‘Māmul’ and Modernity in a South Indian Temple

Abstract

In the first week of January 1951, the Raja of Ettaiyapuram was combating the forces of modernity on three fronts. In Madras High Court, he was filing a writ petition questioning the legality of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1948, which came into force on 3 January and authorized the government to take over his zamindari estate.Zamindar of Ettayapuram v. The State of Madras, Civil Miscellaneous Petition no. 13388 of 1950. Simultaneously, Tirunelveli District Court was hearing a case brought in his capacity as hereditary Trustee of Kalugumalai Devastanam, seeking to prevent the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (HRE) Board from assuming administrative control of the temple and appointing one of its employees as Executive Officer.Zamindar of Ettayaparum vs. Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Original Suit 22 of 1949, later Appeal Suit No. 462 of 1951 in Madras High Court. The ‘Devastanam’ is the administrative organization of the temple. Meanwhile, he had two further law-suits pending in Kovilpatti Munsif's Court, questioning the authority of the newly-formed Kalugumalai Panchayat Board on the grounds that the entire town was temple property.O.S. No. 252 and O.S. 253 of 1950.

Filing Religion

“… 8 In the words ofBéteille (1994: 561), if 'secularism is an ideology, then secularization is not the outcome of that ideology alone, but also of a variety of material forces.' See alsoSelvam (1997),Kaviraj (2000),Good (2001).In India, this is made explicit by9 For instanceMani (1998),Singha (1998),Mukhopadhyay (2006). AsSingha (1998: xi) remarks, 'these studies have undermined simple polarities between the "traditional" and the "modern" or the "introduced".'…”