Govt taking over Nanganallur Anjaneyar temple; sad news

[sarang]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Mixed reactions to Anjaneya temple takeover; report in TOI

Some responses in TOI for the takeover news:

SRC (Nanganallur)
05 Jul, 2013 04:17 PM
I reside just two streets away from this temple and I know how this temple functions! You can hardly find any mistake in the functionality! People say they had to pay money for everything? Where not? I am living in that area for the past 11 yrs, and no day I have felt so! Then they will have to look @ other temples who are really getting money for all small things! Excellently maintained temple with a very nice decorum, peaceful atmosphere, moreover, the place is kept neat and clean 24/7, even during rainy season! Will the cleanliness be continued when the government takes over? ANd on top of all these, archagars will be replaced on different criterias, where they are not fit to be in this temple for any reason (no offense! just a cry of an ardent devotee)! And what will the mantras and all other rituals which are done on daily basis happen? Seriously worried abt it! I sincerely don want this to be taken over by the Government!- A devotee, proud to say to have lived near the temple for the past 11 yrs!

AarVee (Chennai)
30 Jun, 2013 09:45 AM
The temple is professionally run and most of the services are rendered by elderly volunteers. Archakas are duty conscious and expect and get no money from devotees. If the temple is so popular and efficiently run despite vast crowds, especially during holidays, it is only due to the devoted employees and volunteers of the trust and its professional management. Devotees who offer money do so in the full knowledge of it being used for running the temple professionally and conducting various associated charitable activities. Interested elements in the Government seem to have fixed their greedy eyes on this apparently money making opportunity. Such intervention did not happen even when atheist Karunanidhi ruled and comes as a shock to devotees as well as residents of Nanganallur. I join thousands of devotees in seeking government and the interested people behind it to keep off their evil eyes off Anjaneya Temple.

King SG (Chennai)
01 Jul, 2013 04:28 PM
The problem is govt and law get in the way of family and religious institution which we dont need...where as the govt which should take responsibility for infrastructure, water, power, roads...dont even bother about it...

Mixed reactions to Anjaneya temple takeover - The Times of India

Another recent takeover:

The move comes exactly a week after the government took over the Vellore-based Jalakandeswarar temple. A hindu munnani leader associated with this temple was murdered last week. The decrepit temple was renovated and made popular by public volunteers.

 

[sangom]

It is just my observation based on my interaction with the outside world - Majority of god fearing brahmins have a low propensity to act unscrupulously than the god fearing non-brahmins.

I limit this to TN.

auh,

My experience has been that the brahmins with the not so religious (what goes as god fearing is the impression created by some brahmins with all the so-called religiousness, bhakti, aastikam, etc., since we cannot know what is in another person's mind) are more honest in all their dealings and have less propensity to use "public money" for one's own benefit. One god-fearing fellow brahmin even argued on the following lines:
"You know nothing happens in this world except by God's will. He has put me in this position and has also created for me some immediate necessity for money for me. So, is he not indirectly asking me to utilize this chance? After all our elders have said that 'கல்லினுள் தேரைக்கும் கருப்பை உயிர்க்கும் புல்லுணவே தந்து போற்றும் நம் நாதன்' (kalliṉuḷ teraikkum karuppai uyirkkum pulluṇave tantu poṟṟum nam nātaṉ)" . Hence I am not doing anything ungodly."

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Sarang
Your post#25 was well written.
Your post#26 shows your bias.
Where is the "mixed reaction" you promised?

 

[prasad1]

The Madras high court has upheld an order of the state HR&CE department cancelling certain exemptions granted to the famous Anjaneyar Tem­ple in Nanganallur.
Dismissing a writ petition moved by Sri Maruthi Baktha Trust, challenging the March 19 HR & CE order, justice K. K. Sasidharan said the exemption granted to Anjaneyar temple from certain provisions of HR & CE Act was not limited to a particular period and the government was well within its powers to withdraw the same at a later point on justifiable grounds.

Passing orders the judge observed that the government had at no point of time assured the Trust that exemption was given to the Trust and the entire income generated by the temple could be appropriated for its activities.
Holding that only the temple was exempted and not the Trust, the judge said the government was fully justified in cancelling the exemption order and the writ petition was filed on the wrong conception that the exemption applies to the trust too.
The Trust had actually applied for exemption only after 10 years. The court also said the Trust had no case that the government had given assurance that the temple would be given exemption and on that basis the Trust had constructed the temple.


So why this crying?

Deccan_chronicle.

 

[sangom]

The crux of the problem seems to be the following (from the TOI news):—

"Under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, exemption had been given to a private trust to manage the temple. "Recently, the exemption was withdrawn on the ground that the proceeds of seva tickets were being credited into the trust account instead of temple account. But we had got the exemption in the name of the trust. We have now approached the court," said a trust official."

But the High Court has since clarified the matter abundantly as follows: —

"Passing orders the judge observed that the government had at no point of time assured the Trust that exemption was given to the Trust and the entire income generated by the temple could be appropriated for its activities.
Holding that only the temple was exempted and not the Trust, the judge said the government was fully justified in cancelling the exemption order and the writ petition was filed on the wrong conception that the exemption applies to the trust too.
The Trust had actually applied for exemption only after 10 years. The court also said the Trust had no case that the government had given assurance that the temple would be given exemption and on that basis the Trust had constructed the temple."
(Post # 29 above)

Thus, it appears to me that the private trust started channelising the income of the temple to itself. If this is not "embezzlement" then the difference can only be technical.

That is why I hold, even now, that ordinary people should be extra vigilant when dealing with people who are "god fearing", "religious", "highly Astika", etc. always. The gurujis, swamijis, godmen, godwomen, babas etc., of all shades should also be handled with equal circumspection; best to avoid all such people if possible.

 

[kunjuppu]

sangom, prasad,

in a way, i sympathize with the ordinary regular devotee, who at the thought of 'government takeover', is inundated with fears of the normal day to day operations of the temple and along with it the religiosity and familarity.

this fear is probably mulitiplied several times more, by the discontents, who are against this takeover, each one for his own reasons. this could be the curent contractors who pick up the coconuts and others who perform services for cash, in a prosperous temple, who now face the possibility of losing their lucrative deals.

i dont know how the priests will be affected. i heard that the HRCE pays regular salaries. whatever it may be, i only hope, the priests and the temple employees are not impacted re their livelihood.

if every move of a govt is viewed as anti brahmin, and people who raise the brahmana duvesham bogey, and has willing listeners, it once again warps the minds of this group, but against other hindus, and only benefits the proselytizers to other faiths. as hindus, i think, we dont try hard to maintain our members, and if this continues, hindus will be in a minority in tamil nadu too. when i was young, 95% tamil nadu was hindu, today it is 88%.

as brahmins, we need to do our bit, to promote unity.

as brahmins, it is easy for us to renounce caste publicly, because, as in a blog someone put, 'we do not get any benefits out of our caste. so we dont care about 'renouncing' it'... but inspite of hardening caste situtation in tamil nadu, somewhere we need to feel that we all are one hindu tribe and worship the same God in the same temple. without it, we are all open prey to others. that is all my point.

 

[sarang]

Full report can be accessed with the link provided.

For your convenience, this is from the TOI report. You can draw your own conclusions.

Many devotees felt the authorities should stop the government from taking over the temple. One said the traditional rituals observed in the conduct of various pujas could be given the go-by. Similar was the view of a few others TOI spoke to.
But a few others who had been associated with the administration feel the temple had become more commercial. "Today we are made to pay money for everything. The devotion and piousness associated with the temple is missing," said a long-time devotee.

Mr. Sarang
Your post#25 was well written.
Your post#26 shows your bias.
Where is the "mixed reaction" you promised?

 

[kunjuppu]

sangom,

there are only 5 comments in dinamani daily today. two for, two against, and one hoping that the temple would revert to no entrance fee, which was now being collected

no comments in dinakaran or dinamalar.

apparently, this is all a tempest in this forum teapot only

we have always patronized the anjaneya temple in luz mylapore. used to regularly do vada maalai. last time i visited, it was a thriving one, HRCE or not, i dont think anyone cared.

private temples, as long as no money is got from the public either by fees or donation, and done in the best intention of religiosity and spread of faith, is ok, i think. but anywhere anyone asking for money, and it automatically catches the scrutiny of the donors, government, and many a times, those driven by jealousy or hatred like the DK. best not only to be honest, but to be seen honest...

 

[prasad1]

Full report can be accessed with the link provided.

For your convenience, this is from the TOI report. You can draw your own conclusions.

Many devotees felt the authorities should stop the government from taking over the temple. One said the traditional rituals observed in the conduct of various pujas could be given the go-by. Similar was the view of a few others TOI spoke to.
But a few others who had been associated with the administration feel the temple had become more commercial. "Today we are made to pay money for everything. The devotion and piousness associated with the temple is missing," said a long-time devotee.

Agreed the original article had misleading title.

 

[sangom]

sangom, prasad,

in a way, i sympathize with the ordinary regular devotee, who at the thought of 'government takeover', is inundated with fears of the normal day to day operations of the temple and along with it the religiosity and familarity.

this fear is probably mulitiplied several times more, by the discontents, who are against this takeover, each one for his own reasons. this could be the curent contractors who pick up the coconuts and others who perform services for cash, in a prosperous temple, who now face the possibility of losing their lucrative deals.

i dont know how the priests will be affected. i heard that the HRCE pays regular salaries. whatever it may be, i only hope, the priests and the temple employees are not impacted re their livelihood.

if every move of a govt is viewed as anti brahmin, and people who raise the brahmana duvesham bogey, and has willing listeners, it once again warps the minds of this group, but against other hindus, and only benefits the proselytizers to other faiths. as hindus, i think, we dont try hard to maintain our members, and if this continues, hindus will be in a minority in tamil nadu too. when i was young, 95% tamil nadu was hindu, today it is 88%.

as brahmins, we need to do our bit, to promote unity.

as brahmins, it is easy for us to renounce caste publicly, because, as in a blog someone put, 'we do not get any benefits out of our caste. so we dont care about 'renouncing' it'... but inspite of hardening caste situtation in tamil nadu, somewhere we need to feel that we all are one hindu tribe and worship the same God in the same temple. without it, we are all open prey to others. that is all my point.

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

Two points which I observe in this regard, are —

1. The temple-building activity (tba for short) has been considered as a great punyakainkaryam among tabras and the people in the forefront of such tba (read, people who control the cash flow) are accepted by the society as some sort of quasi-maThAdhipatis, virtually.
2. In the (very often misplaced) zeal to get to the forefront of such tba-induced religious aura, many times the temple which comes up may even be in very unsatisfactory surroundings

There was a time, till some 50 or so years ago, when the tabra emigrants even to other parts of India, did not get drawn into the tba fashion. But ever since, the Palghat, Tanjavur etc., schisms among Bombay tabras ventured into building their own temples. The leaders in this 'business' became respected figures within the respective groups very soon, but they made use of this as sort of launching pad to venture into many other similar activities.

In one temple, the pujaris have their flats in the first floor and their latrines are situated above the heads of the deities ! Still, many temple-goers will certify, in glowing terms, about the serenity, purity, vibrations and so on in that temple.

In Trivandrum, the tabra association has fought a pitched legal battle, (created partly due to groupism and partly due to ignorance of the legal traps in property transactions) costing it some good money, and obtained title for a small piece of land, adjacent to a famous and historic Siva temple which has a daily poor-feeding programme. After the meals all the plantain leaves, left over food etc., are dumped carelessly outside the wall into a gutter. The tabra temple is just by the side of this gutter and on most days one will get suffocated by the stench inside the tabra temple!

I am of the considered view that tabras should eschew completely this obsession with temples - both tba and temple-going. We cannot become an acceptable sub-group of the general population either in TN or in Kerala due to historical reasons. Nor can we play any microscopic role even in Panchayat elections, let alone state- or centre- level elections in India. Hence the best policy for us is to keep quite and leave the temples to the rest of the hindus** for whatever they would like to do with the temples.

** Shri Nara, please note that I am including all hindus other than brahmins under this, not merely dalits or any other particular group/s.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Ref post # 31

if every move of a govt is viewed as anti brahmin, and people who raise the brahmana duvesham bogey, and has willing listeners, it once again warps the minds of this group, but against other hindus, and only benefits the proselytizers to other faiths. as hindus, i think, we dont try hard to maintain our members, and if this continues, hindus will be in a minority in tamil nadu too. when i was young, 95% tamil nadu was hindu, today it is 88%.

Going through the initial posts, the OP had not mentioned anything about caste at all and even his follow-up post mentioned about the trustees only in passing, that too in response to Sangom's post. Therefore, the bogey of brahmana duvesham was not raised at all before the member let fly his expletives.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Ref post # 31

as brahmins, we need to do our bit, to promote unity.
as brahmins, it is easy for us to renounce caste publicly, because, as in a blog someone put, 'we do not get any benefits out of our caste. so we dont care about 'renouncing' it'... but inspite of hardening caste situtation in tamil nadu, somewhere we need to feel that we all are one hindu tribe and worship the same God in the same temple. without it, we are all open prey to others. that is all my point.

As far as I have observed, especially in TN, only brahmins talk about this hindu unity, tamil hinduism etc etc.

The previous DMK govt explicitly barred brahmins from occupying any trustee post. The discrimination is specifically against brahmins and not a part of providing opportunities to the "backward" classes etc. The castes that dominate the trustee and other administrative posts are already NB castes only. I think the current govt does the same in a blatant case of caste discrimination. The NBs do not talk about unity then.

Conversion to other faiths cannot be stopped because people belonging to other faiths are provided with exclusive secular priveleges by the sickular governments. Nothing to do with brahmins as they have no say in public policy.

 

[tbs]

hi
we had enough problem within our community....really a temple management headache....many youngesters moved away from

these activities..............i echoed the same view of sangom sir's........Hence the best policy for us is to keep quite and leave the

temples to the rest of the hindus** for whatever they would like to do with the temples.

so better keep quiet..........kings are gone....matathipathis are custodian of religion /temples.....now many matathipathis are keep

quiet abt govt decisions....but for better...STATE AND RELIGION SHOULD BE SEPARATE IN A MODERN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY....

 

[prasad1]

State and religions should be separate, except when a religious organization breaks a law, or is corrupt (?), or against society.
Under those circumstances government or its agent should be able to rectify the problem. This should be uniform across all religions.

 

[Nara]

....That is not true. It is just your prejudice showing its ugly face.

Well KB, just take a look at this post for further confirmation on what I am saying. I am not sure about the younger generation, i.e. less than 40, but among the older generation, especially the ones in own age group, invariably hold supremacist views -- namely, Brahmins are more intelligent, more cultured, more pious, they are the keepers of the Hindu tradition, etc., etc. We will have to leave it to the general public to judge which of these two, i.e. supremacist views or pointing them out, is ugly.

best wishes .....

 

[Nara]

....The previous DMK govt explicitly barred brahmins from occupying any trustee post. .

KB, just a point of fact, when he was the CM, MK appointed Mukkoor Azhagiya Singar's grand daughter as a trustee of Sri Rangam temple. According to her, MK had enormous respect for the Jeeyar.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

supremacist views or pointing them out, is ugly.

I do not have an issue if you point out a supremacist view, in your POV, when it is made here or elsewhere but when you generalize I will not hesitate to call the prejudice and Yes, such casteist prejudice is ugly!

 

[Nara]

.... Please note carefully that I did not use the word "Dalit" anywhere in my post; its inclusion is your own mind's work. .

Dear Shri Sangom, yes, it is true you did not mention the word "Dalit", but please, what was "temple entry" about? I don't know why you are coy about it.

Be that as it may, let me first thank you for the detailed response, but I have to say, I am no less perplexed now as I was before. What bothered me was that your post seemed to imply that Brahmins lost control of temples because of "temple entry" laws and that was a bad thing. So, your recommended response was for Brahmins to stay clear of temples given that is not part of the prescribed Nityaahnikam.

I realize that you didn't come straight out and say these exact things, but what you do say seem to imply exactly this. So, I am at a disadvantage -- you can always say, as you have done above, that it is my own mind's work.

Whatever may be your true view you have been vague enough to keep me guessing. So, let me just state my own view as clearly as I can and leave it at that.

I think temple entry laws were good, even for Brahmins. It did break the total hegemony of Brahmins, and that is a good thing even for Brahmins. Let us also note that it did not eliminate the Brahmins from temple activities and administration. The Brahmins and their methods of worship were not removed from temple life. Brahmins to this day play a dominant role in temple activities. For all their concerted efforts the Dravidian forces have failed to loosen the grip of Brahmins in the temples -- and in my opinion, for what it is worth, which surely is not very much here, is a bad thing.

The remedy you suggest for the loss of total domination of temple life by Brahmin is both impractical and unwise. Save a handful of isolated Brahmins, the rest will never give up temple worship. You and I know that fish will give up living in water before Brahmins give up temple worship. So, the smart thing for Brahmins to do is to figure out a way to co-opt the pious who are not Brahmins and maintain the Brahminical hegemony to the extent possible. This is not going to be a difficult task as pious people who are not brahmins are still so willing to acquiesce to Brahminical authority, and that is a tragedy.

On the other hand, on a purely theoretical POV, your suggestion that the Brahmins give up temple worship altogether will only further alienate them from the rest of Hindu society. Just imagine, could, "we are Brahmins, we don't go to temples" be anything other than exclusivity and supremacist par excellence? This is no way to integrate with the rest of Tamil society, who are eager to subject themselves to Brahminical authority in matters theistic.

In any case, Brahmins are never going to give up temple worship, and, from my POV, they are not going to willingly give up their dominance of temple life either. HR&CE take over is not going to change a damn thing about Brahmin exclusivity of worship in this temple. In as much as this temple is not built and operated exclusive of government largess in the form of tax exemption, they are answerable to the government authorities and the courts. If they want to be free of the lawful take over of the temple by the lawful authorities, then they must eschew all tax exemptions government offers if the duly passed laws are adhered to. In other words, the remedy this temple should seek is from the courts, and until such time the claims are properly litigated none of us here can say anything that could be taken seriously.

Thanks .....

 

[கால பைரவன்]

KB, just a point of fact, when he was the CM, MK appointed Mukkoor Azhagiya Singar's grand daughter as a trustee of Sri Rangam temple. According to her, MK had enormous respect for the Jeeyar.

Not sure if this happened before 2007 because DMK's decision to bar brahmins from trustee post was made in Jan 2007, if I remember correctly.
In any case, MK being the CM perhaps had the power to overrule and it is not very uncommon for politicians to showcase their power. In fact, not just in this issue, this, the power of politicians to form or break rules according to their whim and fancy is the bedrock of Indian politics!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom, yes, it is true you did not mention the word "Dalit", but please, what was "temple entry" about? I don't know why you are coy about it.

Be that as it may, let me first thank you for the detailed response, but I have to say, I am no less perplexed now as I was before. What bothered me was that your post seemed to imply that Brahmins lost control of temples because of "temple entry" laws and that was a bad thing. So, your recommended response was for Brahmins to stay clear of temples given that is not part of the prescribed Nityaahnikam.

I realize that you didn't come straight out and say these exact things, but what you do say seem to imply exactly this. So, I am at a disadvantage -- you can always say, as you have done above, that it is my own mind's work.

Whatever may be your true view you have been vague enough to keep me guessing. So, let me just state my own view as clearly as I can and leave it at that.

I think temple entry laws were good, even for Brahmins. It did break the total hegemony of Brahmins, and that is a good thing even for Brahmins. Let us also note that it did not eliminate the Brahmins from temple activities and administration. The Brahmins and their methods of worship were not removed from temple life. Brahmins to this day play a dominant role in temple activities. For all their concerted efforts the Dravidian forces have failed to loosen the grip of Brahmins in the temples -- and in my opinion, for what it is worth, which surely is not very much here, is a bad thing.

The remedy you suggest for the loss of total domination of temple life by Brahmin is both impractical and unwise. Save a handful of isolated Brahmins, the rest will never give up temple worship. You and I know that fish will give up living in water before Brahmins give up temple worship. So, the smart thing for Brahmins to do is to figure out a way to co-opt the pious who are not Brahmins and maintain the Brahminical hegemony to the extent possible. This is not going to be a difficult task as pious people who are not brahmins are still so willing to acquiesce to Brahminical authority, and that is a tragedy.

On the other hand, on a purely theoretical POV, your suggestion that the Brahmins give up temple worship altogether will only further alienate them from the rest of Hindu society. Just imagine, could, "we are Brahmins, we don't go to temples" be anything other than exclusivity and supremacist par excellence? This is no way to integrate with the rest of Tamil society, who are eager to subject themselves to Brahminical authority in matters theistic.

In any case, Brahmins are never going to give up temple worship, and, from my POV, they are not going to willingly give up their dominance of temple life either. HR&CE take over is not going to change a damn thing about Brahmin exclusivity of worship in this temple. In as much as this temple is not built and operated exclusive of government largess in the form of tax exemption, they are answerable to the government authorities and the courts. If they want to be free of the lawful take over of the temple by the lawful authorities, then they must eschew all tax exemptions government offers if the duly passed laws are adhered to. In other words, the remedy this temple should seek is from the courts, and until such time the claims are properly litigated none of us here can say anything that could be taken seriously.

Thanks .....

Dear Nara,

May be, my post/s did not bring out clearly what was in my mind. I will now try to explain.

During my growing years, going to temple everyday was not generally practised by tabras here in Travancore as also in places like KK district, Tinnevelly town, etc. But they used to rigorously do sandhyavandanam, japam in the evenings, etc. ; besides, a number of tabra households used to have a "dEvooSai" also. Going to temple was not actively encouraged even for children, and was considered good & necessary only on special days like (star) birthdays, some special celebration days in the temple, or days like vinayaka caturthi, gokulashtami, rama navami, skanda shashti, varshappoRappu, etc. (Trivandrum was rather an exception, with a large number of tabra families being poor to abjectly poor, and depending on the free meals available in the Padmanabhaswamy temple, practically throughout the day! Still, I can say with a good amount of surety that the vast majority was looking for the food only and not interested in the sanctum or the deity.)

Again, before temple entry in Kerala, by and large, only Namboodiri families, tabra families and some selected higher NB classes within hindus (called "ambalavasis" in Malayalam) frequented temples; even Nairs, the highest NB group, did not go to temples except on vishu, onam etc., occasions. I now realize that the situation in Tamil Nadu or even in the more famous temples in Kerala might have been very different.

After the temple entry, it was not only the erstwhile untouchable groups (Dalits - here in Kerala, the dalits are even today not very bothered about temple-going) who started coming to the temples in order to experience their newly got right, but, side by side, the nairs also started coming to temples in large numbers. Hence, my mental picture has been that, despite the legal details, the temple entry generated a temple-going culture among all sections of Hindus, and not only among those who had been debarred since then.

As changes in the societal, economic and national scenes underwent changes, brahmins also substituted their old routine with temple visits and found psychological solace (possibly) that they continued to be austere, religious brahmins as hithertofore.

 

[zebra16]

Finally, I would like to stay clear of the particular temple being discussed as I don't know what the facts are. However, I would like to make a general comment. Old temples built by the Cholas, Cheras, Pandiyas, Pallavas, etc., belong to the people of Tamil Nadu, not to Brahmins, god fearing or not. Whatever may be one's view of HR & CE, they are the arm of the people empowered to protect these temples and make sure they serve the people in general and not the few Brahmins who have enjoyed special privilege.
best regards, Dileepan

Sri Nara,

In keeping with your general observation, I have a general query.

1, As you are a very knowledgeable person on SV matters, of the 108 Divya Deshams how many are built up by the Cholas, Cheras and Pandiyas.?

2. Of the numerous temples taken over by HR & CE what percentage of the temples were built by the Cheras, Cholas and Pandiyas?

While the act of the government in taking over temples may be justified in certain cases, opining that Government has "ipso facto" powers to take over the temples built by Cholas, Cheras etc. is providing a veil to the Government to usurp the properties of others without providing any reason.

If your logic of the inherent powers of the Government to take over properties of the erstwhile kings is correct, why did the Government compensate to the kings, nawabs, chieftains and princes when the country became independent in the form of "pvivy purses", and why did not anyone draw this parallel then?

Regards

 

[Nara]

.....While the act of the government in taking over temples may be justified in certain cases, opining that Government has "ipso facto" powers to take over the temples built by Cholas, Cheras etc. is providing a veil to the Government to usurp the properties of others without providing any reason.

If your logic of the inherent powers of the Government to take over properties of the erstwhile kings is correct, why did the Government compensate to the kings, nawabs, chieftains and princes when the country became independent in the form of "pvivy purses", and why did not anyone draw this parallel then?

Dear zebra16, I have no idea how many temples HR & CE have taken over. The temples mentioned by at least one azhvar are the 108 divya desams. Therefore, of these 106 (2 are imaginary ones) the ones south of Vindyas were all built by one these or even earlier dynasties. Some of them were probably Jaina or Buddhist temples were converted to SV temples through conquest.

You are conflating public property such as temples with private property of kings and nawabs. The temples built centuries ago belong to the people of Tamil Nadu. They are not private properties of any king or navab. The newly built temples under public trust with 80G tax status are answerable to the government agencies. Your objections are invalid as HR & CE are not taking over temples built by private individuals in their own private land using their own private funds, and, HR & CE is not taking any temple over without due process of law adjudicated by judicial authority.

best regards ..

p.s.
[1] The Indira Gandhi did take away the privy purses
[2] In as much as these royal asses accumulated their "private" property through exploitation of the poor people the right thing to do was to confiscate them all.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sangom in post #2:

....Looking back, we brahmins lost all chance in regard to temple affairs when the temple entry was accepted and again, when the HR&CE legislation were passed at the state level.
It is impossible to reverse this trend now. Hence, what we can do is to stop visiting temples, do whatever prayer/s we want to do, inside our houses/flats/hutments and also resolve that we brahmins will not visit any temple whatsoever, any takers?

Dear Mr. Sangom,

Brahmins were involved with the temples only as upholders of the Agama traditions and rules of rituals that are to be followed in the temple pooja. The management of the properties of the temples (most of these properties were either given as donations/endowments by the erstwhile kings and local chieftains and other devotees living in the villages where the temples were situated) were always with other dominant castes in the villages. Thus most of the temples in Tamilnadu had Dharmakarthas who were only Mudaliyars. These Mudaliyars were rich people in the village who were called Pannayars. Brahmins were consulted only on rituals and pooja rules and celebration of Utsavams. When the temple entry happened Brahmins were against it at a completely different level as they thought the entry was against the agamic rules. So Brahmins had really nothing to lose materially when the temple entry happened.

Nara in #12:

However, I would like to make a general comment. Old temples built by the Cholas, Cheras, Pandiyas, Pallavas, etc., belong to the people of Tamil Nadu, not to Brahmins, god fearing or not. Whatever may be one's view of HR & CE, they are the arm of the people empowered to protect these temples and make sure they serve the people in general and not the few Brahmins who have enjoyed special privilege.

The “special privileges” that were enjoyed by Brahmins were nothing more than getting an additional helping of Puliyodarai or dosai or appam and nothing else. The lands were always enjoyed by tenents who were not Brahmins. The commercial buildings belonging to the temples were all occupied by NBs(paying as little as Rs 5/- per month) and not Brahmins. The “arm of people”- the HR & CE Board- was twisted beyond repair by entrenched NB politicians and not Brahmins. Show me a single Brahmin who has enriched himself by transferring and registering temple property in his own name, who has occupied temple property at dirt cheap rentals, who cultivates lands belonging to temple and yet report crop failure every year for ten years continuously paying nothing to the HR & CE Dept, “the arm”. If “serving people in general” is going with this criminal conspiracy or con job executed perfectly Tamilnadu’s NBs are past masters in this. Some one has to speak the truth, however hurting it may be.

S

angom in #20

My belief is that many of the grand temples in T.Nadu were initially, part of "Brahmadeyams". The temple/s was/were the nucleus/nucleii around which land was granted as "daanam" to specified numbers of brahmins and or their families included, to live, and, a large tract of culturable waste lands was generally assigned as part of such "Brahmadeyam". Ignoring all the legalities and formalities attached to such Brahmadeyams, the essential idea of the kings/emperors, seems to have been to make the brahmins as the vanguard to enthuse the lower classes to take up cultivation of such lands, which must have been there in abundance in those days of low or very low population density, high death rates and lesser longevity as compared to the present times.

Brahmadeyams are entirely different. They were endowments created by kings for various reasons (like encouraging and supporting studies in Vedas and shastras, doing prayaschittam for heinous crimes commited in the thick of a war etc) exclusively for the benefit of Brahmins. There were srothriya agraharams inhabited by learned vedic Brahmins who were the beneficiaries of these endowments. The temple was no where there in this picture. When temples were built there were separate endowments created for the maintenance and nithya poojas and utsavams of the temple. These were not managed exclusively by Brahmins. In Tamilnadu most of these endowments were managed by dharmakarthas who belonged to various other castes including Vysyas. So I think there is a mix up in your un derstanding of the temple endowments and brahmadeyams.

The brahmins could get the lower castes to do this job because, for a wide variety of reasons, the entire population looked upon the brahmins (with their sacred threads on the left shoulder, sacred ash, their ability to recite mantras and claim of powers to intercede with supernatural entities like deities, etc.) as some kind of superhumans.
These temples were for use of the brahmins only, if my knowledge of TN history is correct, though, in the course of history and due to the fact that saivism and the Pandaarams were in control of many temples of TN, some sections of the upper castes like Saiva Pillais were also given access to these Brahmadeya temples too. (BTW, even in the saivism temples, I don't think lower castes were freely allowed entry till the temple entry for all came into vogue. Nandanar is a reminder.)

Because this is in the nature of speculation, I do not offer any comment on this. I do not understand why “even in the saivism temples” usage. Did saivism not believe in castes?

When temples could be accessed by all sections of hindus, naturally, the number of visitors or devotees increased and since temples cannot be "shut down" for maintenance, that aspect suffered. Secondly, most temples have many erotic sculptures and the new devotee classes did not often take kindly to such things in a place of worship of god and such erotic items were disfigured, broken, destroyed, etc. If the brahmins and the high class NBs who controlled the saivite-owned temples, had put up a very militant opposition to the Government allowing entry to all and also subsequently taking over the entire management & control of temples, I think the temples also would have been as free from government interference as churches and mosques now are.

This presumes a certain moral upper ground for the so called “new devotee classes” which is again a speculation not borne by facts. Brahmins had no stake to turn militant and retain control of temples because 1. in the first place they did not have this control at any time 2. there was nothing to lose by adopting a passive role.

Since history has had its march past all these developments, and since the brahmin Nithyaahnikam does not anywhere lay down 'visit to temple', I suggested that brahmins should give up this unnecessary item from their daily routine and make their prayers, if any, in their own homes.The above is the gist of what I wanted to convey. I would like to know if there are any mistakes in this.

It would be cutting the nose to spite the face. Brahmins did the right thing by choosing to accept the temple entry as a given fact, still go to the temple as regularly as possible just to pray before the deity in addition to doing their nithya pooja at home strictly as per aahnikam rules in the most orthodox way. They have no dispute or resentment with the deity in the temple. So these were the mistakes in your perception of the whole situation that I want to point out.

Sangom in #30

Thus, it appears to me that the private trust started channelising the income of the temple to itself. If this is not "embezzlement" then the difference can only be technical.
That is why I hold, even now, that ordinary people should be extra vigilant when dealing with people who are "god fearing", "religious", "highly Astika", etc. always. The gurujis, swamijis, godmen, godwomen, babas etc., of all shades should also be handled with equal circumspection; best to avoid all such people if possible.

There is a smudging of facts here because of ignorance. I have formed a trust and am managing it . My village has a vishnu and a shiva temple which own huge tracts of fertile land donated by the devotees in the village (not by any king or chieftain). The temples are owned by HR&CE Board and the temples are completely neglected. There is no priest for these two temples and poojas are not conducted daily. No utsavams of course. The tenents of the lands never pay anything to the HR & CE Board and the Board never bothers to take any action. Besides the nanjai lands the temples own three irrigation tanks in the village. The right to scrap the vandal soil that settles down on the tank bed is auctioned and the income is taken to HR &CE Board. The templeas are dilapidated. The trust which I formed is the trust of the devotees of the temple belonging to the village. The common denominator is being a devotee of one of the two temples. Thus people of other religions are excluded. The single surpose of the trust is to consolidate the contributions of the members of the village for carrying out renovations, appointing a regular priest for poojas, conduct daily poojas and utsavams and thus revive the temples as places of worship. I have obtained permission from the HR &CE Board to renovate the temples as they are the owners of the temple(mind you, not the people of the village). Now the question is did I do any thing wrong? I have channalised all the receipts from the bhaktas into the trust account and then spent it for repairs, other payments etc. The trust is a legal entity created to do something constructive. If the money had been given to the temple it would have gone to Govt. and would have been used in payment of salaries, incentives, pension and PF to the employees of HR & CE Board which may include Thomases and Khaders too. In the case of Anjaneyar Temple too the trust had a single point agenda-that of running the temple. What is wrong if it channalised the receipts into the trust account. Trust accounts is not the personal account of trustee. As long as there is no diversion nothing wrong has been done. I know the people in the managing trustee board of Anjaneyar temple. They are respected individuals and legal luminaries. It appears some one has an elephant size ego which has been bitten by a wasp and the elephant is dancing now. You have not heard the last word yet on this drama. Wait.

.

 

[jaichand]

If a Temple was private, and in need of funds Government dies not take it over, but when it is rich government takes it over, what do I infer?

Obviously money was the motivation.

If the temple was not taken care by the trustees, and government steps in, I think it is a good thing.
I can not compare this with the treatment of other religious bodies as Government does have any authority.

Why can we not keep it simple stupid? Instead of fighting among ourselves, can we come to some logical conclusions?

Sir,

We do not have guts to fight only write. I am ready to fight against HR7CE let us all hindu come to gether and fight against take over Hindu temple. let us stop this looting.

R u ready?

 

[jaichand]

let us all fight unitedl y against Corrupt HR7CE dept . why afraid?. let us question in RTI where the temple funds?. unless all Hindus are fight with one motive, nothing can be achived. no use of writing and keeping quiet.we must take guts to to take it to street.
I am ready.