The discovery of the secret ante chambers in the Temple of Padmanabhaswamy in Trivandrum has raised a question long forgotten in Indian historiography: the untold wealth contained in temples. The chroniclers of the Delhi Sultanate while describing the forays of Malik Kafur and Ulugh Khan, give graphic accounts f the wealth plundered from temples. Since the Hindu identity is essentially a colonial construct let me say that temples affiliated to Saiva, Jaina and Vishnu sects were raided for the wealth they possessed. In most case the contemporary accounts seem to stretch the limits of credulity so much that it even became a cliche to say that "plunder" was one of the paths towards state formation. The deicovero of nearly 100,000 crore rupees worth of wealth in the Padmanaba Swamy temple finally puts paid to the notion that temple wealth was only a "figure of speech". As Romila Thapar has shown in her Many Voices of Somnath, temple wealth garnered from the rich jain merchants of the Gulf of Cambay proved to be a loadstone for Muhamad of Ghzni. In fact so much wealth came into the hands of the Ghanavid rulers that they were able to strike gold coins, the source of which was undoubtedly the plunder from Gujarat. In recent years the historiographical practice whle dealing with instances of medieval plunder, as demonstrated by Richard Eaton, is to establish a moral eqivalence between Turkish and non-Turkish acts of plunder in India. A notable example comes to my mind. When Krishnadevaraya (15091529) invaded Udayagiri during his 1517 campaigns againsy the Gajapathis of Orissa, he brought back the image of Balarama and cremoniously installed it in the Krishaswamy temple that he had constructed in the capital, Vijayanagara. It is obvious that the cultural and historical contexts of the two distinct situations have to be borne in mnd.
The state of Travancore nesteled in the southern most tip of the South Indian Peninsula has had a long history of warfare and territorial rivalry between the Panduyan kings and the rulers of the coastal states of the Kerala coast. Vanji, the hill fortress located in the territory of the Travsncore kingdom was a much sought after prize throughout the medieval period. In fact, the rulers of Travancore, like their rivals in Mysore sought to professionalise the army, military and tax collection quite early. M S S Pandian's study of Nanchil Nadu demonstrates clearly that strong rulers like Marthandavarman organised tax collection and revenue mechanisms in the paddy growing areas and brought in labour from the dry regions of the Tamil country. There is no doubt that the wealth represented in the Padmanaba Swamy Temple came from the revenue farming and tax collection measures instituted by the emerging military and tribute gathering states of the late seventeenth and eighteenth century.
The legal debate over the "ownership" of temple property is as old as the temple itself. The Scottish soldier administrators who were primarily responsible or the conquest of Southern India for the English East India Company believed in the sanctity of private property and were quite aghast at the fact that temple held huge parcels of land and movable and immovable wealth. The Anglo-Saxon law as administered in India created the fiction of "juristic person" in order to deal with the deity as a legal entity. The concept of the deity having a juristic personality has been recognised by several judgements both during the pre-Independence period and in court pronouncements later. In the case of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple, the political theory woven by the rulers of Travancore, suggested that the real king was the Deity lodged in the Temple while the King acted as his deputy. As LEGITIMISING STRATEGY,this late medieval innovation vested political power in the hands of the king/raja while distancing him from the pulls and pressures of court politics. The little kingdom of Travancore was certainly culturally richer than the little kingdom of Puddukkottai about which we know so much thanks to the work of Nicholas Dirks. The Travancore model of kingship avoided the perils of kin based polities which were inherently unstable and prone to debilitating factional and ritual conflicts. Travancore success as a princely state may be attributed to the stability engendered by the novel theory of kingship and its institutional practice as is empirically proved by the fabulous wealth discovered recently.
If the Deity is the real owner of the wealth with custodial authority in the hands of the royal family then it is clear that the Government cannot take over the Treasure under any of its enabling acts. The Treasure Trove Act cannot be invoked in this case as the treasure was discovered in the temple complex. The ruling family has shown itself to be loyal custodians of the wealth, something that the Archaeological Survey of India can never claim. The various instruments of accession signed between the princely states and the successor government to the British Raj made clear distinction between State/Crown property and personal wealth. In the case of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple the wealth belonged to the Deity and therefore no Government can have the right to liqudate it as use it as it pleases. The case of the Nizam of Hyderabad comes to my mind while trying to understand the legal aspects of the Treasure Trove.
Recently a historian raked up the issue of the Temple hoarding "peoples'" wealth and therefore he said that the wealth had to be returned to the people. Such abstractions as General Will and People are not the basis for taking any decision which is historically and legally complex as the wealth of the temple.
The state of Travancore nesteled in the southern most tip of the South Indian Peninsula has had a long history of warfare and territorial rivalry between the Panduyan kings and the rulers of the coastal states of the Kerala coast. Vanji, the hill fortress located in the territory of the Travsncore kingdom was a much sought after prize throughout the medieval period. In fact, the rulers of Travancore, like their rivals in Mysore sought to professionalise the army, military and tax collection quite early. M S S Pandian's study of Nanchil Nadu demonstrates clearly that strong rulers like Marthandavarman organised tax collection and revenue mechanisms in the paddy growing areas and brought in labour from the dry regions of the Tamil country. There is no doubt that the wealth represented in the Padmanaba Swamy Temple came from the revenue farming and tax collection measures instituted by the emerging military and tribute gathering states of the late seventeenth and eighteenth century.
The legal debate over the "ownership" of temple property is as old as the temple itself. The Scottish soldier administrators who were primarily responsible or the conquest of Southern India for the English East India Company believed in the sanctity of private property and were quite aghast at the fact that temple held huge parcels of land and movable and immovable wealth. The Anglo-Saxon law as administered in India created the fiction of "juristic person" in order to deal with the deity as a legal entity. The concept of the deity having a juristic personality has been recognised by several judgements both during the pre-Independence period and in court pronouncements later. In the case of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple, the political theory woven by the rulers of Travancore, suggested that the real king was the Deity lodged in the Temple while the King acted as his deputy. As LEGITIMISING STRATEGY,this late medieval innovation vested political power in the hands of the king/raja while distancing him from the pulls and pressures of court politics. The little kingdom of Travancore was certainly culturally richer than the little kingdom of Puddukkottai about which we know so much thanks to the work of Nicholas Dirks. The Travancore model of kingship avoided the perils of kin based polities which were inherently unstable and prone to debilitating factional and ritual conflicts. Travancore success as a princely state may be attributed to the stability engendered by the novel theory of kingship and its institutional practice as is empirically proved by the fabulous wealth discovered recently.
If the Deity is the real owner of the wealth with custodial authority in the hands of the royal family then it is clear that the Government cannot take over the Treasure under any of its enabling acts. The Treasure Trove Act cannot be invoked in this case as the treasure was discovered in the temple complex. The ruling family has shown itself to be loyal custodians of the wealth, something that the Archaeological Survey of India can never claim. The various instruments of accession signed between the princely states and the successor government to the British Raj made clear distinction between State/Crown property and personal wealth. In the case of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple the wealth belonged to the Deity and therefore no Government can have the right to liqudate it as use it as it pleases. The case of the Nizam of Hyderabad comes to my mind while trying to understand the legal aspects of the Treasure Trove.
Recently a historian raked up the issue of the Temple hoarding "peoples'" wealth and therefore he said that the wealth had to be returned to the people. Such abstractions as General Will and People are not the basis for taking any decision which is historically and legally complex as the wealth of the temple.
