. From these causes it has been found absolutely necessary to interfere summarily and eject the managers and to entrust the Native Revenue Officers with the direct administration of the lands”.^[3]

Indeed, the financial connection between state and temples was more complicated than the simple profit from supervision. The state was also making annual allowances to many temples. There prevailed a critical situation for both the British Government and the Temple Authority over the management of the finance which was very essential for the running of the day to day activities of the temples and management of the temple administration.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

‘The Madras Endowments and Escheats Regulation, 1817’ (Regulation VII of 1817) in The Madras Code, Government Press, Madras, 1940.

[2]:

Revenue Consultations, 29 May 1837, Vol.. 436 pp.3034-3036,T.N.A.

[3]:

Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, 1 October 1838, Vol. l628: 12840-12860, T.N.A.