JULY 13TH : A DAY OF DHARMIC REVIVAL

                                                                 

A two-judge bench comprising of Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra pronounced a historical verdict a week ago. This 218-page judgement put rest to the famous yet controversial Sri Padhmanabha Swamy Temple case which was pending in the court since 2011. The court in its judgement decided to return the shebaitship of the moorti and the right to manage and administer the temple to the titular head of the Travancore Royal Family. What this judgement addresses is not only upholding an age-old custom pertaining to one of the most famous devalayas but is also an achievement in the revival of Bharat’s dharmic identity.

A BRIEF HISTORY…..

The origin of the temple can be associated with many references in the MahaPuranas and well as the Mahabharata and hence is lost in antiquity. The origins of the temple stem out of three main sources.  There is a reference of Parasurama who is said to have performed the pranaprathistam of the moolava moorti in the Dwapara Yuga as found in the text Kerala Mahatyam of the Brahmanada Puranam. There is a mention in the ‘Bhagavatha Purana’ that Sree Balarama visited “Syanandoorapuram” or “Ananthasayam” (Thiruvananthapuram) in the course of his pilgrimage which resonates with the above source. However some scholars like Dr LA Ravi Varma trace the temple back to the beginning of the Kaliyug as mentioned in the grantha “Ananthasayana Mahatmya” where it is said that a vaishanava Tulu Brahmana named Divakara Muni who had  installed the idol. Another reference says that  the origin of the Temple is related to the famous Namboothiri sanyasi Vilvamangalathu Swamiyar, whose name is linked with the histories of several temples in Southern India.
Interestingly, there are verses in Sangam literary works (300CE – 500CE) discussing the temple in detail. Part of the 108 divya desams , the divya prabhandham glorifies the temple as being part of the 13 Malai Nadu desams. We also find that the great-saint poet Nammalwar in 900 CE had recorded his visit to “Anathapuram” in his famous work Tiruvaimozhi. This brings us to another point wherein the Sthala Puranas  says that the Ananthapuram Temple (Kasargod) was the moolasthanam of the current Padmanabhaswamy moorti.

The period between 1314 – 1344 CE which saw the rule of King Veera Rama Udaya Marthanda Varma of Venad had gradually led to the royal intervention into  the temple wherein he and his successors had established their rights over the shrine. Other notable events include the construction of the Ottakal Mandapam over the garbha graham between 1459-1461 CE. However, temple was almost destroyed due to a fire accident in 1686 CE but was re-constructed in 1730 CE. The Mandapam too was damaged in this accident.

THE MARTHANDA VARMA EQUATION

         

A portrait of Anizham Thirunal Marthanda Varma 

In the 18^th century , in line with the Marumakkathayam traditions, Anizham Thirunal Marthanda Varma took over the rule of the Travancore state from his maternal uncle , Rama Varma. It was he who established this inextricably intertwined relationship between the erstwhile royal family and Padmanabhaswamy. In 1730, the temple was renovated and the old wooden moorti was replaced with a new one made from 12008 shaligramams brought from the banks of River Gandaki. The new moorti was also coated with a special amalgam of Ayurvedic herbs called Katusarkarayogam.  A second Ottakal Mandapam was to built by the monarch. The day, 20th January 1750 CE, stood witness to the act of sublime dedication and the greatest offering possible for a crowned monarch, carried out in supreme devotion – the Trippadi Dhanam. Maharaja Anizham Thirunal Veera Bala Marthanda Varma arrived at the temple along with all his family members in the morning. In the presence of his trusted Dewan Ramayyan Dalawa, along with the members of the Ettara Yogam, the Maharaja submitted his kingdom, along with his total right on it to Sri Padmanabhaswamy by a deed of gift carrying his signature. He placed all the signs of his royalty in the crown, the royal umbrella, the twin white chauries (fans) along with some tulsi leaves on the Ottakal Mandapam in front of Padmanabhaswamy. Hence, the Maharaja from then onwards was a Padmanabhadasa , an eternal servant of the deity. Every royal decree, every decision, every royal proclamation was issued in the name of Deshanatha or Padmanabha. Belongings of the kingdom were called 'Pandaravaka' (belonging to the devaswom) and even salaries for the state employees began to be known as Padmanabhante panam (money given by the lord).Every successor had followed had this custom which was pioneered by their great ancestor.

THE POST INDEPENDENCE SCENARIO

Maharaja Chitra Thirunal Balarama Varma

The tradition prevailed even after when the Maharaja Chitra Tirunal Balavarma( who was responsible for the Temple Entry Proclamation in 1936) signed the instrument of accession with the Indian union as Sree Padmanabhadasa. This special connection can also be inferred from the book “The Story of Integration of the Indian States” written by then Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of States, VP Menon, whose extracts were reproduced in the SC’s judgement. He wrote:

"He (the Maharajah) added that he governed the State on behalf and as a servant of Sri Padmanabha and that he attached great importance to this position being maintained; that if no satisfactory solution on these points was possible, and if the Government of India still insisted on the integration of the two States he would rather abdicate than act against his convictions…. Lastly, he felt that on account of the dedication of the State to Sri Padmanabha and the special loyalty and devotion which the rulers of Travancore owed to that deity, it would not be possible for him to take the usual oath of office as Rajpramukh. Travancore had been ruled by an unbroken line of Hindu kings from the earliest times and had retained throughout the centuries its essential character of a Hindu State. The most important temple in this State has always been, and still is, the Sri Padhmanabha temple, richyly endowed and posessing very extensive landed properties...."

In 1949, these negotiations and deliberations lead to the formulation of Article VIII of the Covenant jointly entered into by the rulers of the princely states of Travancore and Cochin with the Indian Union. This article explicitly guaranteed that then Maharaja Chitra Thirunal Balarama Varma and his successors have the right to manage and control the Sree Padmanbhaswamy temple. This is also enshrined in sections 18-23 , Chapter III of The Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Act, 1950 (henceforth TCHRI Act). As per  these sections, the Ruler is empowered to administer the Temple through an Executive Officer appointed by him, with the advice of a three-member Advisory Committee nominated again by him.

Even after the 26^th amendment to the constitution in 1971 which abolished the privy purses and royal titles, this tradition continued wherein every titular head’s name was prefixed with epithet “Sree Padhmanabha Dasa”. The original signatory of the covenant died in 1991 who was succeeded by his brother, Sri Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma who also passed away in 2013. The current Maharaja is Sree Moolam Thirunal Rama Varma, his nephew.

THE 2009 PETITION AND THE  LEGAL BATTLES

A painting of the moolava moorti , Sri Padmanabhaswamy in Ananthashayana

This case started out off as a classic owner-tenant dispute wherein a practicing advocate was asked by the then executive officer to vacate temple premises he had occupied. This led to the filing of a writ petition in the Kerala HC which questioned the authority of the executive officer seeking his eviction specifically and broadly challenging the legality of the officer’s appointment. This argument was based on the assumption that no member of the family had the legal right to manage the temple after the death of Bala Rama Varma who was the original signatory of the covenant. This was further cemented by referring to the 26^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 which abolished the title “RULER”. The advocate sought the control and management of the temple to be transferred to the State Govt. There were also three civil suits filed against the temple by its employees where it desired an order from the court to open the kallaras (vaults of the temple). In 2010, then the head of the Royal Family, Marthanda Varma filed a writ petition in the HC to club all  these suits and transfer them to the HC. This was to address the central question of authority bestowed by Article VIII of the covenant regarding the transition of the temple management to the successors of the original signatory.

THE 2011 JUDGEMENT AND THE AFTERMATH

The 2011 Judgement answered this question negatively  wherein the High Court held that the Head/ ‘Ruler’ of the Travancore Royal Family and his successors had no right to control or manage the affairs of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple after the death in 1991 of the Ruler who had signed the Covenant. This conclusion was also based on the abolition of all royal titles by the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971. The court also issued orders to the government to constitute a trust to take over the control, management of the temple as well as its assets. It also directed the constituted trust to open all kallaras (vaults) , audit all the contents and create a museum to display all of the exhibits.

As Advocate J Sai Deepak puts it, “objects of darshan had become objects of pardarshan.” There are two primary concerns regarding the outcomes of the judgement. One is that the old tradition of the Travancore Royal family to manage the temple was assigned to the “secular” State. Secondly, the objects of darshanas of the temple as per the court decree, were to be monetised by the State and put on display for the general public within  the sanctimonious premises of the temple. The display of these so-called “treasures” by the State not only destroyed the sanctity of the temple but also posed a larger question regarding the “secular” nature of the State. With the public display of these invaluable items , the dependency on the State to protect these objects also increased.

JULY 13^th 

The 2011 HC Judgement was challenged before the SC in special leave petitions preferred by  Sree Uthradom Marthanda Varma and the Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust. The Chief Tantri of the temple , organizations like the  People for Dharma and the Temple Protection Movement entered the proceedings as intervenors to the Petition. After 9 long years, the SC pronounced a verdict , a historic one on July 13^th. The salient features which made this judgement iconic are as follows:

•   The court recognized that Article VIII of the 1949 Covenant established the acknowledgement by the Indian Union of the special relationship of Shebaitship that exists between the Royal Family and Padmanabhaswamy
•   The court also ruled that the 26^th Constitutional Amendment Act , 1971 doesn’t apply to this pre-existing special relationship as the amendment only aimed  to abolish the titles and privy purses which were an impediment concerning the Republican aspects of India.
• It also concludes in its judgement that Article VIII of the covenant forms the basis of sections 18-23 , chapter III of the THCRI Act, 1950 thereby saying that these legal provisions provided the right to manage the temple not only to the original signatory of the covenant but also his successors.
•  This led to the SC setting aside the 2011 Kerala HC Judgement and it laid down an administrative structure as per the suggestions of the Royal Family. The administrative system proposed by the family is as follows:

1.       The ruler, who is bound by traditions, shall take all decisions on policy related matters of the temple. The Ruler however is to be advised by a committee of 3 members as per Section 20 , THCRI Act 1950.
2.     A second committee namely Administrative Committee of 5 members shall exercise the powers of administration. However , under section 18(2) of the THRCI Act , the administration will be subject to supervision of the Ruler.
3.    The decision of the opening of the Kallaras(vaults) were left to the discretion of the committees which under section 20 as stated before still make the Ruler’s word final.   

THE ACHIEVEMENTS

The SC’s judgement is in stark contrast to the 2011 verdict which is indicated by the return of the shebiatship to the family. Paragraph 116 of the judgement also laid 12 directions such as  preservation of the religious practices of the temple , recover property of the temple , renovation of the temple which are to be done in accordance with norms set up the advisory committee which in turn is the Ruler. The acceptance of the administrative structure proposed by the Royal family itself is a huge relief for devotees, thereby placing the Padmanabhaswamy temple in a better place comparing it to other temples which have been wholly taken over the by the State(the 51 temples which were taken over by the Uttarakhand govt. to be one of the most recent). The judgement also becomes a strong precedent for recovering similarly placed temple governed by similar covenants.

The SC however could have limited the number of government (union and state) appointees in the various committees, thereby giving effect to Article 25(2)(1) and Article 26 of the Constitution. Given the various aspersions casted regarding the invaluable treasures of this shrine,  it could have probably also addressed the security risks faced by the  temple by ordering the respective government to bear security expenses which now has been left to the temple to take care off.

THE WAY AHEAD….

Despite these shortcomings, the verdict is a minuscule but a remarkable achievement for not only protecting traditions of this diverse land, but it can also be viewed as a revival of the civilizational identity of Bharat. It is indeed heartening to see such institutions recongnizing the importance of the cultural ethos of this country. Whether this is the new normal or an exception? Only time will tell!