The Past as a Scarce Resource

Author(s): Arjun Appadurai

Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Jun., 1981), pp. 201-219
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801395 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 11:46

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

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PAST AS A SCARCE RESOURCE

ARJUN APPADURAI
University
ofPennsylvania

The assumptionthatthepastis an infinite

and plasticsymbolicresource,whollysusceptibleto
contemporarypurposes,is widespreadin contemporary anthropology.It is partlyrooted in
Malinowski's conceptionof mythas social charterand partlyin Durkheim'sformulation con-
cerningthe cross-cultural of fundamental
relativity categoriesof humanthought.This articleis
a critiqueof this assumption,and suggeststhe existenceof culturallyvariablesets of norms
whose functionis to regulatethe inherentdebatability of the past. Such norms,which vary
substantivelyfromcultureto culture,are nevertheless froma formalpointof view subjectto
certainuniversalconstraints.An examplefromsouthIndiais thebasisforthisargument,which
also has implicationsforthetheoretical
analysisofsocialchange.

There existsa widespreadthoughtacitassumptionthatthe past is a limitless

and plastic symbolic resource,infinitelysusceptibleto the whims of con-
temporary interestand the distortionsof contemporaryideology. The
principalthesisof thisarticleis thatthisassumptionis false,and thatto correct
it entailsa new view oftheculturallimitsofthepastas a symbolicresource.
The anthropologicalassumptionthat the past is a boundless canvas for
contemporaryembroideryrepresentsthe confluenceof two historically
distinctlines of argument.The first,inspiredby Malinowski,simplyderives
fromobservationof the rhetoricalinvocationof thepast (as 'charter')in con-
temporarysocial organisation,and thetacitconclusionthatsuchcharters have
no inherentlimits, except those of expediency.The second, inspiredby
Durkheim (I954), carried through by Evans-Pritchard(I940), Hallowell
(I937) and Lee (I959) and mostrecently
revivedby Geertz(I966), makesa
case. In thislatterview, conceptsoftime
relativist
subtlerand further-reaching
(and indeed the perceptionof durationitself)are fundamentalculturalvari-
ables. The joint consequenceof thesetwo argumentsis to renderthe past a
boundless resourcein particularcultures,as well as infinitelyvariablecross-
culturally.My argumentis principally directedat thefirstview, derivedfrom
Malinowski. The secondview cannotbe falsified in principle,butI shallargue
thattheredo appearto be some generalconstraints whichlimitany collective
use of thepast.

limits
Cross-cultural
In a recentMalinowski lecture,Maurice Bloch (I977) has criticisedClifford
Geertzforexaggeratingtheextentto whichparticularculturesmightperceive
Man(N.S.) i6, 20I-I9

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
202 ARJUNAPPADURAI

durationitselfin drasticallydifferent ways. The problemof whetherduration

is a universallyrecognisedaspect of temporalprocessesis not my central
concern. My concernis ratherwith 'pasts' in Malinowski'ssenseof charters:
collectivelyheld, publiclyexpressedand ideologicallychargedversionsof the
past, which are likelyto varywithinthegroupsthatforma society.Yet there
is an importantpointof agreementbetweenBloch and Geertzwhichimpinges
on my argument.
Bloch concedes thatGeertzis rightin arguingthatthe Balinese have two
kinds of past: a 'ritualised'past which denies duration,and a non-ritual,
mundane past, concernedwith such pragmaticactivitiesas agricultureand
politics, in which durationis universallyrecognised.Bloch's quarrelwith
Geertz concernsonly the weightto be givento thesetwo kindsof past. The
troublewiththisdichotomyis thatbothareconceivedas beingbeyonddebate.
The ritualpast is entirelysharedand thenon-ritualpast is a brutepragmatic
given. There is, however, a thirdkind of past whose essentialpurposeis to
debateotherpasts. It generallypartakesof both ritualand everydaykindsof
discourse and indeed makes it possible for people to pass fromone to the
other. It too has a culturalform,in each society,even if durationis a uni-
versally recognised datum of socio-biological reality.Nor, like Geertz's
version of the Balinese view of time, is it wholly a culture-relative
phenomenon.It comprisesantagonisticpaststhatare themselvessubjectto a
sharednormativeframework,and in an IndianexampleI describeone suchset
of niorms.That such pastsare subjectto disagreement and debateis, of course,
hardlya novel point. As Leach (I965) has pointedout, Malinowskihimself
observed that even in stable and well-balancedsocieties,opposing factions
would be likelyto generatedifferent myths,a pointthatwas laterforcefully
madebyFortes(I 945) andFirth (I930-3I). Inhisownclassicanalysis ofpoliticsin
highlandBurma, Leach makesthisargumentwitha striking seriesofexamples
of variationson mythswhich supportedvaryingpoliticalinterests.In his
famous phrase,mythand ritualis a languageof argument,not a chorusof
harmony.The main significanceof thisinsight,fromLeach's pointof view,
was its furtherproofthatthe thenreigningassumptionsof integration, equi-
libriumand consistencyin relationto small-scalesocietieswerein drasticneed
of revision.My own argument,followingLeach, takesforgrantedthatdis-
course concerningthe past between social groups is an aspect of politics,
involvingcompetition,oppositionand debate. But the centralquestionwith
which I am concernedis: how is suchdebateculturally organised?This latter
questionhas not so farreceivedexplicitattention fromanthropologists.
To treatdebateconcerningthepastas an aspectof politicsis, of course,not
the same as to explain the sociology of competitionand dominancein any
given politicalcontext.The ethnographicportionof thisarticledeals largely
with antagonismsbetweenorganisedinterests in a southIndiantemple,butits
purpose is not to account for the sociology of factionalismin the standard
sense. The argumentis, rather,concernedwith what Cohen and Comaroff
(I976) have recentlycalled 'the managementof meaning'.By thistheymean
the competitiveprocess by which values are defined,images of transactions
contrived,and interpretations of a situationsuccessfullyimposedby one party

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 203

on others. Cohen and Comaroffmake a forcefulargumentthatanalysisof

thosetransactionsthatinvolvecompetitionoverthemanagementof meanings
should precede analysisof those substantiveand intrinsicvalues over which
the competitionis apparentlytakingplace. My own concernwith the past
in the politicsof a southIndiantempleextendsCohen and Comaroff'sinsight
in one importantregard.Ratherthantakingforgrantedthatpoliticalcompeti-
tion over themeaningof transactions is constrained onlyby itssocial context,
I propose thatthereis a definablecultural framework withwhichsuchdebates
concerningmeaningmusttakeplace. The bulkofthisarticleis concernedwith
the ethnographicdescriptionof one such framework.But the priorquestion
is: are such setsof norms(whose functionis to regulatetheinherent debatability
of the past) entirelyculture-relativeor do theyoperatewithinuniversalcon-
straints?
I propose thatalthoughtheremightbe infinite substantive
variationconcern-
ing such normsabout thepast,thereis a minimalsetofformal constraintson all
such sets of norms. These formalconstraintscan be seen as fourminimal
dimensionsconcerningwhich all culturesmustmake some substantivepro-
vision.
i. Authority: thisdimensioninvolvessome culturalconsensusas to thekinds
of source,originor guarantorof 'pasts'whicharerequiredfortheircredibility.
2. Continuity: involvessome culturalconsensusas to thenatureof thelinkage
with thesource of authoritywhichis requiredfortheminimalcredibility of a
'past.'
3. Depth: involves culturalconsensus as to the relativevalues of different
time-depthsin themutualevaluationof 'pasts'in a givensociety.
4. Interdependence: impliesthenecessityof some conventionabouthow closely
any past must be interdependent with other'pasts' to ensureminimalcredi-
bility.
Substantive conventions concerningeach of these dimensions can, of
course, varyboth cross-culturally and intra-culturally. Thus, while prophetic
dreamscan be a sourcefortheauthority of chartersin northAmerica,theydo
not have thisstatusin Hindu India. Similarly,thesubstantive normsconcern-
ing continuityin Africanculturalsystemscan be verydifferent foraetiological
myths (in which significantbreaksin the link betweenpast and presentare
permissible)and forpoliticalgenealogies(wheresuch breaksmightseverely
impairthecredibility of a charter).But thepointis thatno culturecan manage
the on-going collectivedebate among 'pasts' withoutsomesubstantivepro-
visions concerningthesefourdimensions.These dimensionsmaytherefore be
taken as constitutinga minimaluniversalstructure forthe culturalconstruc-
tion of pasts. Such a structurerepresents onlya formalsetof constraints, with
no necessarysubstantiveimplications.The formalconstraints neitherlimitnor
predeterminethe variationof substantivenormsfromcultureto culture,and
the minimalrecipe can, needlessto say, be variedand expanded;the Indian
case is one suchvariation.
Let me brieflyaddressthe problemof generalisation fromthiscase. Treat-
ments of the role of the past in contemporarypoliticshave generallybeen
made in the contextof small-scale,kin-basedpolities,where 'myth'(in the

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
204 ARJUNAPPADURAI

classic sense of tales of the sacredand semi-sacred)are the basic currencyof

such discourse.The principaldifferences betweenthesecontextsand theone
I describe are the productof the factthatsouth Asia has known a literate
civilisationfor over two millennia,and fora good partof thisperiodsocial
groups have createdwrittenhistoricalcharters.- In addition,of course, the
modem colonial impacton southAsia was longerand culturally moreintense
than in most otherareas. As a result,thepoliticsof discourseconcerningthe
past have become almostcompletelyseveredfromthelanguageof mythand
ritual,in the traditionalsense. Rather,theyturnon linearaccountsof events
organised around historicallydateablewrittentextsof a varietyof sorts,in-
cludingcoloniallegal and administrative documents.But thisis a differencein
the mode and currencyof such discourse,and not a difference in principle.
There seems to be everyreasonto supposethatevenin thosesocietiesin which
the past is largelyorganisedin termsof orallytransmitted, mythicnarratives,
there should exist culturalnorms that regulatedebate concerningthe past,
thoughtheirsubstantivenaturemightbe quitedifferent: Whileit is outsidethe
scope of thisarticleto analysethenatureof thesedifferences and similarities,
it
mightbe noted thatthisproblemis anotheraspectof the cross-cultural and
historicalanalysisof theconsequencesofliteracy(Goody I977).

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.

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 205

They are revealed, however, in conversationsabout temple-politics,in the

actual prosecutionof conflicts,and in reflectionson the evolutionof the
managementof the Temple. I have formalisedthem not because theyare
explicitlycodified,but because theyare sharedassumptionsrepeatedlyborne
out by ethnographicexperience.In the continuingconversationthatis lifein
theTemple, theyconstit-ute one partof thegrammarof discourse,reflectedin
manyparticularformulations.

The ethnohistorical basis formyargumentcomesfroma yearoffieldworkand

archival researchcenteredon the Sri PartasaratiSvami Temple, in Madras
City. I have elsewheredescribedthiscontextin detail(AppaduraiI98I). The
followingdiscussionis therefore a skeletalstatementwhose sole purposeis to
setthestagefortherestofthisessay.
The Sri PartasaratiSvami Temple is by itslong urbanhistory,itsVaisnava
sectarianaffiliationand its Tenkalai sub-sectariancontrol,in many respects
peculiar.But itssocial role and culturalformaremuchthesame as mostsouth
Indian temples since at least the Chola period (c. A.D. iooo). This shared
paradigmhas alreadybeen discussedelsewhere(Appadurai& Breckenridge:
I976), and can briefly
be summarisedas follows.
The deity is the centreof the south Indian temple. This deity is not a
mere image or icon for the expressionof abstractreligioussentimentsand
principles.In its capacityto command and redistribute economicresources,
and in its capacityto rank individualsand groups, by the unequal redistri-
butionof theseresources,thedeityis foundedon thesouthIndianunderstand-
ing of sovereignty.The deityis a paradigmaticsovereign,and thusthesouth
Indian templeis a polity,in which all relationships with the royalfigureare
privileged.All contributions to thetemple,whetherendowmentsor services,
are privileged.So also theoutputof thedeity,in whateverform,is privileged.
The food he has eaten, the waterin which he has bathedor has drunk,the
vestmentshe wears, are quintessential objectsof value. In thedivinecourtof
the deity, rank and status are expressed by the amount of these divine
'leavings' one receives,on what occasions,and in whatorder.Accessto these
divine remnantsis systematicallyrelatedto the servicesor substancesone
offersto the deity. Thus, endowing the deity and servinghim in various
ofrank.
capacitiesare also privilegesconstitutive
For those who constitutethe followingof the deity (temple-staff, wor-
shippers, managers, donors) these sumptuaryprivileges are not mere
denotative emblems of rank and privilege.They are seen as constitutive
featuresof shares(panku)in theredistributive processof thetemple,composed
of both ritual and economic entitlements. Conflictbetwen groups and in-
dividualsin theTemple ofteneruptsin theformof tensionsurrounding these
sumptuaryprivileges,which are referredto as 'honours' (mariyatai).Such
conflictsare endemic for a varietyof reasons:because thereis no overarch-
ing bureaucraticprincipleof temple-control; because thereis no ecclesiastical
hierarchyin India that governs temples;because the State is in a delicate

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
206 ARJUN APPADURAI

positionin regardto thecontrolof temples;and becausetheboundariesof the

Temple as an institution arepoorlydrawn.
Thus thereis tensionbetweengroupsthathave an enduringcorporatein-
terestin temple-control. In theexpressionand resolutionof theseconflicts,the
'pasts' of thesegroupsplaya directand importantrole. Whenthesepastshave
a high degree of mutualcredibility, conflictcan be mutedor reduced.When
thisis not thecase, specificcontemporary battlesare morelikelyto rise.In the
lattereventuality,thesechartersare likelyto be reformulated, refined,some-
timesexpanded. The currentsituationis one such,and in thesecircumstances
it is especiallyvitalto understandthepoliticsof thepastin thepresent.In such
conflicts,thenormsthatgovernthedebatecome frequently intoview. I now
discussthreegroupsthatplaycentralrolesin thepoliticsofworshiptodayatthe
SriPartasaratiSvamiTemple:theState,theTenkalaiBrahminsofTriplicaneand
thenon-Brahminworshippers.

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-

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 207

resentativesof the Statewere certainlycapableof marshalling supportamong

donors, temple-servants and influential
worshippers,adequateto permitthem
to exercisesignificantmanagerialcontrol.But theywere nonethelessrecent
entrantsinto the politics of temple-control, and, as such, were obliged to
presentarguments(bothin Court and in everydayinteractions) forthelegiti-
macyof theirposition.Their'charter'lookedin keyways to thepast.
In the most abstractand inclusiveterms,it is clearthatthebureaucracyof
the HRCE Department,at the Statelevel, viewed itselfas followingthepre-
Britishculturalmandateof Hindu rulersto affordprotection(raksai)to Hindu
temples. In this respect,the contemporary Stateclearlyidentifieditselfwith
the model of traditionalHindu royalty.This model, thoughrarelyarguedin
termsof specifictextualsources,is so diffuseand widelyacceptedthatitallows
contemporarybureaucratsto do two thingsat once: to claim a diffusepre-
Britishtextualbasis for theirclaims; and to identifytheirpositionwith the
dominanttraditionalmodel of externalauthority, thatis theHindu king.This
vague, thoughpowerful,aspectof theircharterwas considerably strengthened
by the furtherclaim forthe continuity of thisroyalrole. It was argued,in the
course of the legislativeproceedingsthatled to the formationof thisdepart-
mentin I95I, thatmanyinstancesin thepast,underHindu rulers,underthe
English East India Company and under the rule of the English Crown,
provided amplejustificationfortheinterference of Governmentin theaffairs
ofHindutemples(MudaliarI974: I49).
But in theirlegal battlewiththeTenkalaicommunityofTriplicane,overthe
control of the Sri PartasaratiSvami Temple, this generalmandatewas in-
adequate. The Tenkalaicase, as we shallsee shortly,was formulated largelyon
the basis of legal and administrativeprecedentsfrom the nineteenthand
twentiethcenturies.They had to be beatenon thesenarrowgrounds.Essen-
tially,the Stateassertedits right,throughtheHRCE Department,to appoint
trusteesforthisTemple, startingin I95I. Trusteeshad previouslybeenelected
by the Tenkalai residentsof Triplicane.This electoralprocess,begun in the
I880's, had finallycome to be formalisedin a schemeforthemanagementof
the Temple which was partof thejudgementin an electionsuit at the High
Court of Madras in I924. This 'scheme' (hereafter referredto as the High
Court Schemeof I924) was thefundamental constitutionaldocumentforthose
membersof the Tenkalai communityof Triplicanewho were opposed to the
managerialincursionsof theState.
In nullifying theprovisionsof the I924 scheme,whichwereclearlyopposed
to theirinterests,the representatives of the HRCE Departmentrestedon the
legislativefiat of an Act passed in I95I, which simplypermittedthem to
appoint trusteesto all temples except those which had had 'hereditary'
trustees.But the 1924 schemehad preciselyopposed theelectoralprincipleto
the hereditaryprinciple.Most importantly, it was partof theargumentof the
State that such legal schemes supersededanyusageson whichtheymighthave
been based, and were thussubjectto legislativemodification or veto. Essen-
tially,however,it came to this:a laterpieceof statutory law (ActXX of I95 i)
was held to invalidatean earlierlegal judgement (the one of I924). The
argumentof the Statein one strokeopposed a largerexternalauthority-the

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
208 ARJUN APPADURAI

legislature-to a more limitedone-the benchofjudges who had passed the

High Court scheme of 1924. Furthermore, theyadvancedthe superiority of
explicitlegal textsto thevague antiquityof 'customand usage', whichwas the
cornerstoneof theTenkalaicase. On theotherhand,theTenkalaicase,though
based on legal textsthatwere intrinsicallymodifiable,had continuityof docu-
mentationon theirside afterI 843. To this,theStatesimplyrespondedthatthe
Governmentof theEast IndiaCompanyhad 'appointed'trusteespriorto I843.
In exercisingroutinecontrol over the affairsof the Temple today, the
Executive Officerand the Superintendent consistentlyhave recourseto all of
theseargumentsrootedin thepasttojustifytheirown shareof control.Their
credibilityrestsprincipallyon one subtlebut significanttransformation of the
past. Whereasthe role of the State,in bothpre-British and Britishtimes,had
been relativelydistant,intermittent and uneven, it was reformulated as a
naturalbasis forthe State'spresentdetailedsupervisionof virtuallyall aspects
of templelife.The presentdelicatepositionof theStatein theTemple in part
reflectstheirambiguous and uneven conformity with the culturalnormsin
termsof which such chartersare evaluated.The pre-British textualbasis for
the currentposition of the State's officers-namely,the mandateof Hindu
rulers to 'protect' Hindu temples-is too abstractto encode theirspecific
powers and actionsin theTemple today.Theirstrongtextualstrength is based
on recentlegislation,whichhas giventheStateincreasingpowersover Hindu
templesin Tamil Natu. But thedifficulty withtheselegislativetexts,precisely
because of their State-wide applicability,is that they do not embed the
privilegesof the Statein a set of specificprivilegesattachedto thoseof other
enfranchised groupsin theTemple today.These textsserveto isolatethelocal
representatives of the State, while simplygivingthemthe credibility of the
highest'externalauthority',a properlyelectedlegislativeassembly.Lastly,the
role of theStateis highlydiscontinuousovertime,and theantlquityof partici-
pation is insufficiently evidentto compensateforthislack of continuity. The
State has thusfar,fornumerousreasonshavingto do withthemacro-politics
of Tamil Natu, been successfulin thecourtsof law. But its opponentsin the
localityof the Temple have by no means allowed thisdefactovictoryto be
transformedinto genuine local legitimacy.The State's representatives have
failed eitherto defuse or to suppressthe argumentsof theirprincipalop-
ponents,the Tenkalai Brahmincommunityof Triplicane,to whichwe shall
now turn.

The TenkalaiBrahmincommunity of Triplicane

The Tenkalai Brahminsof Triplicaneare a large and highlydifferentiated
community,with multipleand diverseinterestsin the Sri PartasaratiSvami
Temple, includingthoseof regularworship,donationofendowments,partici-
pation in temple-management, and monopolyof certainritualservicesin the
Temple. Within this large and relativelyloose-knitcommunity,thereis a
smallercommunityof betweenthirtyand fortyfamilies,linkedby marriage
ties, friendship,sharedritualexpertise,enduringpoliticalalliances,and resi-
dentialpropinquity,since theylive by and largein theresidentialstreetsthat

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 209

surroundthe Temple. This smallergroup, althoughitselfsubjectto internal

factionalism,does share a common identity,a common set of interestsin
Temple managementand ritual,and thusa commonideology.By extension,
thisgroup of Tenkalai Brahminssharesa commonpast,whichin partframes
theirrightsand privilegesagainstrealor perceivedthreatsfromtheState,from
the Vatakalai communityof Triplicane(membersof an antagonisticsub-sect
of South Indian Sri Vaisnavas), and fromotherinterested groups,principally
theVaikhanasapriestsof theTemple.
In general, these Tenkalai Brahminsare membersof familiesthat have
residedin Triplicaneforseveralgenerations, whose male heads are in modern
white-collarprofessions(oftenlawyers),but who preservea powerfulcom-
mitmentto the local religioustraditionsas theyperceivethem.As an identi-
fiableinterestgroup in thepoliticsof theTemple, theyare viewed withsome
trepidationby othergroups,fortheycombinea fiercejealousy of theirrights
and privilegeswith a strongpenchantforlitigation.This penchantforliti-
gation is strengthenedand exacerbatedby theirmany ties to members,at
variouslevels,of thelegalprofessionin MadrasCity.
The primaryritual interestof this group of Tenkalai Brahminsin the
Temple is theirorganisationalmonopoly of the daily recitationof certain
devotionalhymnsto thedeity.These hymns,writtenby twelvesaint-poetsof
the medievalperiod,have been forsome centuriespartof thecodified'canon'
of Sri Vaisnava theology,as theirrecitationhas come to be partof thefixed
ritualof manySri Vaisnava temples.In virtueof theircommandof thispoetic
and religious corpus, known as the Prabandham,and their established
monopoly over its recitationin daily and calendricalritual,this group sees
itselfas the repositoriesand guardiansof theessenceof TenkalaiSri Vaisnava
traditionat this Temple. Of all the groups interestedin the Temple today,
theseTenkalai Brahminshave the most highlydevelopedpictureof the link
between theirspecificprivilegesin the presentand the social historyof Sri
Vaisnavasmin southIndiasincetheearlymedievalperiod.
Today, southIndianHindus who see themselvesas SriVaisnavas(followers
of the twelfth-century religiousleader,Ramanuja),are dividedintosub-sects,
known respectively as theTenkalai(Southernschool)and Vatakalai(Northern
school). Althoughtherearea numberof ritual,dietaryand maritaldistinctions
in the lifestylesof these two sub-sects,the dominantantagonismbetween
them pertains to temple-ritualand temple-management. These issues of
temple-controlhave been mattersof disputebetweenlocal membersof the
two sub-sectsforthe last two centuries,at the Sri PartasaratiSvami Temple
and at many otherSouth Indian Vaisnava temples.Both indigenoushistori-
ography and my own investigationsconcur in placing the originsof this
schismin the centuriesfollowingthe deathof Ramanuja (c. A.D. 1137). The
contemporaryTenkalai Brahminversionof thismedievalschismis thebasic
charterof theirreligiousidentity,even ifit does not relatespecifically
to their
controlof theSriPartasaratiSvamiTemple.
These Tenkalai Brahminshave a highlyarticulatedhistoricalview of their
contemporarysectarianposition.Centralto theirview of thedevelopmentof
the schism between themselvesand the Vatakalai is the importanceof the

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
210 ARJUN APPADURAI

Prabandham corpus.The medievalsaint-poetswho composedthesepoems,the

Alvars, are today also enshrinedas divinefiguresin theTemple. Portionsof
thislargepoeticcorpusarerecitedbothas partof thedailyworshipin theinner
sanctum and during the processionalfestivalswhen the various deitiesare
borne,withall theirroyalparaphernalia, throughtheneighbourhood.
Tenkalai Brahminstodayview thesepoems as providinga kindof mystical
guide to the classical religiousliteratureof Hindu India, principallyto the
foundationtextsof Hindu religion,theVedas. In factthiscorpusof poems is
often referredto as the Tamil Vedas. For the Tamil-speakingTenkalai
Brahminsof Triplicane,themostimportantfactabout thispoeticcorpusis its
equalitywith, and complementarity to, theclassicalSanskritVedic corpusof
the North, theultimatereferent of all religiousauthorityin Hindu India. It is
also of importancethatthesepoems were composedby a multi-caste groupof
poet-saints,in a vernacularlanguage (Tamil), and in the affectivemode of
devotional poetryratherthan in the esotericlanguage of Sanskritreligious
texts. Tenkalai Brahminshold that, in so far as the Alvar poet-saintsare
concerned,caste is an irrelevantcategory,forthose individualswere mani-
festationsof thedivine.But, as we shallsee later,theseTenkalaiBrahminsdo
not see the Alvar poetry as necessarilya charterfor the full and equal
participationofnon-Brahminsin templeworship.
The Tenkalai Brahminsdo, however,contrastthemselveswith the Vata-
kalai, at least in part because theysee themselvesas descendantsof a sub-
traditionalways dedicatedto the celebrationand transmission of the Tamil
Prabandham. But theyalso see anotherhistoricalimplicationof devotionto this
corpus of religiouspoetry.They argue thattheirleader,Ramanuja,institu-
tionalisedthe recitationof thesehymnsin temple-worship. As a result,they
believe, a genuinelycongregationalelementwas added to temple-worship,
and non-Brahminswere thusmore fullyincorporated intothetemple.In this
view, the medieval forebearsof the contemporary Tenkalai Brahminswere
equally dedicatedto thePrabandham corpusand to itsrolein temple-worship.
In this medievalphase, accordingto the contemporary Tenkalaiview, the
Vatakalai Brahminsremainedorientedto the Sanskrittextsof the north,to
domestic (as opposed to temple) worship, and by implicationwere more
concerned with theirown salvationas Brahmins,than with theircongre-
gationalidentityas Sri Vaisnavas. The Tenkalai,and hereis thecriticalargu-
ment, thus came to dominate Sri Vaisnava templesin the early medieval
period not by chicaneryor force,but simplydue to the indifference of the
Vatakalai. This constitutesthe broad historiographical basis of the Tenkalai
Brahmin claim that they had been interestedin templeslong before the
Vatakalai. The modern (colonial and post-colonial)extensionof thishistori-
ographyis thatin thelasttwo centuries,membersof theVatakalaisect,fanned
by envy, supported by royal patronageand subsequentlyencouragedby
British administrative and judicial mechanisms,made a sustainedand 'con-
spiratorial'onslaughton templespreviouslycontrolledby Tenkalaiwithsome
degree of success. In short, for the Tenkalai Brahminsof contemporary
Triplicane,theirpresumptiverightto the controlof Sri Vaisnava templesin
general,and the Sri PartasaratiSvami Temple in particular,is rootedin their

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 211

special relationship,bothancientand continuous,to a body of texts-theTamil

Prabandham-whichstandson a parwiththereligiousauthority oftheVedas.
However, in recentattemptsto resistVatakalaiincursionsintothemanage-
mentof theSri PartasaratiSvami Temple, and in theircontemporary struggles
with the State, local Tenkalai Brahminsreferto a more moderntextualtra-
dition: the dicta of Britishadministrators in the eighteenthand nineteenth
centuriesand thejudgementsof the Anglo-Indianjudicial systemin the late
nineteenthand twentiethcenturies.These modem texts,to whichthisgroup
makes frequentand astute recourse,are seen to be mere ratifications of
'immemorialusage.' In a sense, the factthattheseadministrative and legal
texts are specificin termsof Tenkalai controlof the Sri PartasaratiSvami
Temple, and concretein termsof therightstheygrantto variousmembersof
the Tenkalai communityof Triplicane,makesthemeven morevaluablethan
the more abstractmedievaldevotionaltexts.It is importantto note,also, that
theBritishpreoccupationwiththepreservation of 'customand usage' in native
religious affairsmakes these texts inherentlycontinuousand progressively
self-fulfilling,in theirlanguageifnot in theireffects.Thus theauthorityand
continuityof theseBritishlegal and administrative documents,as social and
politicalcharters,tendsto spiralin thenineteenthand twentieth centuries.
Today, Tenkalai Brahminstendto be remarkably aware,particularly when
contemplatinglitigation,of thisextendedseriesofcolonialtextualresources.It
is a principalsourcein theirclaimsagainsttheStateand sectarianopponents.In
particular,theytend to justifytheirclaimsby reference to two specificHigh
Courtjudgments:thejudgmentand schemeof 1924 (alreadyreferred to) and a
closelyrelatedcase, in whichtherightsofa closedgroupofTenkalaiBrahmins
to recite the Prabandham poems in this Temple were elaboratelycodified.
Taken togetherthese two High Courtjudgmentshave high value and con-
siderablecredibility in theeyesof therestof thecommunity, fortheyplacethe
claims of the Tenkalai Brahminsin a wider constitutional/legal framework
which links the legitimacyof theirclaims to those of other groups. This
accords with thethirdculturalnormthat,accordingto my argument,defines
the statusand credibilityof particularcharters:namely,foran authoritative
past utteranceto have the maximumvalue as a charter,it must encode the
maximumnumberoffeaturesrelevantto thecharters ofothergroups.
This interdependenceof charterscan occur in one of two ways. Eithera
specificauthoritativetextin the past encodes the rightsof a largenumberof
groups in the Temple, namelya Hindu royalorder,a Britishadministrative
rulingor a High Courtjudgment.Or it can occurwhena grouplinksitsclaim
in a general way with a broad textualtraditionor corpus, to which other
groups mustalso necessarilyhave recourse.In thislattersense,bothBrahmin
and non-BrahminTenkalai in Triplicaneanchortheirself-perceptions in the
Prabandhamcorpus of medieval devotional poetry; both Vatakalai and
Tenkalai revere the writingsof Ramanuja as authoritative;both Tenkalai
Brahmins as well as Vaikhanasa temple-priests, as well as virtuallyevery
organisedinterestgroup in theTemple today,have a vestedinterestin High
Court judgments as valid chartersof theirrights-largelya productof the
highlygenerativeperiodbetweeni 88o and 1925, whentheTemplewas almost

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
212 ARJUN APPADURAI

continuouslyin Court forone or anotherreason,and nativelitigants learnedto

conceivetheirclaimsin Anglo-Indianlegalterminology.
The strengthof theTenkalaiBrahminsin theTemple today,and theawe in
which they are held by most othergroups in the Temple, is not simplya
functionof castesuperiority, legal skills,or ferocity
in conflict.It is as mucha
functionof thekind of past thattheycan crediblymarshallin defenceof their
collectiveinterests,a past thatfulfilsadmirablyall thefiveculturalnormsthat
determinethe differential credibilityof such charters:textualevidence,ex-
ternalauthority,interdependence withotherpasts,continuity and antiquity.

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

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 213

deliberatelywithdrawnand thispartof the divineleavingsdistributed to the

non-Brahminmembersof the congregationin anothervessel; 2) while the
entire congregationwas obliged to remain standingwhile the Brahmins
receivedtheholy waterand theSri Satakopan(themetalrepresentation of the
feetof Visnu), thelatterimmediatelysat down to receivetheprasatam (sacred
food), while thenon-Brahminswerestillstandingto receivetheholywater;3)
the non-Brahminsrarely received the Sri Satakopan honour at all, and
certainlynot, in thewords of one non-Brahmininformant, 'immediately after
and in continuationwiththeBrahmindevotees'.
My own observationsof daily ritualat the Temple in 1973-74, afterthis
issue had allegedlybeen resolved,suggestthatthesecomplaintswere neither
incrediblenor esoteric.The atmosphereof thedailyredistributive ceremonials
is one of considerablefrenzyand crowding,on thesurface.Closer observation
in a crowd of two or threehundredpeople) suggeststhatperhapsthe
(difficult
priestsgrow increasinglydisrespectful when the 'honours' in question are
distributedto the non-Brahmins.Whereas Brahmins stand close to the
sanctum and are scrupulouslyserved, non-Brahminswho forma crowded
outercirclecertainlydo not meritthesame care. For themassofnon-Brahmin
devotees, who hold no officeand subsidisefew ritualsas donors, the daily
receiptof thesedivineleavingsis the sole transactionthattheypubliclycon-
duct with the deity. To them,it is both the symbol and substanceof their
participationin thisdivine polity.Crowded, impersonaland hurriedas their
contactwith the deitymightbe, themannerof thetransactions (about which
theycomplain)is inextricably linkedwiththeirmeaning.The deprivationthey
feel in this public ritualarena is, to the non-Brahminworshippers,a sign of
theirdishonourand indeed theirdisenfranchisement fromthe redistributive
domain of the deity.This is an unseemlyintrusion,theyclaim,of theworst
featuresof the caste systeminto theputativelyegalitarianworldof a Tenkalai
Sri Vaisnava Temple. There is one kind of discrimination, however,which
theydo not challenge.They have no quarrelwiththespecialprivilegesshown
to the fixednumberof Brahminmales (theattiyappaka) who legallymonop-
olise the recitationof thePrabandham in dailyritual.It is theextensionof this
priorityto any and all Brahmins(male and female,Tenkalai and Vatakalai,
Vaisnava and Non-Vaisnava) to which they take exception.In theirargu-
ments,it is thislatterextensionwhichis discriminatory, and whichtheysee as
both 'contraryto thelaw in forceand to Sri Vaisnavatradition'.This kindof
assertionpithilysummarisestheirview of the inequitiesof the present,in
relationto theirconceptionofthepast,a matterto whichI shallnow turn.The
following account of the way in which this group of non-Brahminwor-
shippersuses thepast to argueabout thelegitimacyof theirpresentcomplaints
is based partlyon petitionsand pamphletsproducedby them,in thelastthree
decades, and partlyon a seriesof interviewswith one of the leadersof this
group, who spearheadeditsactivitiesin theI960's.
To some extentthenon-Brahminview of 'the Sri Vaisnava tradition'uses
preciselythesame argumentsagainsttheirBrahminco-sharersin thisTemple
thattheTenkalaiBrahminsrallyin supportoftheirsuperiority to theVatakalai
sub-sect. In the firstplace, thesenon-Brahminsplace considerableweighton

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214 ARJUN APPADURAI

the sacrednessof theAlvar poet-saints(severalof whom werenon-Brahmins)

as a charterfor theirown importancein contemporarytemple-ritual.But
further,and here theydivergefrommost Brahmininterpretations, theycite
specificversesfromthisdevotionalcorpusof textsto arguetheirrelevanceof
caste discriminations in the contextof the worshipof Visnu. These verses,
theybelieve,emphasisetheequalityand identityof all worshippers, regardless
of caste,in thepresenceof thedeity.
It is this aspect of the non-Brahminversionof the Sri Vaisnava Tradition
which is themostembarrassing fortheirBrahminantagonists, for,as we have
seen, the egalitarian,populistic,and congregationalaspectsof the life and
writings of the Alvars are also fundamentalto the ideology of Tenkalai
Brahmins in theirstruggleswith Vatakalai Brahmins.On the otherhand,
thesetextsarenecessarily formulaic anduniversalistic
intheirlanguageanddo not
bear directlyon specificmattersof rankand orderin particular ritualcontexts.
To achievethisspecificity, thesenon-Brahmins relyon whatis referredto as
Ramanuja's Code (RamanujaDivyajna). This code, which theytreatas if it
were a text,is in factbelievedby Sri Vaisnavasto be enshrinedin thearrange-
ments that Ramanuja made for temple-worshipat the great Sri Vaisnava
templeat Srirangam.They arguethatthis'code' has historically been adhered
to at all Sri Vaisnava temples,by loyal followersof Ramanuja,to thepresent
day. In theirview, the'custom'at theSriPartasarati SvamiTempleis a 'recent'
and illegitimatedeviationfromthiswidelyacceptedtraditionenshrinedin the
Code of Ramanuja. While the non-Brahminscan invoke the unquestioned
authorityof Ramanuja, the sharedtraditionof all Sri Vaisnava temples,and
the pseudo-textualCode of Ramanuja (all of which have wide credibility),
thesedo not bear directlyon theirown protests.But certainly as elementsof a
charterthat embed theirown claims deeply in historicentitiesdear to the
self-perception of othergroups in the Temple, theseare a strongfoundation
for theircontemporaryprotests.The non-Brahminsloosely gloss all these
componentsof theirview of traditionas 'the Vedas and the Shastras',the
highestsymbolsofHindu textualauthority.
They also refer,as best theycan, to aspectsof therecentlegal and adminis-
trativecontextin supportof theirclaims. One of theirpetitionsrefersto a
High Courtjudgmentof I935, involvinganothertemple,in whichthejudge
establishedthat the term 'Sri Vaisnava' was a comprehensivecategory,in-
cludingall thosewho werebornintothecreedand observeditstenets,regard-
less of caste. They cite thisjudgment, drawn from anothercontext,but
carryingthe authorityof the Anglo-Indianlaw, in supportof thejustice of
theirclaims. Much more powerfuland to the point,theyrepeatedlycitethe
followingprovisionof theMadras HRCE Actof i959;
Notwithstandinganythingin thisAct or in anytext,ruleor interpretation
of Hindu law, or any
customor usage as partof thatLaw or in anyotherLaw or in anydecreeofCourt,thereshallbe
in thedistribution
no discrimination of anyPradadamor Theerthamin anyreligiousinstitution
on groundsonlyof caste,sex, placeofbirthor anyof them.

There is littledoubt that this legal provisionprovided freshfuel to the

long-standingnon-Brahminmalaise,and it certainly was thestrongesttextual

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 215

charterfortheirclaims. In general,however,thenon-Brahminshad to argue

the validityof generaltextualinjunctions(whetherancientreligiousones or
recentlegal ones) againstthe counter-arguments of local TenkalaiBrahmins.
These counter-arguments, while denyingsome of the more shockingnon-
Brahmin accusations, in general defendedcurrentpracticeas having the
validityof local usage (mamul).Under theinfluenceof Britishadministration
and law, a greatmanyissueswereresolvedby reference to whatwas perceived
to be 'customary.'Thus Indianlitigantsrapidlylearnedto makeeventhemost
outrageousand innovativeproposalsin the languageof 'custom and usage'.
The non-Brahminsrecognisedthe double-edgednatureof resortingto tra-
dition in order to make theircase. The followingparagraphis takenfroma
letterwrittenby one of the leadersof thenon-Brahminprotestorsin 1948 to
thePresidentof theHindu ReligiousEndowmentsBoard:
... The procedurementionedin the foregoingparas and in vogue in thistempleis improper
and unjustand unbearablyhumiliatingto themajorityof thecongregation;but thisis resorted
to by theculturedtempleauthorities sheerlyunderthepretextof 'Mamul'. Mamulis ofour own
makingto serveour interests.If a mamulservesits purposeit is allowed to live; otherwiseit is
put to death. Many a mamuldied and now would-bemamulshave made theirappearance.The
recentinstallationof electriclightswill become a mamul in courseof time. In thesecircum-
stancesthecruelmamulin questiondeservesto be rootedout withoutfurther loss oftime.

Eventually,in I967, the HRCE Department,in its quasi-judicialcapacity,

passed an administrativeorder banning the specificacts of discrimination
complained about, while carefullyprotectingthe specificrightsof male
Brahmin Prabandham reciters.In I973, however,the feelingwas widespread
among thenon-Brahminworshippersthatthiswas onlya 'paper'victory,and
thatmuch had to be done beforetheirnotionof 'tradition'was restoredat the
Temple. To the extentthatthesenon-Brahminsdid receivea serioushearing
and serious counter-arguments, this was because of theirastuterelianceon
shared textualor pseudo-textualelementsof the Sri Vaisnava traditionand a
few recentadministrative and legal dicta.But to theextentthattheycould not
link these broadly authoritativetextsto theirspecificgrievances,theylaid
themselvesopen to a counter-argument based upon the moral forceof local
'customand usage'.

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

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2i6 ARJUN APPADURAI

specific,moreshallowand less inclusiveversionsof thepast.Thus, a particular

personvyingfortheofficeof trusteemightpromotehis candidacyin termsof
his own experiencein temple-affairs, thedonationshe or hisfamilyhave made
to the Temple, or some specificmisdeedsof his opponentsin thepast. Wor-
shippersoftencomplainabout particularaspectsof thecurrentmanagement of
theTemple, in termsof vague, casuallyformulated modelsof 'theway itwas.'
A Temple-servant,about to get dismissedby thetrustee,mightcitehis long
record of dedicated service,the conditionsand termsunder which he was
hired, past precedentsfor the dismissalof temple-servants, and so on. The
temple-priests, in quarrelsamongstthemselves,tendto speakin veryshallow
historicalterms,restricting theirreferences
to the past to those eventsmost
relevantto theveryspecificissueat hand. A particular donor,in contesting the
way that temple-servants conductthe festivalhe sponsors,would generally
recitethehistoryof his endowment,recentlitigationinvolvingit, thefactsof
the case, and littleelse. Such examplescould be multiplied,and they,taken
together,form the bulk of the occasions in which the past is a conscious
elementof contemporaryinteractions.When, however,the conflictis more
serious,and thestakeshigher,thosein conflictare likelyto draw fromone or
other, or some combination,of the three'paradigmatic'pasts that I have
discussed.
Since these 'pasts' stand,by and large,in a segmentedrelationship to one
another,does thisimplythatthereis no generalisedview of the past thatis
sharedamong those who have regularinterestsin the Temple, eitheras
managers, servants,worshippersor donors? There is such a shared past,
althoughit is largelycomposedof elementsalreadycontainedin thedivergent
'pasts' of particulargroups.
Most individualswho have any on-going interestsin this Temple share
threesetsof ideas concerningitspast. The firstis a beliefin themythicorigins
of the temple,describedin a specificsthala-purana (local history),whichis a
genreof historicalliterature alwaysfoundin sacredplaces.This work,follow-
ing a set format,describesin a mixtureof Sanskritand Tamil, a seriesofdivine
dialogues thatpertainto the sacredoriginsof thisTemple and the deityen-
shrinedin it. Few personsknow muchof what is in thistext,but mostknow
some legend or storycontainedin it. Secondly,mostof my informants knew
thatthe earlieststoneinscription in theTemple is datedto theeighthcentury
A.D. and take pridein thefactthatthismakesit theoldestshrinein Madras
city.There is also widespreadknowledgeof thelinksbetweenthisTempleand
the devotional historyof south Indian Sri Vaisnavism. Lastly,many indi-
viduals know thebroad outlinesof theadministrative and politicalhistoryof
theTemple in thecolonialperiod.
The past thatis shared,however,alwaysstandsin a delicaterelationship to
the 'pasts' thatare held dearby distinctgroupstoday.The propositionuttered
by many persons around the Temple, in many contexts,'this has been a
Tenkalai Temple fromtimeimmemorial',is an importantcomponentof the
sharedpast of the Temple. Yet it meansdifferent thingsto different groups.
To therepresentatives of theState,it meansthatin ritualtermstheprocedures
followed in thisTemple mustconformto thetenetsof theTenkalaifaith.To

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 217

Tenkalai Brahmins,it additionallyencodes the legal rightof the Tenkalai

communityof Triplicaneto exclusivelymanagetheTemple,withoutanyState
To thenon-Brahminworshippers,it meansthatthisTemple has
interference.
always been controlledby a sectthathas been especiallyresponsiveto theirfull
participationin temple-worship,until recently.To the priests,one may
furthernote, it simplydefinesan unalterableand receivedfeatureof theland-
scape, to be stoicallyenduredbut not especiallyto be encouragedor em-
broidered.Each group is aware of theconstruction thattheothersplace upon
thisproposition,but simplyemphasisesits own preferred It is
interpretation.
preciselythis self-consciously of core propositionsthat
varied interpretation
bestcharacterises thepoliticalcultureoftheTemple.

In the south Indian temple,thepast is an extremelyimportantcomponentof

debateand divisionin thepresent.But it does notseeminfinitely susceptibleto
contemporaryinvention.Indeed,thereappearto be a setof norms,pertaining
to authority,continuityand interdependence, whichgovernthetermsof the
debateconcerningthepast. These normsserveto providea formalframework
within which 'charters'are mutuallyevaluated and interpreted as part of
political action in the present. Further,these norms permita controlled
accommodationof thestructurally 'new' featuresof colonialrulewiththecore
conceptsof the culturalsystemof the temple.Such norms,therefore, have a
dual function:on the one hand, theyprovidea set of ruleswithinwhichthe
past may be debated;and, on theother,theyprovidean idiom formediating
the effectsof structuralchange on culturalcontinuity.This latterpoint has
some generalimplications.
Bloch has made an elegant and complex argumentabout the theoretical
problemof thepast and its consequencesfortheanalysisof social change.He
arguesthatneitherstructural-functionalist norMarxistapproachescan account
adequately for social change, because the formerapproach sees 'the social
process in termsused by the actorsand so is unableto explainhow it is that
actors can change those terms',whereas the neo-marxiananalysts'see the
mechanismsas occurringin termstotallyaliento theactorsand so are unable
to explainhow thesemechanismscan be transformed intomeaningful action'
(I977: 278). Bloch sees thecommonrootof theseproblemsin a belief,derived
from.Durkheim, in the social determination of concepts,which leaves the
actors'withno languageto talkabouttheirsocietyand so changeit,sincethey
can only talk within it' (I977: 28i). His solutionto thisimpasseis to propose
thatthereexistin all humansocietiestwo kindsof cognition.One is universal
in nature,withdurationas itsbasis, and is orientedto pragmaticand everyday
contexts,such as agriculture. withvariable(often
The otheris-culture-relative,
non-durational)perceptionsof time underlyingit, is expressedin ritualand
ritualisedcommunication,and is whathas generallybeen objectifiedas 'social
structure'.Bloch argues thatsocial changecan occur, because the pragmatic
past can be a sourceof conceptsforchallengingtheritualised,oftenstaticpast,
thatgenerallydominatesthepresent.

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2I8 ARJUN APPADURAI

The singledefectof thisimaginativesolutionto theproblemof accounting

for social change is thatits mechanismremainsfuzzy.We are not quite clear
about how these two systemsof cognition,these two formsof communi-
cation, thesetwo notionsof time,can come into meaningful interaction.My
own argumenthas been that thereis a thirdaspect of the past, which is
culture-specific, and whichconsistsof a setof normswhose sole purposeis to
regulatethe inherentdebatabilityof thepastin thepresent.Such a normative
organisationof discourse concerningthe past, I propose, is the ghost in
Bloch's otherwiseelegantmachine.
This normativeframeworkpermitsan orderlysymbolicnegotiationbe-
tween 'ritual' pasts and the contingenciesof the present.The termsof this
negotiationare, of course,culturallyvariable.The Indianexampleshows the
'facts' of colonial rule being accommodatedto traditionalconceptsprecisely
throughthe set of norms which governsdebate concerningthe past. Else-
where (Appadurai i98i) I have shown how thisnegotiationactuallyleads to
structuralchange,and notonlyto revisedtermsofdiscourse.
Like all systemsof norms,those concerningthe past constitutea link be-
tween culturalconceptsand social action.But unlikeany otherset of norms,
this set is, necessarily,a code forsocietiesto talkaboutthemselves,and not
only withinthemselves.This is so becausethepastis an intrinsically alternative
mode of discourseto thoseotherculturalmodes ofcommunication whichcan,
and oftendo, assume an eternalpresent.Such norms,therefore, constitutean
aspect of culturein whichconcessionsto changeare builtin, and divisionand
debate are recognised.As a result,suchnormspermitnew formsof action,at
thesame timeas theyallow culturesto regulatesocialchange.
Withoutthissortof normativeframeworkfordebatingthepast,we would
be left with only two options, culturesthat collapse in the face of social
change,and thosethatare radicallyrevitalisedin responseto suchchange.But
much culturechange is neitherreluctantnor radical. It is this kind of un-
dramaticaccommodationthatwe can betterunderstandif we graspthatthe
past is a rule-governed,therefore finite,culturalresource.As withotherkinds
of culturalrules,anythingis possiblebut onlysome thingsare permissible.It
may be possibleforculturesto maskthebio-physicalrealityof durationbutit
is infinitelyharderforthemto deny theinherentdebatability of thepast. To
the extentthatsuch denialis successful,as Levi-Strausshas observed,culture
takeson thecharacterof custom(Levi-Straussi966: 236). To theextentthatit
fails,cultureis open to revision,revitalisationor subversion.It is thefunction
of norms governingthe unavoidable debates about the past to ensurethat
when changedoes occur,itis notentirely at thecostofculturalcontinuity.

NOTES

The fieldworkand archivalresearchon whichthisarticleis based were conductedin I973-74

and I977 in London and Madras, India. I am gratefulforthe financialsupportof the Danforth
Foundation, the Committee on South Asian Studies of the Universityof Chicago, and the
AmericanInstituteof IndianStudies.Previousversionswerepresentedto theEthnohistory Work-
shop at theUniversityofPennsylvaniaand to theAnthropologyColloquium at PrincetonUniver-

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARJUN APPADURAI 2I9

sity. On both occasions I receivedusefulcriticism.Special thanksare due to my colleague,Igor

Kopytoff,fora carefulreadingof thefinalversionwhichhelpedto clarifytheargumentconsider-
ably.

REFERENCES

Appadurai,A. I98I. Worship andconflictundercolonialrule:a southIndiancase.New York, London:

CambridgeUniv. Press.
& C. A. BreckenridgeI976. The south Indian temple:authority,honour and redistri-
bution.Contrib.Ind. Sociol.I0, I87-2II.
Bloch, M. I977. The pastand thepresentin thepresent.Man (N.S.) 12, 278-92.
Cohen, A. P. & J. L. ComaroffI976. The managementof meaning:on the phenomenologyof
politicaltransactions.In Transaction andmeaning:directions in theanthropologyofexchangeand
symbolicbehavior (ed.) B. Kapferer.Philadelphia:Institute fortheStudyofHuman Issues.
Durkheim,E. I954 [I9I2]. The elementaryforms ofthereligiouslife.New York: Macmillan.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. I940. TheNuer.London: OxfordUniv. Press.
Firth,R. I930-I. Totemismin Polynesia.OceaniaI, 29I-32I, 378-98.
Fortes,M. I945. Thedynamics ofclanshipamongtheTallensi.London:OxfordUniv. Press.
Geertz,C. I966. Person,timeandconduct in Bali: an essayin cultural
analysis.Yale South-EastAsia
Program,CulturalReportsSeries14.
Goody, J. I977. Thedomestication ofthesavagemind.New York: CambridgeUniv. Press.
Hallowell, I. A. I937. Temporal orientationin Westerncivilizationand in a preliterate society.
Am. Anthrop. 29, 647-70.
Leach, E. R. I965 [I954]. Politicalsystemsofhighland Burma.Boston:Beacon Press.
Lee, D. I959. Codificationsof reality:lineal and nonlineal.Reprintedin D. Lee, Freedomand
culture.New Jersey:PrenticeHall,
Levi-Strauss,C. I966 [I962]. Thesavagemind.London:Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Mudaliar, C. I974. The secularstateand religious institutions
in India:a studyoftheadministration
of
Hindureligious trustsinMadras.Wiesbaden:FranzSteiner.

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.66 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:46:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions