A reasoned
response of the Kerala unit of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), proposing
a publicly controlled administrative set-up on the lines of that at the Sree
Krishna Temple at Guruvayur for the Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple and their view
that the shrine must be freed from the trust controlled by the Travancore royal
family, had now unleashed a new storm of controversy pertaining to the Temple.
Many had criticized it as an encroachment up on the right for the independent
functioning and existence of this ancient temple, traditionally owned by the
Travancore Royal family. It is also mooted that it is a private temple, the
presiding deity of which is the family deity of the Travancore royal family. As,
a lot of baffling propositions and hypothesis are being aired, with regard to
this controversy, it will be worth to consider the question that whether the Sree
Padmanabha Swami Temple and its treasures are the family properties of the
erstwhile Royal Family of Travancore.
It is
interesting to analyze how the Temple came into the hands of the Travancore
royal family. Though the origin of the Temple is shrouded in antiquity and
different versions are stated by different authors, it could be safely dated
back to the 8th Century. However, for over 200 years prior to the
taking over of management of the Temple and the State by Anizham Thirunal Marthandavarma,
the Temple was under the control of "Ettarayogam" (group of eight and
a half) consisting of seven Pottis (Brahmins), one Nair chieftain and the King,
who had only half a vote, whereas all others had one vote each. While the committee
of Potties controlled the Temple, the properties of the Temple were managed by
Ettuveettil Pillamars, the 8 Nair chieftains belonging to eight big families
spread over in different villages of the State. The King was a low key
functionary in the Committee managing the Temple and he had only a very limited
authority with half a vote. In fact, the Kings used to be even fined by the
Ettarayogam Potties who were in control of the management of the Temple, if
they considered the King's interference or involvement in the management of the
Temple was excessive or unwanted. However, in the protracted battle between
Marthandavarma and his loyalists on the one side and the Ettuveettil Pillamars,
the Brahmins and the son of the King on the other hand, Marthandavarma
succeeded and he executed all the Ettuveettil Pillamars, razed their houses to
the ground and distributed their females to the fishermen. The Potties who were
in charge of the Temple were also ousted from the management of the Temple, and
most of them were banished and sent out of the State. Thus, it was in the
climax of such a bloody political thriller, Marthandavarma managed to take over
full control of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple.
It is pertinent
to note that vide Proclamation on 17.9.1811, issued by then Rani of Travancore,
Gouri Lakshmi Bhai, all the major Hindu temples in Travancore were brought
under the King. Thereafter the temple properties were also restored to the
State and the temples and the lands were brought under the Land Revenue
Department. In fact, vast extent of properties of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy
Temple was also restored to it. This arrangement continued until the taking
over of the Government temples by the Travancore Devaswom Board under the Travancore-Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The only change that happened in
between was during the rule of Sree Moolam Thirunal Ramavarma who handed over
the temples and the properties from Revenue Department of the State to the
Devaswom Department of the Government, from which it was taken over by the Travancore
Devaswom Board on it's constitution. So far as the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple
is concerned, the only difference is that the temple was under the direct
control of the Travancore King. However, this temple was also treated as a State/public
temple and was never regarded as private property of the Travancore King or as
his family property.
The system of
the Travancore King running the Temple continued during the period of Chithira
Thirunal Balaramavarma, who was the King from 1931 to 1949 when the Agreement
of Accession was, signed integrating the Princely States of Travancore and
Cochin as one and bringing the Travancore-Cochin as Part B State under the
Constitution. By virtue of the Article VIII(b) of the Covenant, the
administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the Sree Pandaravaga properties
and all other properties and funds of the Temple got vested in trust in the Ruler of the covenanting
State of Travancore. In fact, after the commencement of the
Constitution, the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 was enacted,
Section 18(2) of which specifically incorporates the above provision in the Covenant
vesting the management of the Temple in
trust in the Ruler of Travancore.
Section 18 of
the TC Act vesting in Trust the management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple with
the Ruler of Travancore is as under:
"18.
Administration by Executive Officer:- (1) Out of the amount of forty-six lakhs
and fifty thousand rupees provided for payment of the Devaswom Fund in Article
290-Aof the Constitution of India, a contribution of six lakhs of rupees shall
be made annually towards the expenditure in the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple.
(2) The administration of the Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the Sree Pandaravaga properties and all other
properties and funds of the said temple vested in trust in the Ruler of Travancore and the sum of six lakhs
of rupees mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be conducted, subject to the
control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore, by an Executive Officer
appointed by him." (emphasis supplied)
This makes it
abundantly clear that the Temple is not at all the family Temple of the Royal
Family or a private property of the King. Rather, the Temple was vested in
trust in the hands of the last Ruler of Travancore. Further, Section 18(1) of
the TC Act which provides for continuous funding of the temple by the State Government
at the rate of Rs.6 lakhs annually clearly establish that this is a public temple,
though during the life of the last Ruler, he was allowed to manage the same.
Now arises the
question that whether Uthradam Thirunal Marthandavarma, is “Ruler” as envisaged
in Section 18(2), so as to enable himself to manage the affairs of the Temple. Since
"Ruler" is not defined in the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious
Institutions Act, 1950, we have to necessarily adopt the definition of Ruler as
substituted in Article 366(22) of the Constitution with effect from 28.12.1971
which is as follows:
"Ruler"
means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the
commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was
recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who,
at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the
successor of such Ruler."
Obviously, Uthradam
Thirunal Marthandavarma or his successors of the Royal Family will not come
within the description of "Ruler" as defined under Article 366(22) of
the Constitution and the only person who answers the definition is the last
Ruler, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma and after him no one can acquire that
status which is not heritable. In this context the term "Ruler" used
in the Covenant of Accession Agreement and in Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 probably has only a literal meaning to
describe Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, who was the last Ruler of
Travancore and the signatory to the Accession Agreement. Therefore, after death
of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma on 20.7.1991, there is no Ruler in the
erstwhile State of Travancore. So much so, the contentions that Uthradam
Thirunal Marthandavarma, being brother of the last Ruler becomes the Ruler of
Travancore after the death of the last Ruler, is only absurd, and he has no
authority to manage the Temple. In other words, since 20.7.1991, the ‘royal’ family is illegally dealing
with the affairs of the Temple. After the death of the last Ruler of
Travancore, the present Ruler happens to be the State Government and so much
so, by operation of Section 18(2) of the Act, the Temple on death of the last
Ruler reverts back to the State for administration by it.
It is most
humbly prayed that the persons rolling the sea-shells upside down and counting
them either in odds or even numbers and declaring the loyalty towards ‘royals’,
may kindly have a belief in the glory of the blood of martyrs, who fought for
freedom of our land and in the sanctity of our Constitution, which we adopt for
ourselves. It is perplexing to see, even the most educated and enlightened
persons are so fond of the muscle power of Marthandavarma, which should have “incurred
the displeasure of ‘devan’ and also bode ill for the people and for the land”. Education
is for liberation; the liberation from the darkness of the superstitions and
congested communal sentiments.
“Thamasoma Jyothirgamaya”
