so who owns our Mandhirs ?

[niyengaar]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

oam.

afaik, there are CSI and their sister organizations which build / employ / maintain and take care of the Churches, conversions, meetings, Sunday compulsory prayers and a Lot of Community activities in each and every area where churches exist.

the Mosques have their own organization which takes care of their community.

Is there any such thing for the Hindus or for us Brahmans ? Or are our Mandhirs still under the control of the governments ?

Why are there a thousand "trusts" which run the temples alone ? And why are the lands that belong to our Temples under the control of various politicians ( 99 year leases ? ) ...

Every hero / heroin and their dance troops dance at least once inside the temples, with their shoes on and in various poses that do not befit a place of worship. But how do they manage getting permissions for the same ?

surely the same would be looked at as a "Minority Injustice" if conducted in a mosque ?

I might be missing the whole thing in thinking that our Mandhirs might be directly or indirectly under various trusts / government control - and that is the basic reason for this query.

If it is so, why should a secular country control the "religious institutions" of one particular religion alone ? or am i missing the plot here ?

_n.

 

[niyengaar]

can somebody on the know-how please help with the above question ? Are things not right or did i misunderstand ?

 

[Iyyarooraan]

There are fewer and fewer private care-takers of temples. Many popular temples are run by trusts formed by govt in which there have been/are non-Hindu members, sample of secularism. The political class after the dawn of independence, have been hijacking temple properties so that Brahmins do not eat away the property! The govt is least interested in renovation of the temples dilapidated or otherwise in spite of being 'aranilaya padhukappalarkal'.True, lot of Brahmin families were living only on the temple 'prasadams'. But the new greedy class are just trying to kill the very establishments which were sort of laying "golden eggs" for those really poor. But afaik, there are a very few temples managed by private trusts, like Chidambaram who had to fight many court cases.

 

[niyengaar]

true Iyyarooraan, and that is what i am worried about.

people , please spare the essence of this thread a few more of your minutes please !

the very reason i opened up this topic was due to various friends and sources explaining how all their native temple lands are illegally controlled by the Politicos.

afaik, alagiri's wife has taken over the temple lands which lead to their Daya IT Park - and is now caught legally.

what is worrying is the complete lack of interest / concern shown by any body at all.
Seems like all that people are bothered about is to "pray" and ask God for all the good and feel happy / sad depending on whether they gt what they ask or not.

Surely, if people are really bothered about their Mandhirs , they would want to make sure that the same are under some safe hands ? or is that asking too much and all we need is to provide the grocery person in God with our list of groceries and a couple of prayers and expect him to deliver the items at our doorstep ? disappointed .

 

[sankar100]

This is extremly sad. In about 50 years or so, all our temples would be in ruins. The money that goes to the temples is being looted by the govt or is given to subsidise pilgrimage of other religions.

This is the problem with hinduism. We do not have any good organizing. Most people just don't realize that we are under huge attack.

We have phony secularism where there is minority appeasing and the majority is oppressed. If we don't do anything, things are going to get far far worse.

 

[talwan]

niyengaar,
Don't worry.These Temples are in existance for over centuries.It was under different peoples control.But the functions etc were continuing.May be a few temples were left un attended.Now think of the Annadhaan schemes which will defenitely attract more people to the temples.
Alwan

 

[carvaka]

the temples belong to people who built it, who conducts and who worships...

why does a secular state like ours would want to take control?

i agree that lots of unscrupulous people have taken over the temples, the intention behind the secular state,which is also a socialist republic, was to avoid any group or groups, which are dominant, would hijack the temples...

to all people here, we the people would have to patiently wait for people to become aware...

 

[sangom]

the temples belong to people who built it, who conducts and who worships...

why does a secular state like ours would want to take control?

i agree that lots of unscrupulous people have taken over the temples, the intention behind the secular state,which is also a socialist republic, was to avoid any group or groups, which are dominant, would hijack the temples...

to all people here, we the people would have to patiently wait for people to become aware...

Shri Carvaka,

What I write is what I have come to know from various people and books, newspapers, etc., during the course of my not-a-very-short lifetime. It also applies more to the Temples of Kerala but will be applicable to a large extent to the Temples of TN also.

Once upon a time the Temples had been endowed (by the rulers - kings, nobles, etc.) with enough and more of agricultural lands which was the most important source of wealth in the mainly agricultural economy that was India of those days. The management of the temples was vested, in most cases, upon a few families of upper caste Hindus, which included Brahmins also, inevitably. The management group very often succeeded in alienating the Temple lands and getting them transferred in the names of themselves and/or the members of their family.

Since the management people also managed to corner different duties relating to the Temple and also made such duties hereditary, the loss to the Temple's income and assets went largely unnoticed. It should be borne in mind that admission to the Temples was mostly confined to the high castes and a large percentage of the (Hindu) population were not involved in any way with the Temples and their affairs. In effect, the Temples were virtually private companies or partnerships.

In Travancore the Regent Rani Gowri Lakshmi Bayi (1810-1815) and her Dewan Col. Edmund Munro noticed the gross corruption and mismanagement of Temple affairs and created a Devaswom Board which appropriated over 100 major temples of the state. The incomes showed significant increase as a result of such government action. I give below extracts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaswom_boards_in_Kerala:—

"The system of forming Devaswoms is relatively new, a pratice started in late 17th century. Prior to that, most temples either had Brahmaswoms or Rajaswoms. In the Brahmaswoms system, each temple and all of its assets are considered to be the private property of its chief priest, normally from Brahmin Nampoothiri families. Rajaswoms are where the properties belong to ruling feudal lords or Nair families or even small royal families. This system had created intense corruption as well as political rivalry, especially in case of Rajaswom-ruled temples, thus losing sanctity. In many cases, during wars, the rival army target the temples, as the opening of the temple gates to a rival army signals the defeat of ruling family.

Brahmaswoms were also challenged, on the grounds that many Nampoothiri families started misappropriating temple monies into personal funds which sometimes grew to rival the wealth of the ruling families, which was considered a sign of arrogance and disrespect. With their great wealth some Nampoothiri families started meddling in politics, helping to decide who would be the next ruler by supporting one of the rival families.

The intense fragmentation of Kerala into small feudal states in 15th. and 16th. centuries caused Brahmaswoms and Rajaswoms to become more powerful, adding to political turmoils. In this sitution, powerful royal families like the Zamorins, the Cochin royal family, the Venad and others, decided to curb the growing powers of Brahmaswoms and Rajaswoms, through the formation of Devaswoms. These were perceived as neutral bodies, (with the ownership vested in the presiding deity) governed by a group of trustees who were elected or nominated by the state, but which could be changed by royal decree.

Samoothiri was one of the first rulers to implement this pratice, by curbing the powers of Malliserri Mana who ruled the Brahmaswom of Guruvayur. Samoothiri Raja, Maana Vikraman annexed the temple, declared it to be state property and appointed a body of trustees which included the Chief of Malliseeri Mana as well as other leading local Nampoothiri and Nair families. Many temples in Kozhikode followed suit.

When the political sovereignty of the Zamorin over Cochin ceased in 1762, the Cochin Maharaja started taking over most of the temples ruled by Nampoothiris and Nairs who had favoured the Zamorin earlier. The immediate impact was the confiscation of properties of Yogaathiris (with Nampoothiri trustees) and Ooraalars (Nair trustees), and the temples managed by them came under the administration of the state.

The most famous event of this kind was carried out by Sakthan Thampuraan, when he beheaded the chief priest (the Nampoothiri oracle), who refused to accept his sovereignty over the famous Vadakkunnaathan Temple of Thrissur. Most of the temples in the Cochin kingdom were annexed by the royal government during this period, and were handed over to newly-formed Devaswoms which accepted the ruler's sovereignty as well as allegiance to the deity.

The formation of Travancore itself can be attributed to the misuse of powers of the rajaswom of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple by the Ettuveetil Pillais, which attempted to overshadow the powers of reigning Venad king and his kingdom. This generated an opportunity to Marthaanda Varma, who finally succeeded in curbing the Ettuveetil Pillais and completing the annexation of the temple, which in turn led to the formation of the Travancore kingdom.

Ever since then, Travancore governments have implemented a policy of slow yet steady annexations of private temples and their assets, and forming Devaswoms for each temple.

Colonel Munroe, the British Resident, appointed in 1812 as Diwan of the Cochin and Travancore kingdoms, was responsible for bringing effective controls on temples. Munroe recommended that all Devaswom properties be treated as government properties and the revenue from Devaswom be merged with the general revenues of the state. In addition, for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the temples, Pathivu (that is, an accepted scale of expenditure on uthsavams, remuneration to temple staff, maintenance charges etc.) was proposed. These recommendations were accepted by the maharajas of Cochin and Travancore. A committee was constituted to study its implications in 1815. During the reign of Maharani Gowri Parvati Bayi in Travancore, a royal decree was passed forming a Devaswom Board, and most of the temples in Travancore were brought under its control. A few large temples preferred to remain independent, although they also declared their allegiance to the Travancore Devaswom Board and assured it that they would follow all of its policies.

In the Cohin kingdom, a special commission was appointed to study the formation of Devaswom boards. After a study of 309 Devaswoms, 179 Devaswoms in Cochin state were classified as Sarkaar Devaswoms. Sixty-one Devaswoms were returned to ooraalars, and another sixty-one were classified as VazhipaaDu Devaswoms. This was a major step by the state government, which resulted in the state's acquisition of temple lands and the power to interfere in temple administration. All 179 of these temples were known as ‘incorporated Devaswoms’ of which 24 were treated as KeezheDams (that is, subordinate to a more important temple). Subsequently, due either to mismanagement by Ooraalars or under some other pretext, some more temples were taken over by the Sarkaar though their funds were kept separately. Each such Devaswom was called ‘unincorporated Devaswom’. Under the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1896, the government took over the management of Devaswoms which had been mismanaged. Such institutions were called ‘assumed Devaswoms’. In 1897 a separate Devaswom Department was formed under a superintendent and all incorporated and un-incorporated Devaswoms were brought under its control. Ten years later in 1907 these incorporated and un-incorporated Devaswoms were merged, and by a later amendment in 1916 a common trust fund was constituted as an endowment.

Both in Cochin and Travancore the head of the Department - hitherto known as superintendent - was re-designated as commissioner on 1 November 1926. Consequent on the integration of the princely states of Travancore and Cochin, the administration of Devaswoms in the Cochin State came under the Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB), constituted on 1 August 1949 under the articles of the covenant entered into by the rulers of Cochin and Travancore on 23 June 1949. Both the groups of Devaswoms were brought under the Board, first by an ordinance and later by the Travancore – Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950. On 16 June 1950 the Board was reconstituted. Apart from those temples governed by the CDB, a large number of private temples (known as OoraaNma temples) exists. Those private temples, which get grants from various state-owned Devaswom Boards are also known as VazhipaaDu Devaswoms."

It will thus be seen that the Hindu Temples went under State control essentially because the Temple owners of yore were greedy (misappropriated the funds and assets of the temples) and also power-hungry (with enhanced financial status they wanted to become king-makers and thus rule the land from behind the throne). Hence we have to blame ourselves (i.e., Hindus and mostly, the upper castes who alone mattered in the affairs of Temples in those days.) for the present state of affairs.

I feel the situation was not much different in other parts of the country and the Hindu Temples had to be taken over by the State (whether king, Zamindar, or whoever was the governing authority) because of the pervasive corrupt mind of the people who managed the Temples. The situation today may not be any better, but I still feel it will be a lot worse if the Temples are given back to the private hands.

So, let us not blame the Kazhagamites, Marxists and so on but ponder over the riddle why our Hindu upper castes are so corrupt and greedy in general, even in matters of Temples, though much is talked about the noble ideals enshrined in our scriptures, etc? My opinion is that our Hindu religion has corrupted the innumerable Gods in the equally innumerable temples and the nErccai, vazhipaaDu, uNDials etc., are the instruments causing this corrupt Gods. Stop bribing the Gods, perhaps we, the people may also turn to be less corrupt after one or two generations.

A question will be asked as to how (why) the other religions are escaping Government control. My answer is that both Xians and Muslims fiercely resist encroachment of Government into their religious affairs. The Muslim Waqf boards do signify a certain amount of control over the mosques but it is just catching the tail of an elephant in order to control it . Money pours in from different sources to the mosques and what the waqf board controls is insignificant. Christians have their hierarchical structure of priesthood; corruption is perhaps pervasive there also but they rarely allow it to come to surface.

If the entire Hindu population rises against government interference in our Temples in one voice and shows determination to achieve it any cost, including loss of lives, I am sure it can be achieved, but can we expect the lower castes to come to our aid in such a task when, even now, we will not allow them to study the mantras and become priests in Temples? For them it does not matter whether the Temples are run by Government officials, or brahmin families or Trusts, because for thousands of years these Temples were alien to them. But the Hindutva people nowadays try to arouse passions citing this issue but without much of a result.

 

[happyhindu]

the temples belong to people who built it, who conducts and who worships...

If that be the case (as marked in bold), then many families can claim ownership rights over temples today. They wud include descendents of
(a) merchants who financed it
(b) kings who enslaved people to beget a slave class; and the
(c) slaves who built it.

Why shd a temple be given to the ones who worship and conduct worship; if they did not build it?

why does a secular state like ours would want to take control?

Because temples were always controlled by the state. Erstwhile princely families who built temples, controled them. They were far more unscruplous than the politicans of today, because old 'rulers' cud even kill anyone who opposed them without fearing any law. Because they were the law. They could flog their slaves into doing anything, including building temples for them. They could kill 'shudras' and escape by merely paying 10 cows and conducting a small purificatory ceremony (thanks to the smrithis).

Since God was witness for all their miserable deeds, maybe now God wants to be left alone. Maybe God prefers the 'neglect'. Maybe God wants to save himself / herself from continuing to be abused by unscurplous people. Earlier the rajas, now the praja.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Carvaka,

What I write is what I have come to know from various people and books, newspapers, etc., during the course of my not-a-very-short lifetime. It also applies more to the Temples of Kerala but will be applicable to a large extent to the Temples of TN also.

Once upon a time the Temples had been endowed (by the rulers - kings, nobles, etc.) with enough and more of agricultural lands which was the most important source of wealth in the mainly agricultural economy that was India of those days. The management of the temples was vested, in most cases, upon a few families of upper caste Hindus, which included Brahmins also, inevitably. The management group very often succeeded in alienating the Temple lands and getting them transferred in the names of themselves and/or the members of their family.

Since the management people also managed to corner different duties relating to the Temple and also made such duties hereditary, the loss to the Temple's income and assets went largely unnoticed. It should be borne in mind that admission to the Temples was mostly confined to the high castes and a large percentage of the (Hindu) population were not involved in any way with the Temples and their affairs. In effect, the Temples were virtually private companies or partnerships.

In Travancore the Regent Rani Gowri Lakshmi Bayi (1810-1815) and her Dewan Col. Edmund Munro noticed the gross corruption and mismanagement of Temple affairs and created a Devaswom Board which appropriated over 100 major temples of the state. The incomes showed significant increase as a result of such government action. I give below extracts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaswom_boards_in_Kerala:—

"The system of forming Devaswoms is relatively new, a pratice started in late 17th century. Prior to that, most temples either had Brahmaswoms or Rajaswoms. In the Brahmaswoms system, each temple and all of its assets are considered to be the private property of its chief priest, normally from Brahmin Nampoothiri families. Rajaswoms are where the properties belong to ruling feudal lords or Nair families or even small royal families. This system had created intense corruption as well as political rivalry, especially in case of Rajaswom-ruled temples, thus losing sanctity. In many cases, during wars, the rival army target the temples, as the opening of the temple gates to a rival army signals the defeat of ruling family.

Brahmaswoms were also challenged, on the grounds that many Nampoothiri families started misappropriating temple monies into personal funds which sometimes grew to rival the wealth of the ruling families, which was considered a sign of arrogance and disrespect. With their great wealth some Nampoothiri families started meddling in politics, helping to decide who would be the next ruler by supporting one of the rival families.

The intense fragmentation of Kerala into small feudal states in 15th. and 16th. centuries caused Brahmaswoms and Rajaswoms to become more powerful, adding to political turmoils. In this sitution, powerful royal families like the Zamorins, the Cochin royal family, the Venad and others, decided to curb the growing powers of Brahmaswoms and Rajaswoms, through the formation of Devaswoms. These were perceived as neutral bodies, (with the ownership vested in the presiding deity) governed by a group of trustees who were elected or nominated by the state, but which could be changed by royal decree.

Samoothiri was one of the first rulers to implement this pratice, by curbing the powers of Malliserri Mana who ruled the Brahmaswom of Guruvayur. Samoothiri Raja, Maana Vikraman annexed the temple, declared it to be state property and appointed a body of trustees which included the Chief of Malliseeri Mana as well as other leading local Nampoothiri and Nair families. Many temples in Kozhikode followed suit.

When the political sovereignty of the Zamorin over Cochin ceased in 1762, the Cochin Maharaja started taking over most of the temples ruled by Nampoothiris and Nairs who had favoured the Zamorin earlier. The immediate impact was the confiscation of properties of Yogaathiris (with Nampoothiri trustees) and Ooraalars (Nair trustees), and the temples managed by them came under the administration of the state.

The most famous event of this kind was carried out by Sakthan Thampuraan, when he beheaded the chief priest (the Nampoothiri oracle), who refused to accept his sovereignty over the famous Vadakkunnaathan Temple of Thrissur. Most of the temples in the Cochin kingdom were annexed by the royal government during this period, and were handed over to newly-formed Devaswoms which accepted the ruler's sovereignty as well as allegiance to the deity.

The formation of Travancore itself can be attributed to the misuse of powers of the rajaswom of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple by the Ettuveetil Pillais, which attempted to overshadow the powers of reigning Venad king and his kingdom. This generated an opportunity to Marthaanda Varma, who finally succeeded in curbing the Ettuveetil Pillais and completing the annexation of the temple, which in turn led to the formation of the Travancore kingdom.

Ever since then, Travancore governments have implemented a policy of slow yet steady annexations of private temples and their assets, and forming Devaswoms for each temple.

Colonel Munroe, the British Resident, appointed in 1812 as Diwan of the Cochin and Travancore kingdoms, was responsible for bringing effective controls on temples. Munroe recommended that all Devaswom properties be treated as government properties and the revenue from Devaswom be merged with the general revenues of the state. In addition, for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the temples, Pathivu (that is, an accepted scale of expenditure on uthsavams, remuneration to temple staff, maintenance charges etc.) was proposed. These recommendations were accepted by the maharajas of Cochin and Travancore. A committee was constituted to study its implications in 1815. During the reign of Maharani Gowri Parvati Bayi in Travancore, a royal decree was passed forming a Devaswom Board, and most of the temples in Travancore were brought under its control. A few large temples preferred to remain independent, although they also declared their allegiance to the Travancore Devaswom Board and assured it that they would follow all of its policies.

In the Cohin kingdom, a special commission was appointed to study the formation of Devaswom boards. After a study of 309 Devaswoms, 179 Devaswoms in Cochin state were classified as Sarkaar Devaswoms. Sixty-one Devaswoms were returned to ooraalars, and another sixty-one were classified as VazhipaaDu Devaswoms. This was a major step by the state government, which resulted in the state's acquisition of temple lands and the power to interfere in temple administration. All 179 of these temples were known as ‘incorporated Devaswoms’ of which 24 were treated as KeezheDams (that is, subordinate to a more important temple). Subsequently, due either to mismanagement by Ooraalars or under some other pretext, some more temples were taken over by the Sarkaar though their funds were kept separately. Each such Devaswom was called ‘unincorporated Devaswom’. Under the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1896, the government took over the management of Devaswoms which had been mismanaged. Such institutions were called ‘assumed Devaswoms’. In 1897 a separate Devaswom Department was formed under a superintendent and all incorporated and un-incorporated Devaswoms were brought under its control. Ten years later in 1907 these incorporated and un-incorporated Devaswoms were merged, and by a later amendment in 1916 a common trust fund was constituted as an endowment.

Both in Cochin and Travancore the head of the Department - hitherto known as superintendent - was re-designated as commissioner on 1 November 1926. Consequent on the integration of the princely states of Travancore and Cochin, the administration of Devaswoms in the Cochin State came under the Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB), constituted on 1 August 1949 under the articles of the covenant entered into by the rulers of Cochin and Travancore on 23 June 1949. Both the groups of Devaswoms were brought under the Board, first by an ordinance and later by the Travancore – Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950. On 16 June 1950 the Board was reconstituted. Apart from those temples governed by the CDB, a large number of private temples (known as OoraaNma temples) exists. Those private temples, which get grants from various state-owned Devaswom Boards are also known as VazhipaaDu Devaswoms."

It will thus be seen that the Hindu Temples went under State control essentially because the Temple owners of yore were greedy (misappropriated the funds and assets of the temples) and also power-hungry (with enhanced financial status they wanted to become king-makers and thus rule the land from behind the throne). Hence we have to blame ourselves (i.e., Hindus and mostly, the upper castes who alone mattered in the affairs of Temples in those days.) for the present state of affairs.

I feel the situation was not much different in other parts of the country and the Hindu Temples had to be taken over by the State (whether king, Zamindar, or whoever was the governing authority) because of the pervasive corrupt mind of the people who managed the Temples. The situation today may not be any better, but I still feel it will be a lot worse if the Temples are given back to the private hands.

So, let us not blame the Kazhagamites, Marxists and so on but ponder over the riddle why our Hindu upper castes are so corrupt and greedy in general, even in matters of Temples, though much is talked about the noble ideals enshrined in our scriptures, etc? My opinion is that our Hindu religion has corrupted the innumerable Gods in the equally innumerable temples and the nErccai, vazhipaaDu, uNDials etc., are the instruments causing this corrupt Gods. Stop bribing the Gods, perhaps we, the people may also turn to be less corrupt after one or two generations.

A question will be asked as to how (why) the other religions are escaping Government control. My answer is that both Xians and Muslims fiercely resist encroachment of Government into their religious affairs. The Muslim Waqf boards do signify a certain amount of control over the mosques but it is just catching the tail of an elephant in order to control it . Money pours in from different sources to the mosques and what the waqf board controls is insignificant. Christians have their hierarchical structure of priesthood; corruption is perhaps pervasive there also but they rarely allow it to come to surface.

If the entire Hindu population rises against government interference in our Temples in one voice and shows determination to achieve it any cost, including loss of lives, I am sure it can be achieved, but can we expect the lower castes to come to our aid in such a task when, even now, we will not allow them to study the mantras and become priests in Temples? For them it does not matter whether the Temples are run by Government officials, or brahmin families or Trusts, because for thousands of years these Temples were alien to them. But the Hindutva people nowadays try to arouse passions citing this issue but without much of a result.

This is a splendid post.It provides a crystal clear analysis on the politics surrounding temple management.

 

[carvaka]

Sangom and HappyHindu...salute you...

its a very complex problem indeed...karma is catching up, perhaps ...