Prasad Dilemma: Temple politics
We often hear about the slogan: politicizing religion and communalizing politics. But doing politics with temples is not new, not only in India but in the rest of the world. This goes back to ancient history in most of civilization. We need not talk about Ancient worlds like Greek, Egypt, Romans etc.1 Here in India also temples played a crucial role in politics. In fact, temples were created not exclusively for religious purposes but most of the time for economic and political purposes using religion as the means.
Several kings constructed grand temples [like that of Raja Rajan in Tanjore] and gave lots of land grants for their maintenance [known as ‘Devadanam’ like ‘Brahma deya’ lands given to Brahmins]. But most of the time, this was done not to show his devotion or generosity but to extend his economic and political domination. Several scholars have done excellent research on this subject. Few points are sufficed here:
…The temple is not only the center of cultural religious life which we all know but also the center of economic life, social life, political life. Don’t say don’t politicize religion. Who built the temples, who ruled the countries, maharajas in India built strong buildings as temples. Hindu maharajas had a humbler dwelling, only when the moguls came they used big buildings, so today there are remnants even the Hoysala kingdom, (p.285) Halebeedu, Somanathapuram, all these are temples and not palaces….— Swami Amalorananda, Atma Purna Anubhava, Anjali Ashram, Mysore, 2000, pp.285-86
…After the Gupta period, the impetus for such artistic and religious creativity came primarily from the regional dynasties of India. In Orissa in the east, there was an era of temple construction in Bhubaneswar (8th-11th centuries); nearby at Konark the famous temple of the Sun was built (13th century). The temples of Khajuraho were patronized by the Candella kings of central India (11th century). In the west, the rock-cut temple at Ellora was created during the Rashtrakuta dynasty (8th-9th centuries). In the south, the seaside temples of Mahabalipuram were built under the patronage of the Pallavas (7th-9th centuries); Tajore was built by the Colas (11th century); Vijayanagar was built by refugees from the north during the Muslim invasions (16th century); and Madurai (p.39) was built by the Nayak kynasty (17th century)….— Diana L. Eck, Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in INDIA, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1996, pp.39-40
One can find so many important information further on temples and their role in Michael Willis, The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the establishment of the Gods, Cambridge, 2009
But my point here is how temples still continue to serve the same purpose in modern times. The recent best example is Ram Lala’s temple in Ayodhya. We all know well all the politics behind it and there is no point in mentioning it again here. But my point is how it also boosts not only the local economy and State but will continue to contribute to so many other developments providing job opportunities to many in the days to come. In fact, the income in few famous temples like Tirupati Balaji temple (now has to compete with Ram Lala to retain that status) and the gold reserves that many temples hold with them [like Padbhanabha temple in Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala] is a well known facts. Devotees go there not only to have the darshan of their Bhagavan and pay back their debt to him by offering so many things [money, materials etc.] but also provides economic opportunity to so many local people, even to the temple priests by providing various private religious services to the votaries. Sometimes Gods were harassed when they failed to bring more collection to the temple. I heard this but I am not sure if it is practised in Tirupati. When there is shortage in everyday collection to the temple coffer, then the Image of Balaji that is used for taking Him out during religious events in processions, will be put in a golden chain and made Him to sit in the Sun. Of course, now considering the rush and huge income, there will always be surplus in the temple coffer.
The reason for me to bring this point here is to highlight the economic side of temple rituals. In the case of Corinthian, the meat sold in the market or used in the ‘temple operated’ restaurant could be for the same economic reason. I don’t know about it. But in India this is a fact. Take for example breaking coconut. As I have pointed out, when a devotee breaks coconut when his/her vow is fulfilled as ‘chatur thengai’ in Ganapathi temple, most cases they were left behind for the poor and needy to collect for them. In a few cases, like Manika Vinayagar temple in Trichy, they were sold. Whereas when a single coconut is offered to the deity in sanctum, half of the broken coconut will be returned to the votary as prasad and rest the priest will keep for him. And my point is to highlight that that portion which a priest takes back to home won’t be considered as Prasad or distributed freely to his neighbours. Of course, his wife would sometimes do that. If lots of coconut comes, they will extract oil for their needs. Most of the time they will be used in the kitchen or make coconut oil for their personal needs. Or in a few cases, the priest on his way back home, might exchange some of them to get vegetables from the vendor. The vendor, on his part, will make them in small pieces and sell to those who want to buy only a few pieces of coconut for their immediate need. Even today one can see such small pieces of coconut selling in shops. Now none of them will be considered as Prasad by anyone.
If the same logic is applied in the Corinthian situation, then where is the need for raising any question regarding the meat either bought in the market or cooked for commercial purpose in a temple operated restaurant. Suppose if I were in Corinthian as a new bhakta of the Lord and if Sevanand, seeing me eating in a temple operated restaurant [of course not meat] and saying ‘don’t hesitate to enjoy your meal. Everything is from God’, I would say, ‘This is not from God but from the kitchen of the restaurant. I am paying for this. Once sold and bought, either for home or hotel, it ceases to remain as an offering to God.’ That is the Indian context. I am not sure whether the temple freely distributed that meat to that hotel. Even if that is the case, as they are running a restaurant to get some income through that sale, then the food cooked along with the temple meant won’t remain a prasad in Indian context.
Of course, in India, most of the temples will sell their own prasad. But none can resell them and still claim it as a Prasad. Sevanand is not talking about any temple operated restaurant. In his context the temple meat even after selling in the market to get some income for the temple could still remain considered a thing offered to that temple deity. If the same meat is sold in the same temple premises to generate some income, then it could be like Prasad sold in the temple in India, which only the visitors of that temple could buy. Whereas in the market anyone can buy anything. If the same meat is cooked and sold within the temple premises then it could still remain as prasad. But at least this is not clearly mentioned by Sevanand but only Bailey says. As a Middle Eastern Scholar as he says, then it should be true. But once sold in a hotel where anybody can eat, then it won’t remain a thing offered to that deity.
So the temple is not only the centre of a city [in ancient times, cities developed only around the temple and further extended outer areas], but played a central role in people’s life addressing their religious, spiritual, ritual, social, political and economic needs. So one need to keep all these points in mind when she approaches any issue related eating Prasad, particularly here in India
Notes
1 The temple was the center of culture, economy and society in Syria, Mesopotamia and Israel….[2 CHRONICLES, 2:24]— John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, p. 445,
Appendix
Skandagupta, like all the patrons encountered in these pages, wanted his temple to last as a monument and religious institution. The long-term viability of his temple—as with all temples—rested on its permanence and ongoing authority as a socio-economic entity….— Michael Willis, The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the establishment of the Gods, Cambridge, 2009. op. cit. p. ., 150
The king, according to our model, established new estates to strengthen his political networks and to benefit his economy and his treasury…For all this to happen, the king’s ability to intervene in land-tenure was crucial….—ibid. 164
The inscriptions in temples had a different agenda apart from the religious, as archives of economic, political, and cultural transactions, the mundane concerns of a complex society.— Champakalakshmi, Religion, Tradition, and Ideology: Pre-colonial South India, Oxford, New Delhi (2011), 2012, pp. 35
…Hence, society presents itself as organized around the temple, through a variety of economic, ritual and administrative activities….—ibid. p. 237
The focus of political and economic power seems to have shifted from the brahmadeya in the Pallava-Pandya period to the temple in the Cola period….—ibid. p. 554 [Later when Brahmins moved away from their land, they were converted as ‘Deva Danam’ and given to the temple for both economics and political purpose.–db]
…The south Indian temple manifested itself in a variety of roles—as the nucleus of a small rural settlement; as the pivot of socio-economic life; as one of the bases of agrarian expansion and urban development; as a force of integration for brining together, into an accepted cultural system, social and economic groups from different ecological and ethnic backgrounds; as a symbol of royal power and political integration….—ibid. p. 574
…{State} used different strategies to tap the pre-existing infra-structural facilities of a region for restructuring the economy and society through the temple…..—‘Ideology and the State in South India,’ in ibid. p. 636
Moreover, temple worship, which was seen as detrimental to social and economic progress, has proved to be an economically profitable enterprise in India and the diaspora, rather than a liability.— Sharada Sugirtha Rajah, Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Reprint, Special Indian Edition, (2003) Reprint 2017, p. 133
Often ‘ruling chieftains build and control popular cultic shrines and pilgrimage centres’ as it gave ‘religious sanction and popular backing for their political power’, as ‘purity and power are two inseparable categories’.(p.134)….— Vijay Nath, Puranas and Acculturation: A Historico-Anthropological Perspective, Munshirma Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2001, pp.134
Given the opulence of large temples, the wealth stored in them required protection, but the temple was also a statement of political authority when built by a ruler.— Romila Thapar, Syndicated Hinduism Critical Quest, New Delhi, 2010. [Originally published in Gunther-Dietz Sontheimer & Herman Kulke edited Hinduism Revised, Delhi, Manohar (2005). p. 14
Leave a Reply