Discourse of Governor Elphinstone

Elphinstone became Governor of Madras in 1837. He opined thus: “It appears to me that this right of interference could not be given up without injustice to the people and without the risk of great loss to the revenues of Government. Some check of this nature appears to me to be indispensably requisite as a precaution and remedy against the tendency to neglect and decay which I believe is everywhere observable in lands in which the actual managers have only a life interest and which in a country like this where everything depends upon the efficient maintenance of the means of irrigation, would not only entail ruin upon the property itself but which might involve that of a whole district.”^[1]

Elphinstone concluded that a continued involvement was at once the government’s duty and right. He went on thus: if the right of Government’s summary interference was abandoned, the property of the Pagodas would be speedily embezzled and alienated. The Government it is true would be no losers but the people would look upon such a state of things with deep dissatisfaction, and would justly consider that they were denied that protection which Government is assuredly bound to afford.”^[2]

During his period of Governorship, Elphinstone sent a number of memoranda to the Government of India in Calcutta in which he tried to unravel what was at issue in the argument over “interference” and “withdrawal.” A reasonable ground of complaint against existing policy, he wrote, is that the government is making a financial profit from its connection with temples. He therefore agreed that the annual surplus of Rs. 81,363 should be given up, particularly because it was being used by “ignorant persons” in England as a pretext to agitate about complex issues they did not understand. Elphinstone noted that “interference” is basically a vague category. The government can interfere in several ways: “to support, to protect, to destroy, to impede or. to molest.”^[3] Interference to protect, he argued, is surely the government’s duty. The government must necessarily attempt to ensure that land or money endowed for specified purposes be protected from misuse and embezzlement, and this included endowments for religious purposes.

Absolutely, Elphinstone argued, the London Court of Directors’ policy already recognized this duty since it provided that when executive action was terminated the jurisdiction over mismanagement and misappropriation would be taken up by the judicial system: He viewed the policy of Court of Directors thus: “The Court of Directors manifestly intend that ample protection shall be given to native religious institutions. They declare that such protection is to be given through the medium of the Courts of Justice. At the same time, they desire that Pagoda Funds shall not be managed or appropriated by Government officers.”^[4] Elphinstone believed: “The interference is the same upon whichever party the duty of protection devolves.”^[5]

To conclude, the policy of withdrawal was severely criticized later in the Nineteenth Century as irresponsible and shortsighted The discourse was that withdrawal created a.new class of managers who then went on to claim hereditary status. New managers used their relative independence form government control to advance their personal fortunes, greatly spending and misappropriating temple funds. However the policy of withdrawal did not in fact lead to a “parting of all control over religious institutions.” In the areas most critical to the government -lands, allowances and temple accounts in treasuries -the connection and control remained substantially the same. And in the areas where changes were made -trustee appointments and religious practices -the long-term result paradoxically was to set in motion forces which eventually increased rather than decreased the states’ intervention.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Revenue Consultations, 9 June 1840. Vol.497, pp 2670-2679, T.N.A.

[2]:

Ibid.

[3]:

G.O.No. 210, Public Department, 2 March 1841, T.N.A.

[4]:

Ibid.

[5]:

Ibid.