Koodalmanikkam Temple Controversy

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

Koodalmanikkam Temple Controversy

 

 

At Irinjalakuda in the Cochin State there is an ancient and important Hindu temple known as the Koodalmanikkam Devaswom. The Devaswom owns extensive lands in Travancore, Cochin and Malabar. The management of the affairs of the Temple, both spiritual and temporal, is vested in a person who is designated the Thachudaya Kaimal which literally means the Chief of Lord, who owns the building (Temple). This person is appointed by His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore in exercise of His Highness’s immemorial right recognized and confirmed by the treaties between Travancore and Cochin in 1761, 1765 and 1805. The nomination and consecration of the Kaimal are no mere secular acts but are attended with elaborate ceremonies which have deep religious significance and are relevant in indicating the status of the Kaimal in relation to the Temple. By virtue of the nomination and consecration ceremonies, the nominee, who was originally a Nair by birth, becomes clothed with the spiritual  dignity and status of the highest Brahmin, and his spiritual eminence is considered superior even to that of His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin. For according to tradition even his Highness the Maharaja of Cochin has to touch the pole of the Kaimal’s palanquin just when the Kaimal enters it to be taken in procession round the Temple. He assumes the name of the deity and is called Manikkam Keralan and manages the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Devaswom. When he dies purificatory ceremonies are performed in the Temple and Brahmins perform the cremation ceremony; and sraddham for the dead Kaimal is performed in the Temple. The idea is that with the consecration the Kaimal becomes the visible representative of the presiding deity. With the death of a former Kaimal in 1850, disputes arose as to the right of the Maharaja of Travancore to appoint the successor. The contention was put forward by Cochin that the Kaimal had no right of management of the Temple and that the right to nominate the Kaimal could be exercised by Travancore only when the Temple building itself stood in need of repair. Travancore repudiated this plea and asserted the right of the Maharaja of Travancore to appoint a Kaimal to be in management of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Temple whenever that office fell vacant. The matter was referred to arbitration; and after protracted enquiry, the Arbitrator Mr. J.C. Hannyngton decided that Cochin’s contentions were untenable, that the Travancore nominee had entire management and control of the whole of the Temple concerns and its endowments. The Kaimal was then appointed and duly consecrated, but Cochin again contested before its own local courts the right of the Kaimal to institute suits on behalf of the Devaswom or to collect the rents and profits independently of the Yogakkars, who, it was alleged, were still the owners of the Temple. Travancore contended that the Kaimal was the supreme spiritual and temporal authority of the Koodalmanikkam Temple and had the sole right of management of all affairs concerning the Temple and that the status and powers of the Kaimal did not depend on the pronouncement of the Municipal Courts of Cochin. The Madras Government accepted the contentions of the Travancore Government.The Resident was directed to advise the Cochin Durbar to restore to the Kaimal by legislation or proclamation the powers of which he had been found to have been deprived by the judicial decisions in Cochin. The Cochin Durbar took the matter in appeal before the Secretary of State who confirmed the decision of the Madras Government. Meanwhile, the Kaimal who was then in office died and another Kaimal had to be appointed. The States could not agree as to the best method of providing such control and eventually, after long-pending negotiations, it was agreed that the British Resident might be constituted as the Controlling Authority with reference especially to the management of the properties and incomes belonging to the Devaswom. A scheme of management was accordingly drawn up and agreed to by all the parties concerned in which the spiritual authority of the Kaimal as “the chief religious authority to clear all doubts in connection with the internal management of the temple” was expressly affirmed and provision was made whereby (a) the Kaimal was not to exceed a certain scale of personal expenditure prescribed for him, (b) the Kaimal had to keep correct accounts of all receipts and expenditure and submit financial statements, as audited, to the Governments of Travancore and Cochin and to the Controlling Authority, (c) the Kaimal was subject to be removed by the Controlling Authority, from the management of the Devaswom properties and incomes if, on enquiry in the manner prescribed in the scheme, the Kaimal was found guilty of mismanagement and misconduct which rendered his further continuance in control of the Temple undesirable. The only right of the Yogakkars recognized in the scheme was that the annual accounts should be read out from the Temple to the Yogakkars on a prescribed day of every year. This, in brief, is the present position of the Kaimal; and the Kaimal now in office functions under the provisions of the scheme outlined above. It will thus be clear that after a dispute which lasted for over seventy years the status and functions of the Kaimal, both spiritual and temporal, were finally settled when the proclamation and scheme of management were promulgated in 1917. Everything was calm and smooth until sometime after the Travancore Temple-entry Proclamation. There was no question that the Kaimal was not the supreme spiritual authority to regulate and settle all matters of a religious nature. But when tantric who had officiated in Travancore temples entered and officiated in the Koodalmanikkam Temple, Cochin revived the contention as to the Yogakkar’s right to control the Kaimal’s action in regard to religious practices and to issue directions to him. On representations made by some of them, His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin declared on the 15th April that the Temple was polluted because a tantri who officiated in a Travancore temple which was open to avarnas had officiated in the Koodalmanikkam Temple and that purificatory ceremony in the Temple was necessary before the utsavam festival could commence. The vazhivadoos or offerings of the Cochin Maharaja were also ordered to be withdrawn until further orders. On the 17th April, the Resident issued directions to the Kaimal asking the latter to follow the instructions issued by the Maharaja of Cochin. The Kaimal obeyed the directions of the Resident. Encouraged obviously by the action of the Resident, the Cochin Government again issued orders to the Kaimal to prohibit the entry into the Temple or the tank of all persons who had participated in ceremonies in Travancore temples, unless they performed prayaschittam. The Kaimal protested against the action of the Cochin Maharaja and complained about the scope of the Resident’s orders.  Travancore had no concern with the action taken by the Cochin Government with respect to the subjects of the Cochin State and was merely interested in preserving the authority which the Kaimal assumed when he was invested with that office on nomination by His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore. According to Travancore, the only authority competent to declare whether under the circumstances there was pollution or not and whether purificatory ceremony was required or not was the Kaimal as the spiritual head of the Devaswom a position affirmed even in the scheme promulgated by the Cochin Maharaja with the consent of Travancore and the British Government. Any order passed by the Maharaja of Cochin or the Resident without reference to the Kaimal and opposed to his (Kaimal’s) own declaration would be ineffective and without jurisdiction. The Resident has subsequently made his position clear as is evident from the interviews given by him to the Press. The direction given by him to the Kaimal did not purport to be an interference with the exercise of the discretion vested in the Kaimal in religious matters but were intended to maintain status quo mainly as a precautionary measure to preserve law and order. According to Travancore, the powers of the Resident as Controlling Authority are limited to those expressly specified in the Scheme and no proper occasion had arisen for the intervention of the Resident either as Controlling Authority or as representative of the Paramount Power, for, in either capacity, the Resident had no jurisdiction in giving directions on religious matters solely within the cognizance of the Kaimal. If there was any apprehension of breaches of the peace, there is nothing to show that the Cochin Government could not have dealt with the situation adequately. The Kaimal himself has stated in an interview that even without the Resident’s intervention the Utsavam festival would have passed off peacefully, and that this would have been possible even though some of the sanatanist tantris had non-co-operated. The Kaimal has subsequently exercised his discretion and declared that in the circumstances stated there was no pollution whatever. Travancore contends that this declaration finally settles the controversy and that the Resident having substantially upheld the discretionary authority of the Kaimal in spiritual matters Travancore has no more any reason to complain. It may be of interest to note that even in the not distant past there have been instances when ancient religious customs and usages have been departed from in Cochin on the ground that they were unreasonable. Men who had cropped their hair and men who had crossed the sea had no admission into temples in Cochin. But the prohibition does not now exist. The ground on which, in the present case, the Maharaja of Cochin declared in favour of pollution is not sanctioned by the Shastras or by usage.