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.