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.