c t 5 'the i of- o:::jil,c:jto.,.i :i...
TRANSCRIPT
C hap t e r 5 ~ 'THE I t-'"F'~"T OF- O:::JIL,c:Jto.,.I :I AL
JD I S;C::c:)L,~n:::::iSE CJr',J'"l"~-"E::: 1I:::::~:n: (=lilI""'f"lr:~:; i:::::I~','[D
~~INTS OF :oe::v~I :[I".~r.a IN
Fi~~ :DISTF..::IC"r
Introduction
The last chapter examined colonial discourse on the
devadasi question. One demand on the agenda of the
movement was a bill proposed by Dr. S. Muthulakshmi
Reddi, in the year 1927 in the Legislative Council
seeking to abolish the devadasi system. The only way
this could be dane, it was discovered after much
deliberation between the colonial government and the
abolitionists, was by enfranchising the inam lands
that devadasis held thus freeing these women from the
condition of service and in effect eliminating what
the abolitionists believed was the rea50n for their
dependence on the temple and adherence to custom. [1]
This final chapter examines the rights and
constraints of devadasi inams that were documented by
the colonial government in response to the agenda of
the movement for social reform.[2] In the process,
we will also look at the operation of classical
political economy and its linkages with reform. This
is important for our purposes because the derivation
of ideological roots in the agenda of reform is
closely tied to the organisation and
utilitarian economics. As with earlier state
formations where women's rights in land were
carefully defined by their relationship to the state,
so also with the colonial state. This chapter will
examine the nature of women's imbrication in the
agrarian structure with reference to the Ramnad
district of Tamilnadu.
This district provides a particularly interesting
picture because, unlike fertile paddy cultivating
Tanjavur, hitherto believed to be the centre of
temple worship and artistic traditions, Ramnad is a
dry drought prone area with a network of temple
service and agrarian resources that are particularly
nondescript, if viewed in terms set by places like
Tanjavur. It therefore proves our point raised in
the first two chapters that not only was there a
polarisation of temple women to two extremes, there
was also a total lack of uniformity even within the
temples of the Great Tradition. After looking at
colonial government records on the rights and
constraints of devadasi inams in Ramnad district, can
we still speak of the universality of The Devadasi
Heritage, or are there in fact many histories, each
specific to its wider context? It might also be
interesting to see who the women were, who were
addressed by social reformers, and who were the women
~-r L~~
who were actually affected by the measures initiated
by reform?
Ra.nad District: A Background
Ramnad district was constituted in 1910 by
reorganising seven talukys from Madura and two taluks
from Tinnevelly district.[3J It was bounded by the
districts of Madurai, Trichinopoly, Tanjore,
Tinnevelly with the Bay of Bengal and the Gulf of
Mannar forming the coastal boundary. The nine taluks
that constituted the Ramnad district were Sattur,
Srivilliputtur, Aruppukottai, Paramakudi,
Mudukulathur, Ramnad, Sivaganga, Tirupattur and
Tiruvadanai.
Physical conditions render a large part of this
district uncultivable. It is part of a vast plain
stretching from the western Ghats to the Bay of
Bengal. While the soil is red in most of the
district, black cotton soil is found in the southern
corner, i.e., the region covered by Sattur,
Srivilliputtur, Mudukulathur and Ramnad taluks. Sand
dunes and swamps characterise the coast line. Parts
of Tiruvadanai, Ramnad and Mudukulathur are also
covered by alluvial soils suitable for paddy
cultivation, using water primarily from river fed
tanks. The period between 1921 and 1931 witnessed
236
the highest rates of population growth in Madras
Presidency when compared to earlier period. The
increase in Ramnad district was 7 per cent while that
of the Presidency as a whole, 10.4 percent.
Significant growth rates in population in Ramnad
district appear to have taken place in the taluks of
Tirupattur, Tiruvadanai, Paramakudi, Mudukulathur and
Ramnad taluks.
Badrinarayanan and Rajendran suggest that this sudden
increase in population in Madras Presidency could
perhaps be attributed to the absence of widespread
famines and diseases and overall improvement in
health and sanitary conditions. This being the inter
war period, increased immigration from southeast Asia
owing to the Great Depression and its impact on the
plantation economy of those countries would be a
significant cause of population growth.
Ramnad district was divided into three divisions
for revenue administration. They were:
i) Devakottai division: Tirupattur, Sivaganga
and Tiruvadanai taluks.
ii) Sivakasi division: Srivilliputtur, Sattur
and Aruppukottai taluks;
iii) Ramnad division: Paramakudi;
Mudukulathur and Ramnad taluks.
The ryotwari zamindari and inam tenures were
237
prevalent in Ramnad district. The Ramnad and
Sivaganga zamindaris spanned a major part of the
district. The inam tenure existed both within the
zamindari and outside it. Sattur and Srivilliputtur
taluks were governed by ryotwari tenures.
Three modes of organisation of production are
clearly discernible in Ramnad district.
Waram and Lease.
Adumai,
Adumai involved land cultivated by the landlords' own
adumaiyal or farm servants <also known as pannaiyal).
The adumaiyals' families were permanently attached to
the landlord and paid less for their labour than the
hired labourer. These adumaiyals worked under the
supervision either of the owner or his agent. For
transportation and harvest, extra labour was hired on
a daily wage basis.
The waram tenure, which was found in most estates
in Ramnad, involved a sharing of produce between
tenants and landlords,
actual cultivator. In
the tenant here being the
most cases, cultivation,
desilting of channels, lowering of land level,
trimming of bunds etc. were to be undertaken at the
landlords expense. He also had to bear a share of
the cost of manure that varied from total cost to
three-fourth share, never less. From the gross
produce, deductions were first made for regular
238
village expenses and the waram tenure was applied to
the remaining produce. The waram varied from one
fifth to half depending among other factors on the
availability of labour and fertility of land.
Beneficial tenures of various kinds existed in
Tamil Nadu, and could be broadly classified into
four classes. The first class comprised the
sarvamanyam, ekabhogam or agraharam grants. These
lands were held free of all assessment. This kind of
inam was generally granted either in favour of
religious and charitable institutions, or in favour
of learned and pious persons, or in favour of decayed
noble families.
The second class comprised the ardhamanyam,
chaturbhagam, muppatikabadi, and tribhagam lands that
were all held on partial assessment.
The third class comprised lands held subject to
the payment of a light quit rent or jodi, the benefit
the grantee derived being the difference between full
assessment and the favourable assessment imposed on
them.
The fourth class of lands granted were those
held on payment of rent in grain, known as (a)
Nelkuttagai or land charged with a fixed payment of
grain below the full assessment, the grain rent being
paid in money at the average current selling price of
239
the year; and (b) Patam lands or wet lands which paid
a low assessment in grain.C4]
Temples were the major foci of land grant
networks in Tamil Nadu, and were central to the
functioning of a dominantly agrarian economy. Large
areas of land were owned by temples in Nellore
district and in Tirupati,CS] and these lands
constituted their primary resources. Stein
identifies two functions served by temple lands.
One, to yield an income with which to maintain a
specified ritual service in the name of the donor and
second, to provide a productive place to invest funds
granted to the temple for the performance of services
in the name of the donor. Temples with a surplus
income maintained community wells, tanks, choultries
and maths in many villages in the district.C6J In
Nellore district temples were shown to provide
employment to labourers in the lean agricultural
seasons by undertaking development activities like
stone quarrying, sinking of wells, digging and
bunding of tanks, damming streams, excavating canals,
and fencing, levelling and bunding agricultural
lands. [7J
There are roughly twenty-one major temples both
Saivite and Vaisnavite) in Ramnad district which
owned assets both in land and jewellery.CSJ Between
24(2)
the years 1509 and 1568, one hundred and fifteen
villages were granted to the Tirupati temple in
perpetuity.[91 Each of these temples gave grants or
inams to its servants in lieu of service. This
practice continued into the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.
These grants varied according to the degree of
benefit intended to be conferred on the inamdar. The
grant could be one of the whole revenue, or part of
the revenue or of land subject to a cash payment.
Among the beneficiaries, female temple servants
(popularly known as 'devadasis') constituted a
sizeable section.
241
Devadasi Ina.s in Ra.nad District
The nature of inams given to devadasis differed.
Some were given sarva manyams, others were given
inams that consisted of land revenue only, some had
rights only to the kudiwaram while yet others enjoyed
both shares. The nature of endowment was probably
linked to the nature of service. This is of course
too obvious to be stated, but also important because
the link between the two has not been made explicit
in any of the documents. Medieval epigraphic records
and colonial land records suggest that there were
different classes (perhaps different castesJ of
devadasis ranging from those hired for a fixed salary
to perform menial chores in temples to those who were
artists - singers and/or dancers- attached to the
temple, to those who were dedicated to the "lesser"
gods and goddesses of the non sanskritic tradition.
But what appears to be more or less common to all
devadasis is that they had to go through the
dedication ceremony, which placed certain ritual
obligations and constraints on them and conferred
certain privileges. This section will concentrate on
a descriptive analysis of inam lands held by
devadasis and their kin in Ramnad district.(10J
Vijayamanickam was an unsurveyed sarvamanyam
village originally gifted by the Karnataka Rajas but
242
now part of the Sivaganga zamindary. There is a
discrepant version which says that from time
immemorial, there has been a classification of inams
in the village -- ayyanar manibam, ambala manibam,
kanakku manibam, thoti manibam, etc. -- with rent
paid in the shape of paddy or tax for use of foliage
for the fields (kulaivettu). The total extent of the
village was approximately 78.75 acres of wet land and
49.28 acres of dry land. Although this was the total
extent of the village, only half the village had been
cultivated. There were many impediments to fruitful
cultivation in this village. For one thing, there
were not enough tenants to cultivate the land in
cases where the village admitted of cultivation.
Secondly, the soil was so poor that it could not be
cultivated. Thirdly, irrigation facilities in the
village were dismal.
source of irrigation.
Rain water provided the main
There was no permanent supply
channel to Vijayamanickam as the original channel had
been obstructed by influential and rich tenants on
the upper course, namely, the tenants of Paramagudi.
The little water that was available to this village
came from the Sooravettu Kanmoi. Poor soil further
aggravated the water crisis. The soil was brackish
and cultivation was possible only with an abundant
supply of free flowing fresh water. Tenants were,
243
therefore, at the mercy of nature and she was not
always generous. In fact, tenants from neighbouring
vi"llages were unwilling to cultivate these lands,
mainly on account of the forbidding nature of the
soil and inadequate supply of water.
As for the 49.28 acres of dry land, no dry
cultivation was possible. Even palmyra which thrived
in the rest of the zamindari could not survive here.
Only the unyielding palm bushes (ichcham bugar)
flourished in some places.
Despite these harsh conditions, expenses like
kaval had to be borne by the inamdars. But to meet
these expenses, there was no income from fishery and
kanmoi fees. While the tenants could claim a
remission of kist for failure of crops or waste,
being an inam land, the inamdars were not entitled to
claim any remission as they were placed in a
privileged class.
The total cultivation in the village yielded
about 100 kalam of paddy at the rate of about Rs.
250/-. The inamdars in this village were Ra
Chellammal, aged 32, Mu. Suvarnavalli, Mu Chellammal
aged 27, Chellam Nagarathinam aged 19, Kamalam aged
19, Kalimuthu aged 57, Meenatchi, aged 25 (d/o.
Karuppiah) and Thangavelu, aged 18 all thali kattu
(dedicated) devadasis of Kalaiarkoil. They managed
244
part of the lands in individual shares and part
communally. The land was divided into 18 shares
which were then distributed in customary amounts.
Each share yielded 15 kalam of paddy. Dasi Muthiah
Pillai (sic), Ra Chellammal, Ra Chellammal and Mu
Suvarnavalli enjoyed 7 shares.
Seturaman, Mu Chellammal and Nagarathinam enjoyed
5 shares. Kamalam and Kalimuthu enjoyed 3 shares and
Thangavelu and Chellam also enjoyed 3 shares.
Chellam leased her shares out to a chettiar.
Seturaman and Muthiah Pillai being male had to
have the dasi service performed in the temple to
retain control over their shares in land.
Suvarnavalli, Chellammal and Muthulakshmi performed
service on Muthiah Pillai 's behalf.
Chellammal and Muthiah Pillai were siblings.
Kamalam and Muthulakshmi were sisters. Chellam died
in childbirth leaving behind her daughters Thangavelu
aged 17 and Visalatchi, aged 5. Thangavelu was
Visalatchi's guardian. Seturaman died leaving behind
4 children -- three sons and one daughter. During
his life time, Seturaman employed Ramamani on a fixed
salary to perform the chores in the temple on his
behalf. Mu. Chellammal, Seturaman's eldest daughter
predeceased him. Her share and Seturaman's were made
over to Nagarathinam and Seturaman's younger daughter
245
Meenakshi (aged 10) on his death.
While the inam granted to the original inamdars
consisted of land and revenue, they entered into a
written agreement with the original ryots (whose
descendants now tilled the land) granting to them the
kudiwaram (the cultivator's share), while the
inamdars retained the melwaram. The proprietor of
the village and trustee of the temple, the Raja of
Sivaganga, was paid poruppu which had been fixed at
Rs. 50/- more than fifty years ago.
For their work in the temple, apart from the inam
and six balls of rice per day, the inamdars did not
receive any remuneration.
Devadasis of Sri Mangaibageswarar temple at
Piranmalai were supported with grants of land in the
villages of Melapatti, Chelliampatti, Oduvanpatti,
and Sirumaradur.
Dasi Kunjaram, aged 57 and Dasi MinaI, aged 42
were given lands (4.81 and 4.35 acres dry land
respectively) in Melapatti village, Tirupattur taluk.
Both of them were owners of both warams on the lands.
246
The dasi man yams in Helapatti we~e as follows:
Inamda~
Kunja~am
Meenal
Su~vey Numbe~
14 5121 132 133 134
37 59 60 232 435
Extent(ac~e/cent]
Total
Total
1.26 121.88 1. 5121 121.92 121.25
4.81
121.84 121.90 121.75 121.93 0.93
4.35
Kunja~am paid a cess of fifteen annas while
Meenal paid one ~upee by way of cess. The~e was no
othe~ tax on the land. Both these man yams had been in
the possession of the p~esent dasis' families fo~
many gene~ations.
MinaI died without natu~aI hei~. She adopted he~
brother's daughter Kasi, who, at the time of her
death was 23 years old. When MinaI was alive, she and
dasi Arumugam were equal co-shares of the inam.
Arumugam predeceased MinaI leaving behind her son
Kuppuraman and two grandchildren by her daughter
Vairamuthu - a granddaughter, also Vairamuthu and a
grandson Chockalingam. Her daughte~ Vairamuthu also
died and Arumugam's grandchildren's maternal uncle,
~<uppu~aman aged 45 years) was their guardian in the
period of their mino~ity. After Meenal 's death, the
land was divided into two equal shares so that Kasi
got one share and Vairamuthu (10 years) the other.
Since Vairamuthu was in her minority, her share of
work was being done by a dasi hired by Kuppuraman.
MinaI was also given an inam of punjai land in
Sirumarudur village, in Piranmalai. On her death, her
brother's daughter Kasi inherited this land also
along with the inam in Melapatti village.
MinaI and Arumugam also had lands in Piranmalai
village to the extent of 2.49 and 3.34 acres
respectively. These lands on the death of the
original inamdars also passed on to Kasi and
Kuppuraman. Apart from his sister's daughters,
Kuppuraman himself had daughters who would succeed to
the inams but he had to administer the service with
hired help till they attained majority. He also held
4.29 acres of dry land jointly with Chellammal in
Chelliampatti village.
248
Piranmalai
Inamdar
MinaI
Arumugam
Visalatchi
Bagiyam
Survey No.
2680 2682
2529 2658 2659 2663
860 861 851-52 845 849 843-44 854-55 851-54
846 847 848 850
85121
Extent[A/CJ
2.49
0.76
2.58
0.80 1. 74 121.41 0.9121 121.73 2.2121 1. 11 121.39
6.5121
0.73
Eight inams were situated in Oduvanpatti village
for service in Sri Mangaibagar tample at Piranmalai.
Seethalatchmi, aged 16, was the grand daughter of
Ramachandran Servai and Angamuthu and the daughter of
Angamuthu's daughter Muttukannu and R. Periyayya, son
of Ramachandran Servai. Both Angamuthu and Muttukannu
while they were alive served as devadasis in the
Mangaibagar temple. R.Periyayya, Seethalakshmi's
father, however, laid claim to the sale ownership of
the lands in question asserting that his daughter
performed the service on his behalf and lived under
his protection. His statement did not mention the
fact of either Muttukannu or Angamuthu being
devadasis. Seethalatchmi was sole owner of 4 acres of
dry land (paimash nos: 16,36,44 and 56) and joint
owner of 7.60 acres of dry land (paimash nos:
18,21,27, and 30) together with Subbulakshmi daughter
of Kalimuthu aged 16 years. She had also been serving
in the temple during Angamuthu and Muttukannu's
lifetime. She and Seethalatchmi held the land on a
2/3 - 1/3 share with the trustees of the temple.
Vairamuthu, daughter of Muthuvadugu, aged 50 was
sole owner of 15.40 acres of dry land. After
Vairamuthu's death, her son Sivaramakrishnan took
control of her land and hired dasis to perform her
share of the services. He himself performed tasks
required to be performed by men in the temple, like
fanning the deity when he went out in a procession.
Sivaraman had a ten year old daughter who would take
over the servi~e once she attained majority. The
cooked rice that was due to Vairamuthu from the
temple was given to Sivaramakrishnan.
Visalatchi, aged 60, enjoyed 14.53 acres of dry
land that was registered in the name of her brother
Karuppiah. She was co-owner. She and Vairamuthu were
sisters. Visalatchi also held 8.28 acres of dry land
in Piranmalai village. Theivanai, daughter of
Kanakambugam, aged 49 owned a manyam of 4.50 acres of
250
dry land.
Muthusami and Ponnammal were heirs of Annakutti,
a devadasi of Mangaibagar temple, Piranmalai. Both
jointly owned 2.56 acres of dry land, while Ponnammal
performed dasi service in the temple.
Manikkam, aged 40 years, and Virayee, aged 44
years were joint owners of 4.90 acres of dry land.
The original inamdars were Padmavati [deceased at the
time of the survey] and Sornam. Padmavati's brother's
daughter Virayee succeeded her, while Sornam and her
daughter Manikkam performed the service jointly.
Sornam's son Kuppuswamy was also co-sharer in her
inam.
All the devadasis of Oduvanpatti, were given one
and-a-half balls of cooked rice on days that they
served at the temple.
251
Oduvanpatti
Inamdar Survey No. Extent [A/C]
Visalatchi 15 121.63 3121 121.19 34 121.56 34 121.56 37 121.28 55 1. 13 57 3.121121 58 121.75 59 1. 13 41 1. 5121 42 1. 48 43 0.75 45 1. 13
Vairamuthu 17 1. 5121 19 1. 88 22 1. 88 23 1. 5121 26 1. 5121 29 3.75 38 1. 5121 4121 1. 89
Subbulakshmi 18 121.94 21 1. 22 27 2.25 3121 3. 19
Seethalakshmi 16 tzl.61 35 tzl.6tzl 44 tzl.37 48 tzl.28 5121 tzl.94 53 1. 13 56 121.1217
Muthusami Ponnammal 14 121.56
32 121. 14 46 121.56 52 tzl.37 54 tzl.93
Theivanai 1 3 4.Stzl 1 4
1'1 ina 1 Ar' Llmug am I<Lln j ar ",,,m Visalatchi Elagi yam Chellam l'1uthusami I:'onn.:~mmal
~3i tal akshmi !:3Llbbul akshmi l"'Ianni k,,';lm Vi ,'"ayee Vairamuthu Theivanai
OduYan patti
14.53
:~~. 56 4.0(2) '1.60
4.90 15.40 4.50
V ILL AGE !'te.la patti
4.81
Chelliam Siruma patti rudur
1. 30
4.29
Piran malai
2.49 ::::: .. 34
8.28
Two inams of 0.85 acres of dry land and 4.29
acres of dry land were given to an unnamed male and
dasi Sellam respectively in Selliampatti village,
Tirupattur taluq for the performance of devadasi
service in the Mangaibagar temple at Piranmalai.
Chellammal, aged 35 was given an inam of 4.29 acres
in Chelliampatti village to be jointly held with
Kuppuraman, aged 36, who also held his mother's lands
in Melapatti and Piranmalaivillages. Bagiyammal was
given 7.23 acres in Piranmalai village.
Although there were many dasis in Piranmalai,
only four of them were given manyams. The manyams
were all given as 2/3 - 1/3 shares between the
devadasis concerned and the temple respectively. In
other words, one-third of the total income from the
land was payable to the temple.
The village of Iluppakudi was endowed for
performance of devadasi service in Sri
Kannudayanayagi Amman Koil at Nattarasankottai. This
grant consisted of assessment only.
Seethai, aged 47 years, was given 1.79 acres of
wet land (single crop), Vairamuthu, aged 35 years was
given an inam of 0.45 acres of wet single crop land;
Na Muttukannu, 0.51 acres of wet single crop land,
Alagu, >.95 acre of wet single crop land; Pa.
MuttukaGnu 0.57 acres of wet single crop land; and
Kannathal 0.82 acre of wet single crop land. These
devadasis paid poruppu to the proprietor of the
village, the Raja of Sivaganga. They were entitled to
both warams.
254
llluppakudi Sri Kannudaya Nayaki Amman Temple at Nattarasankottai
S.No.
1 •
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Inamdar Survey No.
Seethai
Vairamuthu
K.Muttukannu
Alagu
P.Muthukannu
Kannathal
263-1 263-3 263-7 265-8 266-9 266-11b
25121-1
251-6
265-1121 265-11
263-6 263-8
26121-2 26121-9
Extent(A/C] (all wet]
1. 79
121.45
121.51
121.95
Q.l. 57
121.82
Aruppukottai Valavandanamman koil endowed 7.65
acres of dry land each in Aruppukottai,
Periyapuliyampatti and Kanjanaikenpatti in the names
of devadasis MinaI, Nagarathinam and Anandhi
respectively. These three women were sisters and
Vellai, Minai's daughter, was heir to the property of
all the three. The lands had been in the enjoyment of
this family for many generations. Vellai, during her
lifetime lived in Kanjanaikenpatti and leased out 1
acre and 5~ cents of the lands there to Doraiswami
Pillai son of Valavandhan Pillai and Velayudhan
F'illai son of Kanjanaikenpatti Perumal Pillai. For
the lands in Periyapuliyampatti and Aruppukottai, she
received an annual rent of Rs. 24-5-121 - she had no
255
information about the location of these lands or its
occupants.
The occupant of Vellai's inam in Aruppukottai was
85 year old Ponnammal daughter of Aruppukottai
Parvati. The occupant of the Periyapuliyampatti lands
was Chinnaponnammal daughter of Aruppukottai
Ponnammal, aged 75 years. According to the first
Ponnammal, neither she nor Vellai had received any
remuneration from Ramanathapuram Samsthanam for ten
years.
When Vellai died at the age of 75 without an
heir, Doraiswami Pillai to whom she had leased out
the Kanjanaikenpatti land during her lifetime, laid
claim to her property saying that Vellai herself had
willed it. Apparently, she had written a document in
his name with a condition that he and his descendents
conduct the annual Mahanavami utsavam in the templ2
and pay the assessment regularly.
Sri Venugopalaswami temple in Palayampatti set
aside 3.80 acres of dry land in Palayampatti village
as devadasi inam - for the service of dancing and
singing in the temple. Four women, Chellam, her
daughter Ponnammal, Subbammal and her daughter MinaI
were the original inamdars. Chellam, Ponnammal and
Subbammal were now dead. Subbammal was the only woman
who left behind a female heir Meenal. The service in
256
the temple was therefore being performed by Meenal
and her daughter Ramamani.
Ponnammal, however, left behind two sons, of whom
the older one, Subbayya Pillai, alias Nandagopalan
staked his claim to the lands against Ramamani's on
the ground that the inam was registered partly in his
name and partly in the name of his ancestor Mutthaiah
Pillai and that he hired labour to have the service
performed. The original inamdar, however, was
Mutthaiah Pillai but Subbayya Pillai 's maternal
grandmother Chellam.
Ramamani 's claim was upheld on the basis of
statements given by the other temple servants and
villagers that Subbayya Pillai 's statement that he
has the service performed by somebody else was false.
Subbayya Pillai's claim to the land was contested
in the court of the Sub-Judge in Madura by the
tenants who now claimed occupancy rights. Subbayya
Pillai, along with four devadasis (not Ramamani and
Meenal) made out a case that both the warams were
their service manyams and that the defendants were
tenants at will, or, at any rate tenants, whose
tenancy was renewed from year to year, who held the
lands under the inamdars without any right to the
land themselves. The court held that the occupancy
rights of the 21 defendants was well established by
257
their 'long and uninterrupted enjoyment from
generation to generation as owners of these lands
paying melwaram to the appellants for a portion of
the lands and to the devasthanam for another portion
and by dealing with their occupancy rights to the
lands in any way they pleased. The occupancy right of
the defendants passed from father to son by
inheritance'.
Aruppukottai Valavandanamman Temple
F::'onnammal
tvleenal (heir- VellaU
l\Iagal~athj, _ .. II arnrn2.-\ 1
(''inandh i
Village
Pa.layam patti
3.85
3.80
Per iyapu,l i yampatt.i
I'~ ,';;l TI j ,,1 1'1 EJ j '.:':
ketipaLt'.i
'/,,65
Ilruppu. kot't'ai
7.65
'7 i ,,~.
I A C)~
The Vaidyanathaswami temple in Madavarvilagam had
two devadayam inams which consisted of land and land
revenue in Padikasuvaithanpatti. These inams were
called Vaidyanathaswami koil valakkara morakari inam
or inams for sweeping the temple precincts. The inams
were granted to Annapoornathammal, aged 38 years and
Seethalatchmiammal aged 45 years. The inams consisted
of 3.62 acres of wet single crop land and 2.25 acres
of wet single crop land respectively.
Annapoornathammal inherited the inam from her mother
25[1
by adoption, Poochi, who in turn inherited the land
from her mother Muniammal. ·As long as Poochi was
alive, she and Annapoornathammal served together in
the temple. During Poochi's lifetime, the land was
mortgaged to Shanmugam Pillai for Rs. 45/-
Seethalakshmi inherited Sivakami's inam. Sivakami
was a devadasi in the same temple.
The services rendered in this temple by the
devadasis were Tooppu, Kudamurai, Deepakudumurai and
Deeparadanai. They also had to dance in the temple.
Padikasuvaithanpatti Vaidyanathas~ami Temple
S.no. Inamdar
1 Annapoornathammal
2 Seethalatchmiammal
Survey No.
1 1
105
Extent[A/CJ
0.73
2.25
[all wet]
Part of Kondapalayam village in Tirupattur taluq
was endowed for devadasi service in Sri
Kailasanathaswami temple in Karisalpatti village. The
inam consisted of 9.73 acres of dry land and was in
the enjoyment of Thaiyanayaki, aged 40 years. The
inam was spread out through the village (as was the
case with most inams exceeding a couple of acres).
259
Karisalpatti Sri Kailasanathaswami Temple
Inamdar Survey No Extent
Thaiyanayaki 4121-5 1. 4121 162-4 2.75 166-2 121.75 168-2 121.84 168-3 2.36 174-2 1. 63
Total 9.73
For her services in the temple which included
cleaning the temple precincts, drawing patterns with
rice flour on the temple floor (kolam) on Fridays and
Tuesdays, and chanting the name of the deity, she was
given a suddha manyam which was exempted from tax.
She inherited this inam (Paramparai badiyam).
The Rathira Kotiswaraswami temple at
Chaturvedamangalam had devadasi inams in Aralipatti
village, Tirupattur taluq. Two women, Adirathinam
aged 42 years and Chellammal aged 35 were given 1.68
acres of dry land each. The inam consisted of land
revenue and the devadasis were entitled to the
melwaram. Adirathinam performed services in the
temple and was given Rs.4/- per annum in cash for
performing special services in the temple. Her
routine service in the temple consisted of chanting
praises of the deity, fanning him (chamaram) and
decorating the temple floor with patterns made of
rice flour.
Chellammal had stopped serving in the temple, so
26@
while she retained control over the land, she was not
entitled to the one and a half measures of cooked
rice and allowances for special occasions that
Adirathinam was given.
Aralipatti RathirakotisNarasNa.i
S.No
1
2
Inamdar
Adirathinam
Chellammal
Survey No.
1738
177121
1338
Extent
1. 68
1.68
[all dry]
Sri Piriavadai temple at Vadavanpatti had two
inams for devadasis in Vadavanpatti village. Kaliyani
aged 35 years and Muthal, aged 45 held the inams of
121.48 and 121.45 acres of wet single crop land
respectively. The zamindar of Sivaganga was the
proprietor of the village and trustee of the temple.
The inam consisted of both warams. These lands were
assessed at the rate of Rs.18/- per acre.
Vaduvanpatti Sri Piriavadai Nainar Temple
S.No. Inamdar Survey No Extent[A/C]
1 Kaliyani 55-9 121.48
2 Muthal 54-15 121.45
[all wet]
Alagiya Vinayagar temple at Kandiramanikkam
granted an inam in Pillayarnendal village for the
purpose of devadasi kattalai. The kudiwaram was
261
enjoyed by Muthalagu Vairavi and the melwaram
(owner's share) by Kottaiammal, daughter of
Karuppayee aged 44 years. the inam patta bore the
name of Karuppayee. Kottaiamm~l paid a rent of Rs.4-
13-0 for the lands and stopped receiving the melwaram
because she had stopped serving in the temple 15
years ago. Further, since she married all her
daughters away, she didn't have a heir to her inam
and wanted it to be resumed in 1930 when devadasi
inams were being resumed and/or converted into
ryotwari patta.
Pillayarnendal Alaqiyavinayakar Temple
Inamdar
Kottaiammal
Survey No
384.9
384. 1
Extent[A/C]
0.60
0.56 [all wet]
The estate had already taken over these lands in
the sense that it collected the rent on cultivated
lands, kulaivettu teervai, poruppu and cess.
Devadasi inams in Neikuppai village for service
in the temples of Sri Periyamarundeeswarar, Sri
Sivankoil and Sri Perumal koil in Neikuppai
Devasthanam, were given to Jothi, aged 26, Maruthi
aged 30 and Sivakami aged 20 years. The extent of
inams was 3.90 acres of wet land.
The lands were originally assigned free of rent
and the dasis enjoyed both the kudiwaram and the
melwaram rights. The water rate (or kulaivettu) fixed
for these lands was Rs.2.80 per acre - and this was a
customary right. Kulaivettu was the water rate
legally payable to the prior in accordance with the
custom. Since fasli 1341, kulaivettu at 36 measures
of paddy per chei was charged on the extent actually
cultivated with benefit.
The original inamdars were Ankammal and Sivakami.
Ankammal adopted her brother's daughter, Jothi who
was now performing the service on her behalf.
Sivakami adopted her daughter's daughter who had the
263
legitimate right to her property, but it had been
claimed and appropriated by the present Sivakami who
was the older Sivakami's son's daughter. These
conflicting claims were resolved by declaring
Thenammal as the legal heir according to customary
law.
Neikuppai Sri PeriamaruntheesNaraar Temple
S.No Inamdar
1 Jothi
2. Maruthi
3 Sivakami (Thenammal)
Survey No
277-4 277-5 278-1
278-2 278-3
281-8 281-9 281-4 282-4 282-2 284-9 284-15
Total
Extent[A/C]
0. 16 0.39 0.30
0.24 0.31
0.25 0.32 0.20 0.42 0.62 0. 13 0.63 3.97
Sri Ayyanar temple a Singampuneri endowed 0.53 acres
wet and 1.12 acres of dry land for devadasi service
in Singampuneri village. The inamdar, Ponnammal, aged
30 years, was expected to perform the following
services in the temple:
- singing every morning and evening in praise of
god.
- drawing patterns on the temple floor with rice
flour.
- cleaning sacred utensils.
264
- fanning the deity when he is taken out in
procession.
- performing arati when the deity returns to the
temple to join his consort.
In addition to the lands, she was given one rupee
per month and one ball of cooked rice.
Heikuppai Sri Peria.aruntheeswarar Temple
Inamdar
Ponnammal
Survey No
21121-2
618-7
Extent
121.53
1. 12
64 cents and 78 cents of nanjai (wet) lands were
granted to Kalimuthu daughter of Valliammal, aged 26
and Kalimuthu, daughter of Muthukali aged 3121 years
respectively for devadasi service in Pechiyur
Vairavankoil. Each of them paid a cess of twelve
annas to the zamindar. Apart from the land grant no
other allowances either in cash or in kind were given
to these women. They enjoyed the melwaram right in
the land. However, the claims of Mu. I<alimuthu and
Va. Kalimuthu were contested by two sisters
Muthuvaduga Vairavi and Manikkam Vairavi and a third
woman Ganapati Vairavi. They claimed that they were
responsible for service in the temple. but the
documents on this case are incomplete.
265
Pechiyur Vairavan Temple
S. No Inamdar Survey No Extent
1 Va Kalimuthu
2 Mu Kalimuthu
456-5
454-2
0.64
0.78
Generally speaking devadasi inams in Ramnad
district were administered in the following manner:
The inamdars, in most cases devadasis, had rights
to two-thirds of the melwaram share, which the
trustee of the temple and/or proprietor of the
village had rights to one-third of the melwaram share
to be paid by the devadasis. The kudiwaram was
exclusively the right of the tenant cultivator who
also had occupancy rights to the land. Even in cases
where a devadasi was declared to be enjoyer of both
shares by the trustee of the temple, it can be safely
assumed that she handed the kudiwaran over to the
tenant cultivator because devadasis did not cultivate
the land themselves. And, just as the devadasis had a
heritable right to the inam, the tenant cultivator
had a heritable occupancy right in the devadasi s
land.
Enfranchising inam lands of devadasis was not as
simple as the colonail government and the reformers
perhaps anticipated. For one thing, many of these
inam lands were held by women as "valakkara morakari
inam" or sweepers' inam. Before launcing on the
266
enfranchisement drive, therefore, the government had
first to define the term 'dasi', and set out all the
categories of women who came within this
definition.Cll] More serious than the problem of
definition, was the problem of operationlisation. At
the local level, tahsildars were required to
investigate into the existence of devadasi service in
temples that fell within their jurisdiction. On
enquiry, they found that in many cases, although
women had been endowed land for the performance of
service in a particular temple, organised worship in
these temples had ceased long before 1929. In
effect, although some women were stated to be
inamdars in the temple records, they had either
stopped service many years before, or had never
performed service in their lifetime, the inams having
come down to them as heirs. In these cases, the
colonial government, in its enthusiasm for 'justice'
ordered that where service had been discontinued, it
should be revived before the lands were enfranchised,
so that women temple servants actually benefit from
this service. That this order was contrary to the
purpose of the Act [which was to abolish temple
service that required devadasis], was recognised by
at least one tahsildar, who wrote to the Collector
expressing his discomfort with carrying out this
267
order. We have already seen how the discourse on
devadasi abolition was fraught with contradictions
and ambiguities. The contradiction with reference to
revival of service, I suggest, far from being a mere
accident, was in fact inherent in and expressive of
the larger contradiction in the agenda of abolition
itself. In the final analysis it serves to express
the linkages between agrarian structure and reform
and the ideological underpinnings of political
economy that make it impossible for us to view
various realities as fragmented and separate.
268
ENDNOTES
1. See Appendix for text of the Act.
2. This entire account is based on records of the colonial government that are ordered in conformity to taxonomies and classifications that it imposed on local agrarian systems. It would perhaps be appropriate to view this material in the light of Dirks' suggestions that "First, in reading these records wee must reconstruct and recombine the integral relations of certain "subjects" just as they are being separated and reordered in new taxonomies". Second, in putting certain things together, 'we have also to make distinctions and differentiations between and among things that have been soldered together in new forms by new technologies of power." While being conscious of the problematic nature of these documents, it is still necessary to attempt an analysis of them precisely to understand both what they reveal of older structures and the contradictions inherent in colonial change. See Dirks, The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of a South Indian Kingdom, p.324.
3. There has since been a further reorganisation of districts in Tamil Nadu. For a general account of agrarian structure in this region in the early twentieth century, I have relied on the work of K. Badri Narayanan and G. Rajendran. K. Badrinarayanan generously made available to me relevant portions of his unpublished thesis entitled "Agricultural Credit in the Madras Presidency During the Inter-War Period: A Study of Tanjore and Ramnad Districts." See also G. F(ajendran. "Some Aspects of Agrari an Structure and Growth in the Madras Presidency During the Inter-War Period: A Study of Tanjore and Ramnad Districts." Footnotes in this section will be avoided except to indicate sources other than the above cit ed wor k .
4. S. Sunderaraja Iyengar, Presidency, pp. 204 - 207.
Land Tenures in the Madras
5. M. Atchi Redd i. "Ri ch 1 ands and Poor LordS: Temp 1 es and Tenancy in Nellore District", and Burton Stein, "The Economic Function of a Medieval South Indian Temple".
6. ibid.
7. ibid.
8. Census of India, Madras St3te, part XI-D, "Temples of Madras State." 1961.
9. Burton Stein, "The Economic Function of a Medieval South Indian Temple."
269
10. This account is based on the R.Dis. records of the Ramnad District Collectorate, 1929-1936, housed at the Madurai District Records Centre of the Tamilnadu Archives. The specific records from which this account has been pieced together are, R.Dis 4016/32 [21.12.32]; 4017/32 [5.9.33]; 4018/32 [31.10.34]; 4019/32 [n.d.]; 4020/32 [2.11.33]; 4021/32 [27.9.33]; 4022/32 [3.9.33]; 4023/32 [27.9.33]; 4025/32 [17.8.33]; 4026/32 [10.10.33]; 4027/32 [14.8.33]; 4028/32 [27.11.33]; 4029/32 [6.11.33]; 4031/32 [10.10.33J; 4032/32 [21.12.32]; 4033/32 [26.6.34]; 4034/32 [27.11.33]; 4035/32 [20.5.34]; 4036/32 [19.3.34]; 4857/32 [13.4.33].
11. See Appendi:-: for legal definition of "devadasi".
APPENDI X: The Madras Act V of 1929 <The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1929).
Preamble: Whereas it is expedient to put an end to the practice of dedication of young girls as devadasis for the aservice in Hindu temples in the Presidency of Madras; And whereas the enfranchisement or freeing of lands held by them on condition of service in the said temples from such conditionwill be an effective step in doing so.
It is hereby enacted as follows. After Section 44 of the MHRE Act II of 1927, the following section shall be inserted, namely; 44A (I) (a) (1) Where the remunerati on for any servi ce to be performed by a devadasi in a temple consists of lands granted or continued in respect of or annexed to such service by the government, the Local Government shall enfranchise the said lands from the condition of service, by the imposition of quit rent; (ii) Where the remuneration for such service consists of an assignment of land revenue so granted orcontinued, the Local Government shall enfranchise the assignment of revenLle from the condition of service; Provided that where, at the time when proceedings are taken under this sub section, the devadasi is herself the owner of the lands in respect of which the assignment of revenue has been made, enfranchisement shall be effected and quit rent imposed in the manner laid down in sub clause (i). (iii)Where remuneration for such service consists in part of an assignment of land revenue, enfranchisement of the lands shall be effected in the manner laid down in the sub clause (i) and of the assignment of land revenue in the manner laid down in the sub clause (ii).
E:-:planation; I. (a) For the pLlrpose of thi s cl ause, a grant shall be deemed
270
to consist of an assignment of land revenue in all cases in which the devadasi hereself is not, at the time specified in the proviso to sub clause (ii), the owner of the lands in question.
(b) Enfranchisement under clause (a) shall be effected in accordance with such rules as the local Government may make in this behalf and shall take effect as and from such date as Local government may fix. II. Where the rumernation for such service consists, in whole or in part, of lands or of produce of lands not falling under sub-section (I), the Local government shall direct the collector to determine the amount of rent payable on the lands or produce in question. The Collector shall tereupon, after giving notice to the parties concerned and holding such enquiry as may be prescribed by the Local Government, by an order determine the amount of rent, and in doing so, he shall have due regard to
(a) The rent payable to the tenant for lands of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village
or neighbouring villages; and (b) The improvements if any, effected by the devadasi, in respect of the lands. Such order shall be communicated to the parties concerned
and also poublished in the manner prescribed. III. The amount of rent fixed by the Collector under subsection (2) may be questioned by petition presented to the Board of Revenue within three months of the publication of the
order under the said sub-section but subject to the result of such petition, the order of the Collector fixing the amount of rent under sub-section (2) shall be final and shall not be liable to be contested in any court of law:
Provided however, that the Board of Revenue shall have power on sufficient grounds to entertain a petition
presented after the expiration of the period of three months. IV. While determining the rent under sub-section (2), the Collector shall fix a date from which the order shall take effect and such lands or produce shall be deemed to have been freed from the condition of service as and from the date so -f i:-: ed. V. No obligation to render any service relating to any
temple to which any devadasi may be subject by reason of any grant of land or assignment of land revenue or produce derived from land, shall be enforceable on such
land, assignment or produce being enfranchised or freed, as the case may be, in the manner hereinbefore provided. \)1. No order- passed under sub-secti on (I), (2) and (3)
shall operate as a bar to the trial of any suit or issue relating to the right to enjoy the land or assignment
of land revenue or produce derived from land as the case may be. l,iII. (a) The quit rent imposed under sub-section (I) shall
271
be payable to the temple concerned. (b) The assignment of land revenue enfranchised under
sub-section (I) shall be payable to the devadasi concerned during her lifetime and after her death to the temple concerned.
VIII. For the purpose of this section 'devadasi' shall mean any Hindu unmarried female, who is dedicated to a temple.