‘Free But Not Completely’: Here’s What Can Be Learnt From The ‘Scheme Temples’ Managed By The Nagarathar Chettiar Community

Many of you would have heard of Chettinad, a region in Tamil Nadu known for being the home of the numerically small but wealthy Nagarathar Chettiar community. 

While the palatial heritage houses made with materials from around the world and the region’s food may be the reasons you know it for, the area also has a number of centuries’ old temples managed by the community.

Today, it is spread across two districts located in the eastern part of the state—Sivaganga and Pudukkottai.

The Nagarathars are divided into nine clans, with each clan having its own temple. People belonging to the same temple cannot marry each other. While these are not as famous or large as the Madurai Meenakshi temple, one of them, i.e. the Pillayarpatti temple dedicated to Lord Ganesha, is well known within Tamil Nadu.

The nine temples are as follows—Ilaiyathankudi, Maathur, Vairavankoil, Nemankoil, Iluppakudi, Soorakkudi, Velangkudi, Iranikoil and Pillayarpatti.

Apart from these nine temples, the Nagarathars also have village temples, which number over 70.

Swarajya visited the area to learn about how these temples are administered and if they hold any lessons that can be taken as inputs by other temples if they are freed.

However, it is pertinent to note that unlike the case of the Nataraja Temple in Chidambaram, which is wholly administered by the Dikshitars, these temples are not completely out of government control. 

While they are independent in the selection of trustees, and their day-to-day affairs, the state government’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) department has some functions such as an annual audit and okaying a temple’s yearly budget.

This is because they come under what are called ‘scheme temples’ under the HRCE Act, 1959. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

Advocate Arun Swaminathan, who has represented the community in several cases related to their temples, said that a scheme can be considered as a bylaw.

"Under the Act, the HRCE commissioner, joint commissioners have the powers to formulate, modify or delete a scheme. Other than them, only courts have the powers to do so. These nine temples have schemes formulated by courts or the temple board that existed in Madras Presidency before the formation of the HRCE department," he explained.

Eligibility To Become A Trustee And Voting Process

Each Nagarathar family, known as a ‘pulli’ is considered one unit for the purpose of voting. A man becomes eligible to vote on behalf of his family after he is married. 

In case he marries someone who is not from the community, he will not be able to vote. Similarly, someone marrying into the community does not get the right to vote.

“The eligibility criteria is very basic. Anyone from the community who wants to become a trustee has to be over 25 years of age. There however, are certain conditions mentioned in the Act like being a citizen of India, not being an undischarged insolvent, not being of unsound mind etc," said L M Lakshmanan, the chairman of the Ilayathangudi temple trust.

Rules Vary From Temple To Temple

Unlike what many would expect, the rules for the selection of trustees, their number and their tenure are not uniform. Each temple has its own rules. This is due to reasons like who used to control them historically, court orders, size of the clan etc.

While the main method of selection of trustees is voting, some temples have rules that stipulate that people belonging to certain Nagarathar families have to be represented.

Throwing some light on the above, Swaminathan gave the examples of Maathur and Pillayarpatti:

"People belonging to the Maathur clan are residing in 56 villages. My village has 118 pullis from the clan. They will send three representatives to the temple. The first fifty will be represented by one person, the second fifty by the second and the rest by a third person.

"Like these, some 350 representatives (along with those from other villages) would gather together and elect five trustees every two years. Their names would be shared with the department and if they are not found liable for disqualification under the Act, they will be appointed."

"The case of Pillayarpatti is different. Two trustees are selected by rotation from amongst 20 families mentioned in the scheme. These are families of philanthropists who had made large donations in the early years of the 20th century."

"Thus, you see the contrast amongst two large temples of the community," he said.

Community Contributions Called 'Pulli Vari' Sustain The Temples

The Nagarathars, whose history dates back to the Chola-Pandya period, prospered in their business activities in Burma during the British colonial rule. Later, after the Second World War, many moved to Malaysia, Singapore and Sri Lanka.

With the new found wealth accumulated from profits in lending, agriculture and trading activities, they purchased a lot of agricultural land and donated it to their respective temples.

These lands were then leased to farmers in exchange for a share in the produce or an annual rent. However, like in the case of many government run temples, the Nagarathar temples too find it difficult to realise their revenue due to issues like encroachments and refusal by farmers to pay the rent amount.

Speaking about this, Lakshmanan said, "This is the unfortunate reality for most temples in the state. Once upon a time, we did not have to pay salaries to temple staff as we were able to provide them food, accommodation and also a small amount of land to sustain themselves. Today, we run our temples mainly on the contributions made by the community members. Public donations are collected through hundis."

The community contribution is systematised and wealthy members often donate more than what is asked of from them. People even set aside a certain percentage of their incomes for religious and charitable purposes.

“At the beginning of the year, an estimate is made as to how much amount is needed for the puja activities, repair and maintenance etc and each family is asked to contribute. This is called ‘vari’, or 'pulli vari' said Narayanan Thiagarajan, a member of the community who resides in Madurai.

The temples also get some income from renting out shops and wedding halls.

"What also keeps the temples going is the strong bond that Nagarathars have towards them. They are not just the basis of clans within the community but also have a ritual significance. All marriages are registered in the groom's temple and a garland is given to them on behalf of the temple," said K N Saravanan, who owns a printing press in Karaikudi and belongs to the Ilayathankudi temple.

Temple Priests Are Brahmins, Not Nagarathars

Though these temples are managed by Nagarathars, the priests are always Brahmin (Iyers, as these are Shiva temples). While some are hereditary priests, most of them are not. Apart from conducting the pujas, they also prepare the prasadam within the temple premises.

"Finding priests has become difficult these days", say Lakshmanan and Swaminathan.

While Lakshmanan mentioned that it was because many of them had turned towards fields like engineering, medicine and finance, Swaminathan added that temples were struggling to find priests even when they are willing to pay good salaries as payments abroad are better.

Not Fully Independent Of The Government

As mentioned earlier, certain aspects of these temples are looked after by the HRCE department. The annual audit of these temple's accounts, the appraisal of the jewellery and the survey of the land comes under its purview. Further, the department also takes a share of the revenue.

Thus, unlike the Nataraja Temple in Chidambaram, the autonomy of these temples is limited.

"Apart from being the sanctioning authority for temple expenditure, the HRCE department takes 12 per cent of our temple's revenue. Another four per cent goes as audit fees," Lakshmanan explained.

"It is quite high. If we have more money in our hands, we can use it for the temple and its related religious activities.

“Also, it must be remembered that while most people think these are only nine temples, many of them have sub shrines. These sub-shrines are smaller and have very less revenue. We use the income from the bigger temples to sustain them and ensure that the proper pujas are done.”

As the department has a share in the revenue, many of these temples maintain two bank accounts—one for the temple trust and another one for the government.

“Whatever has to go to the department, is transferred to that account. This is done in order to simplify the process.”

Not only that, the annual budget of the temple, which is prepared by the trustees, is also authorised by the department. 

What Do They Think Of The Government's Role?

While the general consensus amongst people who support freeing of temples is that the government should not have any role, Lakshmanan and Swaminathan sound a cautious note.

"Community management is great provided that there is no malpractice," according to Swaminathan. "But the HRCE department must ensure that it restricts itself to monitoring and not get into management."

Asked to elaborate on it, Swaminathan gave the Iranikoil and Iluppaikudi temples as examples.

He said that according to the scheme of the Iranikoil temple, the trustees could appoint a ‘manager’ in consultation with the HRCE department. This manager would be answerable to the trustees. But in 1962, the department appointed an executive officer in violation of the scheme. 

“Since then new executive officers have kept coming and going. The problem with them is that they often are made in charge of a large number of temples and hardly come to Iranikoil. Instead, to get his signature for a cheque, we have to travel to the place he is stationed and wait for him. Sometimes it takes a few weeks to get things done.

“We have filed a petition against this and the matter is in court now. The irony that we are facing while challenging their presence is that there are no appointment orders at all.”

In Iluppaikudi, the case was different. Here it was the fault of a trustee which brought the HRCE department into the management. 

“A hereditary trustee swindled money and mortgaged many of the temple’s properties. The HRCE department terminated him and took over the management. After a 17-year legal battle, the department appointed three persons but it has not handed over the charge to them as on date.”

"Having a department to monitor the activities of trust is fine. Otherwise, there would be no fear and people could start misusing funds. But the revenue share and audit charges must be reduced," Lakshmanan added.

Does Not Being Completely Under Government Control Help ? 

Asked to highlight what he felt were important differences between temples fully controlled by the government and those by his community, Thiagarajan said that the first thing that came to his mind was that darshan is not charged. 

“Except for festive days, it would not take you very long to have darshan. You would hardly find any queue and can see the Lord as many times as you want.”

“The second thing is that there are pujas five times a day. This is not the case in government temples. While bigger government temples may have them, there are many smaller ones which lie in neglect or have just one puja a day.

“And finally, the general upkeep is better.”

Two non-Nagarathars, who did not wish to be identified, echoed the same sentiments. 

One of them, who hails from Devakottai and spoke at length with this writer, however added that community control through trusts meant that the public could only make suggestions if they found any irregularities. 

“People from other communities have no voice. That would not be the case if it was under government control. This is my take even though the Nagarathars are managing the temples reasonably well”, he said.  

Adding that they were admired for their abilities with regards to temple management, he said, “There is a saying in these parts— ‘If there is an issue in the temple, call a Chettiar.’ This should tell you what people here think of them.”

Saravanan, who spoke about the ritual significance of the temples for the Nagarathars, said that community control meant that the administration was largely free of corruption. “The fear of the deity and a bad name within the community keeps them on the right path.”

Lakshmanan sought to explain it through the management lens by giving an example of how he was able to try out an approach different from the one usually adopted by the government with regards to temple lands.

"There are a number of challenges that we have to face in realising the temple's share from the lands given out on lease," he began. He shared the example of his temple (Ilayathangudi) temple, which has lands near Thiruvarur, which is over 160 kilometres away.

"Our trustees, often senior citizens, couldn’t travel that distance. This created a disconnect for over thirty to forty years, during which land ownership changed hands multiple times, and tenants stopped paying rent." Enforcement efforts were difficult, he explained, especially as the farmers had political support.

Rather than following the typical government approach—which involves sending officials and police—Lakshmanan decided to try something different. "I purchased about 200 green towels, the kind worn by farmers here, and went to meet them. I told them we respected them and weren’t looking for a confrontation."

In spite of some initial resistance, Lakshmanan was able to build trust and negotiate a fair rent, settling on around Rs 3,000 per acre (per annum), a middle ground between the department's target of a little over Rs 5000 and the farmers' initial offer of Rs 1000. The agreement was also made legally binding.

Reflecting on the outcome, Lakshmanan noted, "This was possible because we weren’t government officials. We showed them respect and took the time to meet personally. But this approach requires younger, active trustees who have the energy to pursue such matters."

Even as this writer’s visit to the homeland of the Nagarathar Chettiars soon came to a close, what stayed in his mind was how the community has continued to maintain their temples in a way that takes into account their history, traditions and value systems in spite of the government having some presence.

One couldn’t help but wonder as to how these temples would be if they were completely free.