07-10-2011, 01:22 AM
Quote:http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/do-...e-temple/2
92407.html
Do the treasures belong to the temple?
R Nagaswamy
The question whether the treasures (temple offerings) recently brought to
light in the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple belong to the state or the temple
is debated, with some asserting they belong to the state while others claim
they belong to the temple. But neither of them seem to know either the
ancient tradition or the modern situation. The entire nation and perhaps the
world must pay the highest tribute to the Maharajas of Travancore and their
families for having preserved this collection meticulously all these years
as true servants of Padmanabhaswamy as they called themselves Padmanabha
Dasas.
The main question that has escaped the debaters is to whom were these
offerings made? There is no doubt that these were devout offerings to Lord
Padmanabha. We have tens of thousands of written records by way of
inscriptions spread all over the country from early historical times to
modern times which show that such offerings were made to the God and not to
the temple. From the second century BC to the modern times the offerings
were recorded to have been made to the deity. In the Pallava inscriptions
assignable to 3rd or 4th century we find specific mention that the gifts
were made to the deity. There are many inscriptions from Kerala almost from
9th century onwards recording gifts to the deities.
A question that caused intricate examination was whether an all-pervasive
and omnipotent God could be treated as a juristic entity. Whether He can own
property? The ancient Indians got over this subtle and abstract theological
point by holding that God acts through his representative. In the case of
Siva temples the transactions were made in the name of Chandikesvara, and in
the case of Vishnu temples it was Vishvaksena and so on.
This question had come up in many court cases in the late 19th and 20th
centuries in different parts of India during the British rule. In all these
cases the courts have delivered judgments that the main deity is accepted as
a jurist entity. The latest significant judgment on this point came in the
London Nataraja case wherein the trial judge of the London High court
mentioned that in the western world this question does not arise because
they do not believe God could be a juristic person, but in India and Asian
countries this is an accepted position in law. Delivering his judgment the
judge observed that the ruined Chola temple of Pattur, so long as even one
stone belonging to the temple built by the Chola chieftain remains in situ,
the temple continues to exist in the eye of law and has the right to own the
property and so the metal image of Nataraja must be returned to the temple.
The judge came to this conclusion after examining many decisions of court
cases conducted in India. According to the ancient Hindu law (the Dharma
Sastras) one cannot make a gift unless it is legally acquired. (The ancient
Indian law does not permit acceptance of illegal money or the conferment of
spiritual merit for the same). Such gifts are brought under the category
called Dana. This is signaled by the donor who had the legal right of
ownership relinquishing his right over the material or property gifted, by
pouring water in the hand of the donee. An exemplary instance of 12th
century in 1111 AD (exactly 900 years ago ) is recorded in an inscription in
which Kulottunga Chola I entered in the Uraham temple of Kanchipuram and his
queen gave a golden vessel with water and the king made a gift of land by
pouring water in the hand of the Lord. Once the gift is made he had no
further claim over it.
All the money, jewels, coins, etc. found in the Padmanabhaswamy Temple were
presented with great veneration and with sincere prayers that their family
and the public at large will be bestowed with prosperity.
According to a modern professor who neither knows ancient history nor modern
historical data, the kings acquired these treasures by looting in wars. But,
according to ancient Hindu law, recorded in the Raja Dharma of the law
books, the king had the right to capture treasures in war and it becomes his
legal property.
These do not invite the provisions of the Treasure Trove Act for the simple
reason that the ownership of this wealth is not under question, but is well
known and is documented even in living memories and was not found lying
buried. These were kept safely in the temple bhandaras, as they were meant
for use when required and its ownership by the Deity Padmanabha is beyond
dispute. Another curious suggestion is that they should be arranged in a
museum for the people to see. This question also came up in the London High
Court in which I appeared as a witness. The judge asked me the question
"Suppose I give you back this Nataraja would you like to have it in the
temple or in museum, where visitors could see? And the judge wanted me to
answer as an archaeologist and not as a devout Hindu. I answered it must be
back in the temple. "Why?" asked the judge.
I replied that the main intention of the donor was not to make it an exhibit
in a museum, but it was a pious religious gift with many sacred acts
associated with it, many other associated activities like music.
The judge agreed with me and mentioning it ordered the return of the image
to the temple. If a foreign court could respect the piety and sentiments on
scientific lines and return to the temple there is no reason why India
should respond to these self-styled historians. Let us not forget that the
priceless treasures in Indian museums are stored as junk with no proper
preservation. Then the question arises who will administer these articles
of wealth. Certainly not the state. First of all it is secular and secondly
we know in the past few decades what has happened to the valuable treasures.
The administration has to be in the hands of legally eligible to be the
trustees as per the existing Acts. The Travancore royal families who have
saved these wealth for Lord Padmanabha all these centuries should continue
as the chief trustees with whatever safeguards required for preventing
misuse. The state government quite rightly has taken the stand the status
quo will continue and we are also happy that the learned judges of the
Supreme Court have ordered what should be done. It is not the value of the
wealth, but the greatness of Kerala that has been brought fully to the
people of the world.
(The author is Former Director of Archaeology, Tamil Nadu.