Administration of Munnur Temples (Introduction)

Temples were the pivots of all human activities. Therefore temples occupied a very important place in the administrative annuals of the south India. Rulers,^[1] Chieftains,^[2] Trade Guilds^[3] and Merchants^[4] made liberal contributions to the temples. To look after the management of the temple, the temples had various types of officials^[5] viz., conducting services, maintaining services,^[6] and managing property. The Cholas constructed the structural temples from 10^th century onwards. The members of the royal clan^[7] and officials also played a dominant role in temple constructions.^[8] Gifts were donated to all temples from all walks of life. Villages^[9] and lands^[10] were common gifts. More over the land donated to the temples was either exempted from tax or made tax free.^[11] Apartment from that servants^[12] of different hierarchy were employed to look after multifarious functions. Hence, temples proved to be the centre of all activities viz., landlord, employer,^[13] consumer^[14] of goods, bank,^[15] educational centre,^[16] museum and hospital.

When there were problems, the King or his officials gathered in the temple and settled the matters. With the emergence of temple cities, temples became a centre of brisk human activity. Hence, the administration of the temple was on the pattern of political administrative institutions during the medieval period. Here it is worthwhile to understand the central administration. The King ruled over an extensive empire. The central administration was in the hands of the ruler. Kingship was hereditary in nature. Generally the ruler selected his eldest son as heir apparent. As the head of the state, the king enjoyed enormous powers. But he was a benevolent despot.

The ministry was an advisory body. The Cholas rulers administered their extensive kingdoms with the assistance of ministers. It assisted the rulers. The council of ministers and other high officials maintained close association with the King. So they were called Udankuttatars.^[17] The advisory body consisted of Perundaram^[18] and Sirudaram.^[19] The king was more concerned about the welfare of his subjects. The people considered him the representative of God on the earth.

The royal patronage helped the temples establish to themselves. They cherished that it was their pious duty to protect these religious edifices as these led them to heavenly abode. That was the reason why the Kings as temporal heads of the state and the priestly class as spiritual heads jointly undertook to propagate spiritual service and temple culture.

As the Kings were patrons of temples their control of temple affairs was more custodial rather than managerial. It is held that their policy was one of non-interference in the internal affairs of the temples.^[20] It indicates that they granted more autonomy to temple administration. They interfered only when their attention was drawn to certain issues which needed royal assistance. Burton Stein stages that the powers and functions of the state were custodial rather than regulative, magi co-ritualistic rather than managerial.^[21] Non-interference in the internal affairs means that the state acted as the custodian rather than as manager.^[22] In other words, the rulers appear to have enjoyed certain supervisory control over the temple affairs, that too in some peculiar situations. Even then, the rulers were held responsible for whatever that happened in the realam.^[23]

Without royal support, temples could not flourish on their own limited resources. Therefore, the rulers were expected to have their supervisory control over the affairs of the temples for their smooth functioning. Royal patronage tended to increase in tune with the expansion of temples and with their multifarious activities and functions. Even if they had extended their influence over temples, it was by way of their hereditary right to protect the land and the people by abiding the local customs, conventions and traditions. It is evident from their extensive land endowments, the generous tax concessions and other charitable activities. With the multiplicity of temple functionaries and the increase in their economic activities, with vast landed property and endowments called devadanas^[24] and the grand of remuneration to the servants, there were many occasions when disputes arose in temples.

These issues were referred to the ruler as he was the supreme authority of the state and he amicably settled the issues. Besides, the Kings extended their supervisory control over temples through their ministers,^[25] royal officials, village assemblies and temple staff. To watch the activities of these autonomous institutions, the rulers made frequent tours.^[26] During these tours, they paid visits to the temples, held enquiries about their issues if any and tried to solve them immediately. In policy making, they consulted their officials and took decisions.^[27] These show that the Kings of medieval Tamil country had not only custodial powers but also supervisory powers in matters relating to temple administration. A study is made here about the need for understanding the temple administration.

As the construction of new temple was considered one of their pious deeds, and the rulers took paternal care on the erection and lavishly endowed even their own wealth.^[28] The rulers considered temples as their eyes. Therefore, they spend huge amount and erected several of them throughout their kingdom.^[29] They mobilized resources and man power in the construction of these structures from their subjects. These indicate the sound economic base of the state and the availability of man power at the royal call.^[30] Such liberal acts of Kings were responsible for their image among the masses. Therefore the people held that their rulers were divine incarnations. They believed that they discharged their functions with a divine touch in all their deeds. Thus, divine qualities were attributed to the Kings.^[31] Thus they enjoyed the services of a large number of servants from dawn to dusk. All these ceremonial rites^[32] and services^[33] were also extended to their Gods in temples. To perform these, there arose the need for the employment of multi functionaries in the temple.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

A.R.E.,65 of 1919.

[2]:

A.R.E.,52 of 1919.

[3]:

A.R.E.,59 of 1919.

[4]:

A.R.E.,76 of 1919.

[5]:

A.R.E.,69 of 1919.

[6]:

A.R.E.,51 of 1919.

[7]:

Unpublished Inscription., See Appendix, No. 4.

[8]:

A.R.E.,64 of 1919.

[9]:

A.R.E.,54 of 1919.

[10]:

A.R.E.,80 of 1919 and also S.I.I., Vol. 12, No. 176.

[11]:

A.R.E.,62 of 1919and also S.I.I., Vol. 12, No. 134.

[12]:

A.R.E.,59 of 1919.

[13]:

T.V. Mahalingam, Administration and Social life under Vijayanagar, Pt.I, Madras, 1940, p. 228.

[14]:

A.R.E., 59 of 1919.

[15]:

A.R.E., 65 of 1919.

[16]:

Unpublished Inscription., See Appendix, No. 1.

[17]:

K.A. NilakantaSastri, The Colas, Madras, 1955, pp. 472-473.

[18]:

Ibid., p. 146.

[19]:

Ibid., p. 464.

[20]:

K.V. Raman, Sri Varadarajaswami Temple -Kanchi, New Delhi, 1975, p. 121.

[21]:

George. W. Spencer, The Politics of Expansion; The Cholas Conquest of SriLanka and Sri Vijaya, Madras, 1983, p. 6.

[22]:

Ibid.,

[23]:

N. Subramanian, Sangam Polity, Bombay, 1966, p.51.

[24]:

A.R.E.,55 of 1919.

[25]:

A.R.E., 416 of 1921.

[26]:

S.I.I., Vol. XXIII, No. 416.

[27]:

T.V. Mahalingam, South Indian Polity, Madras, 1967, pp. 130-131.

[28]:

A.R.E., 375, 376 of 1959-60.

[29]:

Ibid.,

[30]:

George Michell, The Hindu Temple, -An Introduction to its Meaning and Forms, New Delhi, 1917, p. 51.

[31]:

N. Subramanian, "The Political Philosophy of Ancient Tamils," Journal of Madras University, Vol. XXXII, Madras, 1960,

[32]:

Ibid.,

[33]:

Ibid.,