Individuals’ Resumption and State’s Allowances

In the past, zamindars. petty chieftains and local rulers had made donations to temples, which was the origin of much of the land temples now owned. In part to establish continuity with local laws and customs, the British in the early years had also paid duties and made donations. Donations of land were not always permanent. Often they were taken back by the original donor and by his successors. The British called this recovery “resuming the land” or “resumption.” The British often gave compensation in the form of money allowances to temples which lost land through resumption, so that the temples would not he left without income. From the point of view of the temple, money allowances were inferior to control over land itself. There was no guarantee that the government would not change its policy and discontinue payments in future years, and payments were in any case seldom adjusted for inflation.^[1]

The Madras authorities in 1837 considered the system of resuming certain lands and converting them into allowances had worked to the advantage of the government. In the ten years prior to 1837, the government paid allowances annually averaging Rs. 565.923 for resumed lands from which the actual tax income was Rs. 749,613, amounting to a “profit” of Rs. 183,690. But even this was not the complete picture. Other allowances existed which the government recognized as obligatory but which, because the records had been lost, were no longer traceable to specific parcels of resumed lands. When these “gratuitous” allowances, as the British called them, were added to the allowances already mentioned, the total paid by government in 1837 as allowances to temples and maths was Rs. 90l,529.^[2]

The effect of allowances was to give the government added political influence. Allowances were paid only if the Board of Revenue was satisfied that the temple was being kept in good condition and that the allowance was being used for “appropriate” purposes. Significantly, Rs. 216,250 went to institutions under “private” management, which effectively expanded the government’s influence beyond those temples directly under its control.^[3]

As a matter of fact, the Board of Revenue, was inclined to a sweeping view of the State’s responsibilities. It argued that temple income from land was, in the final analysis, an appropriation of state revenues.^[4] On this reading, temples were creatures of the state, supported by an ever-increasing share of alienated state funds. Some officials argued that almost four-fifths of the total accounted income of Hindu religious institutions, Rs. 2,082,857 out of Rs. 2,682,555, originated in this way.^[5]

 

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, (ed.), Economy and Society, Vol.I, New York, 1968, pp. 259-270.

[2]:

Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Serial No. 1559: General No. 115765115770, T.N.A.

[3]:

Ibid.

[4]:

Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, 17 August 1835, Serial No. 1462: Nos. 10-11, T.N.A.

[5]:

Calculated from “Abstract statement of the Proceedings of the Board of Revenue showing average revenue.