Padmanabhaswamy Temple
Q/A By My Inquisitive Mind
I am a law student who is about to wear black and white. So before I make my personal point of views with an agnostic approach I present the following keynote.
‘Being a part of the legal fraternity, I respect the Supreme Court verdict that upholds the rights of the former owners of Padmanabhaswamy Temple by quashing the 2011 verdict of the Kerala High Court.’
On an appeal to SC, the appellant family are now vested with the administration of the centuries-old heritage site. Thereby, the judgment ensures the family a prominent leadership role by reinstating the centuries-old traditions of the Temple and also conforming to the religious sentiments of believers by reconfirming the site as a ‘Public Property’.’
In connection with this subject, I have a few doubts and their corresponding answers arisen out of my rationality.
Following are the queries and answers.
1. Whether the family in dispute solely qualifies to have a prominent voice in the temple affairs and management?
Well, my rational mind says ‘No’. The reason for that traces back to history. The family in dispute was the ruling house of the Travancore region. They established themselves as the monarchs and reigned for centuries. People were programmed to consider them as their legislative, executive and judiciary. We all know how a government works, the treasury is mainly maintained through the tax system. Similarly, a major source of finance of the Travancore Family was powered by the taxes imposed on the people. Needless to say, there had even been a weird form of tax such as ‘Breast Tax’ or ‘Mulakkaram’.
Even though there are no explicit or absolute rights for people in a monarchy, in a utopian or democratic sense we can interpret that taxpayers of the then Travancore also have the right over Padmanabhaswamy Temple which was claimed to be seized or constructed by the rulers of Travancore in the 16th century. With respect to this point, even the treasure sealed within the thick walls and vaults of the temple qualifies to be public wealth.
Also, ever since the legal dispute started, the high-security expenses and other paraphernalia related to the temple affairs were incurred solely from the Government treasury. De facto, this gives taxpayers an indirect right over the Temple.
2. Whether all these sentiments behind the importance of ancestral customs associated with the family in the legal dispute a mere facade?
I feel this is nothing but a mere facade. We live in a country where people fear to question theological beliefs, norms and customs. If these flavours are blended in well with the personal interests then the arguments can thrive effectively. Ultimately, it is the hunger for power and ownership that stand high.
3. Whether this furore in support of the power shift a sign of class hierarchy that still prevails within the minds of laymen?
Over time, I realise class hierarchy is a deeply-rooted phenomenon in the minds of human beings. Some are still immune to empowering changes in the world. I feel people still have a sense of respect and awe towards certain outdated systems and structures.
I still come across people who say,
‘She is a Brahmin, no wonder why she looks so elegant and bright.’
‘He has regal blood. He is born to be a leader.’
‘His father is a music wizard, he is going to be the next.’
Although things look so much better now than how it used to be years and centuries ago, there are people who tend to make such toxic and prejudiced remarks.
Still, there exist many who consider themselves inferior to the above-stated family in the legal dispute. Somewhere in their mind they idolise and worship them. They enjoy being the subjects of the monarchs who once ruled their land. Withdrawal symptoms maybe!
4. Whether the above-stated family in the legal dispute qualifies to be addressed as ‘Royal Family’ anymore?
You might have wondered why have I repeatedly used the term ‘the family in legal dispute’ throughout this passage. Well, because I believe ‘Royal Family’ is a benighted usage. The term ‘Royal’ in connection with the family in the legal dispute seems to be rather odd. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the term ‘Royal’ means ‘having the status of a king or queen of a member of their family.’ In the land of democracy, we will live in there is no king or queen. On the day the democracy replaced the monarchy these terms turned obsolete on paper. Don’t just preach the motto by Abraham Lincoln ‘Government of the People, by the people, for the people’ for fun sake. We all should make it clear through our words and actions that, we are the rulers of the land we are domiciled in as along we have the suffrage.
I rest my case.
