Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.
http://www.jstor.org
ARJUN APPADURAI
University
ofPennsylvania
limits
Cross-cultural
In a recentMalinowski lecture,Maurice Bloch (I977) has criticisedClifford
Geertzforexaggeratingtheextentto whichparticularculturesmightperceive
Man(N.S.) i6, 20I-I9
The Indiancase
The case of Hindu India is interesting partlybecause (like Islamic,Buddhist
and pre-modern European societies) it combines featuresof small-scale
societies(in mattersof rank,ritualand kinship)withothersthatassumelarge-
scale organisation,temporaldepth,literacyand civilisationalcomplexity.As
Bloch has wittilyputit,Indiais an excellentcase of 'too much'socialstructure,
infinitehierarchyand a superabundanceof the past in the present.The con-
structionof thepast in the southIndiantemplediscussedbelow is notnecess-
arilyparadigmaticof Indiansocietyas a whole, butitmaycertainly be takenas
an importantexample.
In the particularsouth Indian templewhich I studied,fivenormsserveto
provide the culturalframeworkwithinwhich the chartersof specificsub-
groups are constructed,defendedand mutuallyevaluated: i. that textual
evidenceforthe authorityof any charteris superiorto any otherkind;2. that
the evidencefora charteroughtto involvetheratification of a credibleexternal
authoritativefigure(whethersacred or secular)in the past; 3. thatthe charter
should be based on an authoritativedocumentthatencodes(in additionto the
claims of thegroup in question)theprivilegesof a maximumnumberof other
relevantgroups;4. thatthe evidenceforthe charterin questionshould be re-
in thedocumentedpast,and 5. thatthe
flected,as faras possible,continuously
greaterthe antiquity of the charterin question,the betterthe
of the referents
case forthe rightsin question.It appearsas well thattheabove fivenormsare
indigenouslyconceivedsuch thattheystandin an orderof decreasingpower:
thusthefirstis theleastdispensableand thelast,themost.
When one describesnormssuch as these,it is especiallyimportantto relate
how theyare accessibleto the ethnographer. They are by no meansexplicit.
The state
In 1973-74, when I conductedfieldwork,the Governmentof the State of
Tamil Natu (previouslyMadras State) was the dominantforcein temple
politics. Representatives of the Hindu Religiousand CharitableEndowments
(Administration)Department(hereafterthe f1RCE Department)controlled
the bureaucraticapparatusof theTemple: thesupervisionof templefinances,
the paymentof temple-servants, thelogisticaloperationof theritualcalendar.
They consistedof an ExecutiveOfficer,a Superintendent and a small clerical
staff.This bureaucraticphalanx occupied a small set of officeswithinthe
Temple precinctsfromwhichtheyconductedoperationsvitalto themanage-
mentof theTemple.
The positionof theserepresentatives of the Statewas neithercomfortable
nor unanimouslyapproved. The HRCE Departmenthad come to exercise
administrative and legal controlover the Temple only afterI948, and in the
subsequent decades they had been vigorouslyopposed (in Court) by local
members of the Tenkalai community.This protractedlegal battleended in
favour of the State in I968, but even in I973 therewere a numberof local
Tenkalai Brahminswho wereplanninga renewedlegalbattleagainsttheState.
At the same time, the local representatives of the Statewere hardlyviewed
with sympathyby the priests.The thengovernmentof the Statehad com-
menced a frontalassault on the ritualand economic privilegesof temple-
priests, a matterthat had raised delicate legal and constitutional issues of
'religious freedom.'The local priests,therefore, were openly hostileto the
representatives of the State.The threeState-appointed trusteesof theTemple
representedthebroad Tenkalaiconstitutency of thecityof Madras. Although
they owed theirappointmentsto Statepatronage,theynevertheless resented
day-to-dayinterference by theofficialsof theStatein themanagementof the
affairsof the Temple. In fact by I973 the trusteeship,on'ce a positionof
considerableprestigeand power, had become a purelydecorativeoffice,de-
void of possibilitiesforpatronage-distribution,becauseof thetightday-to-day
supervision of the State. Nevertheless,as in all segmentedpolities, rep-
Non-Brahmin worshippers
The non-Brahmincommunityinterested in theSri PartasaratiSvami Temple,
like its Brahmincounterpart, is large,spatiallyspreadover Madras City,and
socially highlysegmented.It includeswealthynon-Brahmindonors to the
Temple, powerfuland politicallywell-connectednon-Brahmintrustees,as
well as a largebody of poor and relativelydisenfranchised non-Brahminwor-
shippers,residentin and aroundTriplicane.It is thislastsetof non-Brahmins,
who have been explicitlyconcernedwiththeirrightsqua non-Brahmins, with
which I am here concerned.This group providesthe mass of worshippers
(sevartikal)duringdailyand calendricalfestivals.
Startingin the I940's, and continuingup to thepresent,a looselyorganised
group of thesenon-Brahminworshippers(consistinglargelyoflowermiddle-
class Telugu migrantsto Madras City) has conducteda vigorouscampaign
againstwhat theyperceiveas discrimination againstthemin keypublicaspects
of temple-ritual.In theprocess,theyhave antagonisednumerousothergroups
in theTemple, but, mostimportantly, theyhave provokedthehostility of the
Tenkalai Brahminswho monopolisetherecitation of thePrabandhamhymnsin
daily ritual.Further,thesenon-Brahminprotestsin theearlyI960's provided
yet anotherpretextforthe extensionof Statecontrolover thetemple,in the
role of mediator.
In the last threedecades, the protestsof non-Brahminworshippersto the
temple-trustees and to theState,have focusedon a seriesof practiceshavingto
do with the distributionof the sacredleavingsof the deity(honours)to the
congregation,at fixedmomentsduringthedailyritualoutsidethesanctum.In
these criticalpublic aspectsof the redistributive process,thesenon-Brahmins
felt that they were systematicallydiscriminatedagainst and publiclydis-
honoured. It is importantto understandthese complaintsin theirspecific
culturalcontext,fortheysuggesthow powerfulspecifictransactions withthe
deity can be, even when they are not explicitlylinked to property,officeor
emoluments.
Justas sharesin the divineleavingsdemarcatespecialrightsand rolesin the
contextof worship,so also theycan serveto symbolisetheunity,identity and
essentialequalityof theentirecongregation.It is thislatteraspectof thedaily
distributionthatthesenon-Brahminworshippersfeltwas being deliberately
subverted.They complainedof threespecificmalpractices:i) whilethetirttam
(holy water) was given to the assembledBrahminsin one vessel,it was then
The sharedpast
Naturallythesethreeversionsof thepast,heldby threedistinctand important
groups at the Sri PartasaratiSvami Temple, do not exhausethe'pasts' of the
communityas a whole. Limitationsof space have preventedme fromdealing
with the special and fascinating
case of thepriestsat theTemple, who consti-
tutea distinctinterestgroup in thepoliticsof theTemple, and whose current
isolationfrompower is closelylinkedto thepeculiarand separatesourcesfrom
which theyderivetheirown textualmandate.They do, however,constitute
the threemost highlydetailed,explicitlyheld and publiclydiscussedcharters
of thepastin theTemple. Particularworshippers, donors,trusteesand temple-
servants, depending on the context,are likely to propose simpler,more
NOTES
REFERENCES