Source: Sreedharan K S (@SreedharanKs)
In this interview @RangarajPandeyR asked @jsaideepak why Justice Party wanted Govt Control of Temples, as they were the rich people administering temples. Here is some history.
In early 19th century EIC had nominal control over temples, till it relinquished in 1863 by Act XX. The temples became one of the power centres. Where there was no Zamindar, Pandarasandhi, rich and powerful people got themselves associated with temples. The financial power of Temples were so great that invariably the politicians got involved. To get an idea of the Temple wealth, some of the big temples and adheenams had lot of property and money. Because of the lacunae in the Act XX, the temple and its properties were not managed well and it was very difficult to take a legal recourse. (Not all temples were under Jameens. Where there was no pre-existing setup, the management was arbitrarily given. The troubles arose because those who thought they had the rights, fought amongst themselves. There was misuse and murders in Adheenams in some cases.)
Except in the case of hereditary trustees such as zamindars, the passport to entry into the world of temple politics was stamped by election. The heads of maths and the Mahant of Tirupati were elected by their disciples and, as may be expected, the politics surrounding such elections can be described only by the epithet Byzantine. As pandarasanidhis and mahants held office for life, one of the most obvious methods of advancing a political cause was by murder: a Tirupati Mahant, 148 and pandarasanidhis at Dharmapuram and Sivarankoil were killed by opposing faction during our period, 149 while no fewer than three Pandarasanidhis of Thiruvadathorai died under dubious circumstances.150
In 1908 Code of Civil Procedure opened a window for taking the temple administration matters to court. Some battles were fought in the court after this. Dharmarakshana Sabha whose members were identified as the “Mylapore gang” in later stages, used the various provisions of law to rid the temples of sin. This infact ruffled a few feathers and in a way was responsible for the political developments of future.
S.I.P.A the fore-runner to Justice party was particularly unhappy with the Dharmarakshana Sabha and petitioned against its activities and was “against” any legislative interference in temple management. And all this changed after Justice party “secured office”. N.A.V. Somasundaram Pillai helped draft the Justice Ministry’s temple legislation. This is how a party that was against temple legislation itself passed laws to control the temple properties.
Before concluding this thread, it needs to be re-iterated that social justice could not have been the reason for legislating temple control because even prior to it, the control of temples were with powerful and rich landowners (oft of the lower castes).
The material character of much temple power meant that the committees which managed the temples and acted as the guardians of state-level culture often took on a remarkable appearance. In areas of predominantly local-level culture, many of their members could barely be described as being religious participants of them. In districts like Coimbatore or Anantapur, rural-bosses from the Gounder and Reddi castes often won seats. In areas of complex communal interaction, Christians and Muslims could gain access to their influence. Even in regions where state-level culture was strong, the social order which regulated temple power could be the reverse of that which was supposed to be regulated by it. At Kumbakonam, for example, in the heartland of the Tamil Brahman, the committee was dominated for many years by V. Appaswami Vandayar and T. S. Sivaswami Odayar who came from different branches of the low Kallar caste and T. Ponnuswami Nadar who was an untouchable Shanar. The three, however, were among the wealthiest and largest landowners in the district. In 1915, the Raja of Ramnad took over the committee.153 He was a Maravar, of the same equivocal status as a Kallar.