The Temple states of Medieval Kerala
Posted by Labels: Malabar Pre 15th Century, Sanketam, temple states Malabar
Sanketams of Malabar
Starting from the time when the Chera Empire and its powers
declined, new forms of governance came up as lands split into multiple Swaroopams, Nadus, Desams and so on.
Local chieftains administered the land with the help of the Lokars or Nairs, and came under the local Swaroopam
suzerain’s umbrella. In return, they provided the services of foot soldiers
comprising Nairs in the time of a war between the swaroopams. But in between all that, temple states also sprung up in
parallel and some of them became very powerful. Some were small, like Pallavur
in Palghat, which was just 2 square miles and where I hail from, others were
very big, comprising many hundred square miles like Padmanabhapuram in
Trivandrum. The Peruvanam Kshethra Sanketham for instance, extended approximately
25 miles in all directions, to Kuthiraanmudi (peak) Ayyappa temple in the east,
Kodungalloor Oozhakam Sastha temple in the south, Edathiruthy Ayyappa temple
near Thriprayar in the west and the Akamala Sastha temple in the north.
These were the Sanketam’s.
Simply put, they were islanded spiritual states in the midst of lands under secular
chiefs and princes. Even a king could not break the sanctuary provided by a
Sanketam. Their authority was maintained using physical force by the Nairpada
and not by any kind of religious or spiritual sanctions. However as time went
by, the Sanketams aligned with one or the other local chieftains and eventually
declined in powers. Let’s follow their course to see how it all went.
The Calicut University Political science text book explains
- The Yogams (councils) of the
Namboothiri trustees (uraler) of temples and temple lands and their privileges
were together called Sanketam. In the absence of sovereign authority of the
government, the Sanketams became real rulers. They administered law and justice
in their jurisdiction. The Changatham was a group of warriors who ensured
protection and safety to a Desam and to the Sanketam property. Like the
Chavers, Changathams were also suicide squads. They were rewarded with a share
from the offerings that were received at the temple. The share was called
"Kaaval Panam" (remuneration for guarding) or Rakshabhogam. It was
with the military backing of these Changathams that the Brahmins established
social and political hegemony.
According to the Keralolpathi, Parasurama who brought the
Brahmins, ‘created adima and kudima in the desam, protected adiyans
and kudiyans, established taras and sankethams, separated the Nairs into taras and the supervision work over the land was given to them’. It
is said that there were two types of sanketams,
the self-existent one which continued on as remnants of the ancient Brahmin
supremacy and the second type which had been created as a concession by the sovereign
who was in favor of the temple and which then became a Sanketam, fully governed by people and authorities elected or
selected by the Sanketham Uralers. This
was the norm in a period broadly defined as the temple centered period of
Kerala history.
Achyuta Menon explains
- The Brahmin settlements (he also terms them demesne – i.e. territory, realm,
domain) known in inscriptions as ‘Ur’ were concentrated around temples, sprang
up throughout Kerala, and Brahmins became the custodians of huge wealth and
property of these temples. The land owning Brahmins were generally called
Uralar. The temples together with the endowments attached to them are called
Devaswams - the property of God. All the important Devaswams in Kerala had
their own independent jurisdictions known as Sanketam with unlimited temporal
power, independent of the local chieftain. Later, the Sankethams were forced to
seek the protection of Rajas and accepted the Purakoyma or external territorial
lordship over the Devaswams. In the post-Perumal period they started conducting
even the judicial administration of the area under the purview of the
Sanketham. The Sankethams were considered protected places and attained
importance as neutral areas and kept away from attacks and shelter for Brhamins
and Kshatriyas. The well-known Sankethams like Payyannur, Chovvaram,
Trikkakara, Elamkunnapuzha, Tiruvalla, Panniyur etc. were powerful than the
local chieftains.
The sanketam was a
refuge for people and nobody could enter and force out somebody taking there. A
famous example is the time when the Cochin raja fled to the Sanketam of the Elamkunnapuzha temple in
the island of Vypin. It was here that Francisco de Albuquerque met the Raja
(note also that a non-Hindu was perhaps admitted to the Sanketam in this rare case) to pay compensations for the Raja who
had suffered on account of supporting the Portuguese. Another example is that
of the Attingal Rani who fled to the Nedumpuram Sanketam when surrounded by the Kayamkulam Raja in 1730.
According to KV Krishna Ayyar, the period between the 8th
to the 18th century, the period when the Namabuthiri ruled supreme
in Malabar, was a time when they imposed
their will using the stated power of being ‘god compellers’ which could provide
divine favors for the obedient and bring down divine wrath on the recalcitrant.
Even the sovereign acceded to the throne only with the Nambuthiri’s
ariyittuvazcha blessings, with the sovereign in turn promising that they would
protect cows and Brahmins. Rival Brahmin settlements and their chiefs fought
their own wars (frequently violating each other’s sanketams during the kur-matsarams)
as could be seen in the protracted quarrel between the Panniyurkur and the Covarakkur
with the support from their respective temporal chiefs, and without the
involvement of the suzerain the Zamorin. The namputhiris also had a peculiar
method of threatening to fast or starve (Pattini) themselves to death, if their
will was not heeded to. This could in rare cases spiral into a huge issue, for
the death of a Brahmin or the sin of Brahmahatya
fell on the ruler (See the story of the Tali temple in Calicut for more details
on the amends that had to be made) as well as the land or kingdom. But then
again, if the Brahmin was the proven aggressor, the temporal chief could
intervene and confiscate their land, excommunicate them or levy other social
penalties. Typically the pattini was symbolic and not a fast unto death, this will
be explained a bit later.
Ayyar adds – The
origin of these temple states is shrouded in obscurity. In a semi feudal age,
ownership of land carried with it the privilege of protecting and punishing
those who lived within its boundaries. Every endowment and dedication therefore
conferred some power or the other according to its terms. Again in the wake of
religious devotion that swept over the land under the leadership of the
Nayanars and Alwars, the members of the village republics might have made over
all their lands and properties to the lord to be governed by him, according to
his will. Not only single villages, but two or more might combine likewise and
establish a temple state. Trichur was thus formed from the synoccism of two
villages, Trivandrum of three and Guruvayur (Guruvayur was actually a
subsidiary temple state of Trikkannamatilakam and it had 18 smaller temples
under it) of five. Suchindram was also a Sanketam, but without doubt Trivandrum was the biggest of all where
Marthanda Varma enlarged the sanketam
and made it coexistent with his empire with the monarch and his successors
becoming the lord’s first servants.
To understand governance, you need to follow the old terms
carefully. The small unit called desam
(Calicut for example had 125 desams
and 72 taras) was presided over by
the desavali. For clarity, note that a Brahmin settlement was a gramam, a Nair settlement was a tara and an Ezhava settlement was a cheri. Sometimes the desam and tara were
identical. A number of desams constituted
a nadu presided over by the naduvazhi who himself was subject to the
Rajah. The naduvazhi as we mentioned
earlier, was expected to supply the Raja with fighting forces in times of need.
Since these temples provided sanctuary or sanketams
during enemy attacks in times of war, there was a tussle among neighboring
sovereigns to obtain over-lordship (melkoyma)
over bigger temples and temple sanketams,
irrespective of whether they were situated within their own domains or not. All
these attached much importance to temples and also to the priests who
controlled the temples, as well as the uralers
who incidentally obtained a payment for their services (urachi). This melkoyma
desire was one of the reasons for many a skirmish between rulers. The committee
of uralars is usually termed the samudayam. As examples, it is mentioned
that over years the rulers of Cochin, Palghat and Calicut acquired control over
the important Tiruvilavamala temple; the Cochin Raja had rights over the
temples at Haripad and Tiruvalla; the Raja’s of Vadakkumkur and Parur over
Thrissur and Peruvanam and the king of Venad over Vaikkam temple.
Sreedhara Menon emphasizes - The sanketam functioned almost
'as a state within a state' with the ruling sovereign having no effective
political control over it …. They (the Namboodiris) owed allegiance not so much
to any ruler as to their caste chief, the Azhavancheri-Tamprakkal, who alone
had the authority to punish them.
In course of time, due to political uprisings in the
country, the Sanketams lost their
significance and with the rise of secular power, their powers declined. Susan
Thomas in her thesis covers the aspect of the changing nature of the sanketams,
as they sought support from the suzerain, taking the example of Trikkandiyur – ‘The Sanketam depended on the neighboring
chief for everything including the constitution of their yogam and the
maintenance of law and order. The chiefs would even send directions to the
members of the yogam’.
Vinod Bhattathirpad opines slightly differently - The chief of the Sanketham
("Sankethaadhikaari") was selected from the temple Yogam, and as
decided by the Yogaathiri. Within a Sanketham, the Sankethaadhikaari was
all-powerful and could punish even the king. In some Sankethams, kings of even
the adjacent kingdoms also used to be members of the Sanketham. The Thrissur
Vadakkumnaathha temple Yogam, for example, honoured not only its own Maharaja
of Kochi, but also Perumpadappu Raja, Manakkulam Raja, Ayanikkoor (Chiralayam)
Thampuraan, Kurumbranaad Thampuraan, Valluvakkonaathiri, Thekkumkoor and Vadakkumkoor
Rajas. These kings considered such positions an honor conferred on them. The
Yogaathiri, however, was invariably to be a Namboothiri.
To guard against encroachment, the Sanketams themselves started to choose a secular leader without
giving up their right of ownership, for they were a self-governing unit,
self-working and self-contained community, recognizing no sovereign. They had
the right to punish even the sovereign. It had the right to collect taxes (house
and professional taxes) and rents owed by its subjects. All land transactions
were registered in the temple records. In these sanketams, everything was done in the name of the Lord, looking at
the case of Pallavur and Guruvayur, the formula was ‘Tevar Tirunal peral uraler
ullirunna annuninna samudaya manusham (meaning - In the name of .. the
auspicious austerism of the lord with the governing committee sitting in
session behind closed doors and by its order, the then executive officer of the
corporation…...).
Ayyar adds that the sanketam
prohibited the pursuit of trades such as toddy tapping, barter systems, and settlement
of Muslims at Pallavur, as an example. In the case of Vaikom, they could even
award a death penalty by hanging, and it is said that before hoisting the flag
at the annual temple festival the committee had to ensure that those convicted
by them of murder within the Sanketam, were
hanged. People leaving the sanketam
for any reason had to come back for the important festivals or they were deemed
dead and their obsequies were performed by their relatives. During such
festivals, activities such as paddy threshing, roofing, fence repairs, paddy
husking etc. were prohibited. To ensure higher attendance, free food was
provided to the people of the sanketam.
The temple flag was hoisted only after hearing all complaints an ensuring that
not a single one remained unaddressed. In case a major crime was committed in a
sanketam, (and presumably unresolved)
the sanketam was dissolved and all
festivals cancelled (but routine worship continued). Sometimes the temple flag was
not hoisted for petty issues, such as a situation where a nambudiri girl’s marriage
was delayed (if delayed beyond a year following puberty). In 1725 at Calicut a
man was sentenced to death at Tali, his lands were confiscated and his house
roof knocked down by the elephant.
In case the Melkoyma
or the sovereign was indifferent to an offence, he had to pay a fine to the sanketam. In the case of his collusion
with the offender, the Yogam of the sanketam resorted to passive resistance
known as pattini or fasting. Numerous
documented cases exist and a few of them are connected to the Elankunnapuzha sanketam. The pattini itself was a peculiar system lasting eight days (during the
13th century). A grand feast would be prepared each day in the
temple. The Brahmins would sit in front of the banana leaf and dishes would be
served. Just before the starting of eating, the melshanti (chief priest) or Yogatirippad
would call the attention of those seated for the resolution from the yogam. Immediately they would all stand
up and walk out without eating. The intention was perhaps not ‘fast unto death’
as some historians mention, but according to Ayyar, it was intended originally to
generate intense fire or Jatharagni inside
the body by the hunger pangs and use it as a spiritual or psychic weapon.
To understand the workings in the sanketams, one has to primarily understand that everything was done in the name of the lord and so a good amount of religious fervor existed in actions. After the last worship, the daily income and expenditure of the sanketam was read out before the lord. The ultimate sovereignty rested with an assembly called the yogam or sabha (parish) consisting of the family heads in the village, meeting once a year to elect the uraler (ur village, alar administrators) committee, to fix festival dates, create special committees, induct new families into the yogam, to receive endowments, to appoint the chief priest, the new velichappad (oracle) etc. The yogatiri usually an ascetic was the head of the yogam, and the chief priest. Interestingly, the pura koyma or sanketam protectors according to KVK Ayyar were originally Brahmin, but with their dwindling numbers, the Sanketam resorted to seeking support from the local chieftain. Some historians mentions that Yogam is common in Malabar, while Sabha as a term was more relevant to Travancore. The velichappad was a powerful character in those times, for when possessed, it was believed that the lord was talking through the man himself and so his pronouncement was final! As time went by, the yogam was reduced to just the uralar families or sometimes just one family.
To understand the workings in the sanketams, one has to primarily understand that everything was done in the name of the lord and so a good amount of religious fervor existed in actions. After the last worship, the daily income and expenditure of the sanketam was read out before the lord. The ultimate sovereignty rested with an assembly called the yogam or sabha (parish) consisting of the family heads in the village, meeting once a year to elect the uraler (ur village, alar administrators) committee, to fix festival dates, create special committees, induct new families into the yogam, to receive endowments, to appoint the chief priest, the new velichappad (oracle) etc. The yogatiri usually an ascetic was the head of the yogam, and the chief priest. Interestingly, the pura koyma or sanketam protectors according to KVK Ayyar were originally Brahmin, but with their dwindling numbers, the Sanketam resorted to seeking support from the local chieftain. Some historians mentions that Yogam is common in Malabar, while Sabha as a term was more relevant to Travancore. The velichappad was a powerful character in those times, for when possessed, it was believed that the lord was talking through the man himself and so his pronouncement was final! As time went by, the yogam was reduced to just the uralar families or sometimes just one family.
The Ward and Connor survey of 1800 mentions that associated
with almost every major temple ("Mahaakshethrams")
in Kerala, there existed a high-power committee called "Yogam"; and
also a "Sanketham", described as a "Temple Kingdom"
("Ambala-raajyam").
We should also take note here that in the 17th
century, Sanketam rights were granted
to the Konkani’s who settled in Cochin. In 1627 A.D, Vira Kerala Varma Raja of
Cochin gave the Konkanis certain rights and privileges such as exemption from
payment of Purushantharam or
succession fee, permission to construct houses with bricks, mortar and wood and
also to conduct business from Cochin with foreign countries. Again in 1648 A.D,
the Raja of Cochin, Vira Kerala Varma, gave the community the civil and
criminal powers to be exercised by them within the well-defined boundary of
their Gosripuram (Cochin Thirumala) settlement called ‘Sanketam’.
A classic case of the power of the sanketam and the rules followed by them is illustrated by the Vanjeri Granthavari as related to the Trikkandiyur sanketam where the Vanjeri Nampi was the main uraler. In this case, they did have a sanketam, but not the changatham
or protection force. This was provided on request by the Zamorin as the Vettath
raja himself was a feudatory under the Zamorin’s suzerainty. The Santekam ruled according to a set Sanketamaryada. In this issue, the
Karippuram nambudiri was stabbed to death by a member of the urakattu (he
happened to be a military man working for the Zamorin’s family). The fellow was
captured soon after and the necessary permission to mete out justice was
obtained from the Zamoirn. The Kovil nampi or Vettath Raja could not attend,
for some reason and the culprit was put to death. The desamaryada rules are
also well illustrated in the records obtained from Trikkandiyur. We will get to
the many stories related to the Trikkandiyur temple another day for it is a
large topic by itself.
Davis explains - References
to the desamaryada from the Vanjeri records show that it was simply held to be
the law of locality, without any reference to any other system or source of
law. There are no references to specific dharma texts or any other set of
written legal rules. We should not expect any because the influence of
dharmasastra occurred primarily through the medium of Brahmins, who determined
the law based on their interpretations, not invocations of dharmasastra.
As time went by and the British took over with a formal
justice and administration system, the sanketams
died a death, while the Dewasom board taking care of regional temple
administration remained, absorbing smaller
sanketams. But until then, the sanketam
was a unique institution in the various principalities of Kerala.
References
Theocracy in medieval Kerala – KV Krishna Ayyar
A history of Kerala – KV Krishna Ayyar
The Cochin state manual – C Achyutha Menon
The temple states of Kerala – KV Krishna Ayyar (paper - 10th
oriental conference)
The control of the king over temples in Ancient India – M B
Voyce, Dunedin
State and society in Pre-modern South India – Ed R
Champakalakshmi, Kesavan veluthat, TR Venugopalan
The Annamanada case – Gilles Tarabout
Calicut: The City of Truth Revisited - MGS Narayanan
Property relations and family forms in Colonial Keralam - Susan
Thomas
Recovering the indigenous legal traditions of India:
classical Hindu law in practice in late Medieval Kerala - Donald R Davis Jr
University of Calicut - State and society in Kerala, BA
political science 6th semester, core course
Notes
Extensive
background on these matters, especially the development of temple communities
and temple authority can be obtained by perusing Kesavan Veluthat’s ‘the early
medieval in South India’ and ‘Kerala Charitram’ by Raghava Warrier and Rajan
Gurukkal, as well as ‘the state in the era of the Cheraman Perumals of Kerala’
by MGS Narayanan. Donald Davis’s extensive study demonstrates the evolution of
the prevailing legal practice in the sanketam
from early mimamsa texts and their
application by the Nambuthiri’s, with or without involvement of the local
chieftain or suzerain, the role of “custom” in the medieval law of Malabar and
the role of the Kovil nampi in meting out punishment. Susan Thomas’s thesis
provides an in depth review on temple formation, temple communities, social
development and administration in early Malabar.
Sometimes the term Tattakam
was used in place of Sanketam and
many authors spell Sanketam as Samketam. Note here that the village is
actually the state, and not the temple while the annual temple festival was considered
as the annual renewal of allegiance. In Pallavur we still conduct the Desakkali and Navaratri Vilakku which are by convention mandatory for all village
members.
2 comments:
Manmadhan sir,
Nice post, now a frequent follower of your writings , though bit late ,I appreciate and admire and put on record the pain you taking for going through all research materials, kudos to you
With regard to this post , I can summarise this way , a collusion of Nair muscle power and namboothiri brain power to create a mechanism which is beneficial for both of them ,
You can also construe it as mechanism where threatened parties could find solace without having any life threat , thus put forward his point to a system managed by gods own people
Being history we can only perceive , reality could be different
Thanks Jayan
methods of power and society formation, in a nutshell....
Post a Comment