2. PATRONAGE, AUTHORITY, PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, HISTORY

John E. Cort

In our research we were interested in exploring ways in which the connections between these temples and the caste communities that worship at them could provide insights into institutional continuities in Indian society and culture. Our assumption was that the specific connections between castes and the deities enthroned in these temples could explain the continuing importance of these temples, and perhaps even their very survival, a rather remarkable fact when one considers how few temples of such antiquity have survived as active religious centers in India.

Our research did uncover information that challenges a too ready attribution of continuities of caste or community patronage. The currently prevalent "origin narrative" of the Osian Mahavir temple focuses in part on its abandonment in medieval times and then its rediscovery and renovation in the late-nineteenth century. Similarly, one such narrative - albeit not the best known one - of the Dadhimati temple also tells of its near abandonment and then its renovation in the mid-nineteenth century.

Furthermore, several of the temples gave evidence of discontinuities in terms of caste worship and patronage. Scholars have described Sacciyamata in Osian as the kuldevi of the Osvals, and so her temple has been tied to the origin narrative of the Osvals. But our research indicates that while Sacciya has been important for some Osval gotras (patriclans) for many centuries, the Osian temple was largely in the hands of its Bhojak priests, and patronage may have been more from local Rajputs and other castes than from non-local Osvals. Dadhimati has presumably always been worshipped by local Dahima Brahmans, but again research indicates that it was equally important in ritual terms to local non-Dahima castes, especially Biyasar Jats, and control may have been in the hands of non-Dahima priests (or else one specific group of Dahima priests) up until the early twentieth century.

In other words, it quickly emerged in our research that "continuity" was a very problematic term. The histories of these temples evince not clear-cut continuities of patronage, but rather on-going contestations of patronage, worship, and control - all revolving around basic understandings of authority (adhikar) over the temple itself, over worship at the temple, and over the material and spiritual resources embodied in and attached to the temple. These contested claims involve differing understandings of the relationships between the deity and castes, between worshippers and worshipped, and between donor and donated. All of the claims also employ two types of evidence: (1) on-the-ground social claims of who lives around the temple, who worships at the temple, who conducts the rites at the temple, and who has paid for the upkeep and renovation of the temple; and (2) historical claims hands of its Bhojak priests, and patronage may have een more from local Rajputs and other castes than from non-local Osvals. Dadhimati has presumably always been worshipped by local Dahima Brahmans, but again research indicates that it was equally important in ritual terms to local non-Dahima castes, especially Biyasar Jats, and control may have been in the hands of non-Dahima priests (or else one specific group of Dahima priests) up until the early twentieth century.

In other words, it quickly emerged in our research that "continuity" was a very problematic term. The histories of these temples evince not clear-cut continuities of patronage, but rather on-going contestations of patronage, worship, and control - all revolving around basic understandings of authority (adhikar) over the temple itself, over worship at the temple, and over the material and spiritual resources embodied in and attached to the temple. These contested claims involve differing understandings of the relationships between the deity and castes, between worshippers and worshipped, and between donor and donated. All of the claims also employ two types of evidence: (1) on-the-ground social claims of who lives around the temple, who worships at the temple, who conducts the rites at the temple, and who has paid for the upkeep and renovation of the temple; and (2) historical claims based on mythic narratives, stone and copper-plate inscriptions, popular publications, scholarly publications, and the temples themselves. all of which describe connections among the temple, the deity, and the community in question. Authority, proprietary rights, and history thus emerged as a set of interwoven themes that appeared and re-appeared throughout the course of our research. In part they would emerge in the study of any temple and its relationships with various communities; but these themes emerged in specific ways in our research in part because the four temples chosen as the foci for our research were chosen precisely due to their historical importance for art historians, archaeologists, and historians of religion in South Asia. The academic conceptions of history important to scholars only slightly overlap with conceptions of history important to communities staking claims to rights of worship and management of these temples, and understanding the differing uses and definitions of "history" as a category of analysis was important in our research.

To state this point in another way, a basic question that has arisen in our research can be stated as follows: Who has proprietary rights (svatva, svamitva) over a temple? This can be a disputed question in temples as old as the four which we have studied, and learly over the temples as old as the four which we have studied, and clearly over the more than ten centuries during which these temples have been in existence different groups have had various kinds of control and proprietary rights. In the twentieth century all of these temples have seen different groups successfully controlling the temples and/or staking unsuccessful claims to such control. The handout indicates some of the different claims we have seen advanced in the cases of these four temples or other temples in India.

Some of the possible bases for claims to proprietary rights (svatva, svamitva) at temples.

1. Temple priests: continuity of service at the temple and to the deity.

2. Local dominant caste: social, economic, political dominance in surrounding area.

3. Traditional patron/s (jajman): person and/or community who donates money and/or land for building and/or renovation of temple.

4. Caste is descended from the deity, or in some other way the deity is responsible for the caste's creation.

5. Charismatic renouncer who establishes or renovates temple, or in some other way hanges proprietary patterns.

6. Temple as private property.

7. Temple as state property; as property of king in pre-Independence India, now as property under control of some state body (devsthan), or as protected archaeological monument.

8. A special congregational right, as with the Jain sangh.