Madras Government‘s Opposition to Policy of Withdrawal

Therefore the Madras Government resisted the new policy of withdrawal. “Withdrawal” quickly became separated into several sub-issues. The government proved willing, after some discussion, to withdraw insofar as explicitly “religious” matters were concerned. These were the well-publicized “ceremonial practices,” especially obnoxious to critics in England, where the state made donations for traditional rituals, participated in festivals, and enforced temple cart pulling. The government also reluctantly, recognized “independent” trustees, i.e., trustees whose appointment would not be regulated by the state. Depending on circumstances, temples were handed over to local rajahs or influential zamindars, or were placed in the charge of village Panchayats or newly constituted committees, or of temple priests and other functionaries.^[1] But the Government restricted the new trustees’ formal powers that their authority did not extend much beyond supervising rituals, collecting offerings and trying to keep peace among other temple functionaries. The Board of Revenue responded that It might be practicable to relieve the European functionary from direct interference in temples’ internal concerns, and to leave this duty to competent and carefully selected dharmakurtas (permanent managers). But Madras Government officials resolutely and vehemently resisted granting any authority that could affect the financial, political and administrative structure of state-temple relations.^[2]

The Madras Government and its Board of Revenue strongly opposed the policy of withdrawal. It placed arguments against placing temple lands under the new trustees. The Board of Revenue argued that the only persons who will gain through handing over lands will be the trustees. The government, the cultivators and the temples themselves will lose. Freed from state control, most trustees will exploit the land for short-term personal gain. They will lease it out to relatives or political allies and take much of the income for themselves. Lacking steady financial support, temple rituals and functions will be cut back, and the physical premises will be neglected. In time, the temples will fall irreversibly into disrepair and, because of fraudulent leasing, ultimately losee titles to their land.

The Board of Revenue also predicted that withdrawal would jeopardize government revenue and political stability. The land itself was in danger. Productivity generally depended on irrigation, especially in the paddy-growing regions of Thanjavur District. Further the Board feared that corrupt and ambitious trustees, would not make the expenditures necessary to keep and improve these irrigation facilities. In a very short period, irrigation could break down, rendering large tracts unfit for cultivation and upsetting the economy of whole villages. The result would be a quick decrease in government revenue, with the possibility of widespread civil rest.

The Board of Revenue was interested in the existing system. The Board viewed that under the existing system, cultivators were able to pay the share to the government and to the temple, and accordingly plan their crops. Supervision by the Revenue Department ensured that each party with an interest in the land -temple, cultivator and government -got its fair share. If the government withdrew, the ordinary cultivators’ security and fortune would decline rapidly. Deprived of the state’s protection, cultivators would be exposed highhandedness of trustees having only a temporary interest lands.”^[3] Dissatisfaction with the government itself could grow rapidly.

The Board of Revenue viewed that temple as an institution with few defenses against those who exploiting especially against the trustees. The basic reason was that temples depended on land in the continued upkeep of which there was no authority, other than the state.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Revenue Consultations, 8 April 1946, No. 1, T.N.A.

[2]:

Revenue Consultations, l2 April 1841, Vol. 519,pp. 3180-3185, T.N.A.; Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, 1 October 1838, Vol. 1628, pp.12840-12850, T.N.A.

[3]:

Letter No.951, 20 September 1845 in, 20 Revenue Consultations, 8 April 1846, T.N.A.