62234204 appadurai arjun 1981 the past a a scarce resource en man new series vol 16 no 2

7/30/2019 62234204 Appadurai Arjun 1981 the Past a a Scarce Resource en Man New Series Vol 16 No 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/62234204-appadurai-arjun-1981-the-past-a-a-scarce-resource-en-man-new-series 1/20

The Past as a Scarce Resource

Author(s): Arjun AppaduraiSource: Man, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Jun., 1981), pp. 201-219Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801395 .

Accessed: 13/08/2011 14:49

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 [email protected].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801395?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801395?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai



THE PAST AS A SCARCE RESOURCE

ARJUN APPADURAI

UniversityfPennsylvania

The assumption hat hepast san nfinitendplastic ymbolic esource, holly usceptibleocontemporary urposes, s widespread n contemporarynthropology.t is partly ooted nMalinowski'sconception fmyth s social charter ndpartlynDurkheim's ormulationon-cerning hecross-culturalelativityf fundamentalategoriesf human hought. hisarticle s

a critiqueof thisassumption, nd suggests he existence f culturallyariable etsofnormswhose functions to regulate he inherent ebatabilityf thepast. Such norms,whichvarysubstantivelyrom ulture o culture, re nevertheless rom formal ointofview subject ocertain niversal onstraints. n examplefrom outh ndia s thebasis for his rgument, hichalso has mplicationsor he heoreticalnalysis f ocialchange.

There existsa widespread hough acit ssumption hat hepast s a limitlessand plastic symbolic resource, nfinitelyusceptible o the whims of con-temporary nterestand the distortions f contemporary deology. Theprincipal hesis fthis rticles that his ssumptions false, nd that o correctit entails new viewofthe ulturalimits fthepast s a symbolic esource.

The anthropological ssumption hatthe past is a boundless canvas forcontemporaryembroideryrepresents he confluenceof two historicallydistinct inesofargument. he first,nspired y Malinowski, implyderivesfromobservation fthe rhetoricalnvocation fthe past as 'charter')n con-temporaryocialorganisation,nd thetacit onclusion hat uchcharters aveno inherent imits, except those of expediency.The second, inspiredbyDurkheim (I954), carriedthrough by Evans-PritchardI940), Hallowell

(I937) and Lee (I959) and mostrecentlyevived y GeertzI966), makessubtler ndfurther-reachingelativistase. Inthis atter iew, concepts ftime(and indeed theperception f duration tself) re fundamentalultural ari-ables. The joint consequenceofthesetwo argumentss to render hepastaboundlessresource n particular ultures, s well as infinitelyariable ross-culturally.My arguments principallyirected t thefirst iew,derived romMalinowski.The second view cannotbe falsifiednprinciple, ut shall rguethat heredo appearto be somegeneral onstraints hich imit nycollectiveuse of thepast.

Cross-culturalimits

In a recentMalinowskilecture,MauriceBloch (I977) has criticised liffordGeertzfor xaggeratingheextent o whichparticularulturesmight erceive

ManN.S.) i6, 20I-I9



202 ARJUNAPPADURAI

duration tselfndrastically ifferentays.The problem fwhether urationis a universally ecognised spectof temporalprocesses s not my centralconcern.My concern s ratherwith pasts' n Malinowski's ense ofcharters:collectively eld, publicly xpressed ndideologically harged ersions f thepast,which are ikely ovarywithin hegroups hat orm society.Yet thereis an important ointofagreement etweenBloch andGeertzwhich mpingeson myargument.

Bloch concedes thatGeertz s rightn arguing hat heBalinese have twokinds of past: a 'ritualised'past which denies duration, nd a non-ritual,mundanepast, concernedwith such pragmatic ctivities s agriculturendpolitics, in which duration s universally ecognised.Bloch's quarrelwithGeertz concerns nlytheweight o be givento these wo kindsofpast.Thetroublewiththisdichotomysthat oth reconceived sbeingbeyonddebate.The ritualpast is entirelyhared nd the non-ritual ast s a brutepragmaticgiven. There is, however,a thirdkind ofpastwhose essential urpose s todebate therpasts. It generally artakes f both ritual nd everyday indsofdiscourse and indeedmakes it possibleforpeople to pass fromone to theother. It too has a cultural orm, n each society, ven ifdurations a uni-versally recogniseddatum of socio-biologicalreality. Nor, like Geertz'sversion of the Balinese view of time, is it wholly a culture-relativephenomenon. t comprises ntagonistic aststhat re themselvesubject o asharednormative ramework,nd n an Indian xample describe ne such et

ofniorms. hat suchpasts resubject odisagreementnd debate s,ofcourse,hardlya novel point.As Leach (I965) has pointedout,Malinowskihimselfobserved thateven in stable and well-balanced ocieties,opposing factionswould be likely o generate ifferent yths, pointthatwas laterforcefullymade yFortesI 945)and irthI930-3I). Inhis wn lassicnalysisfpoliticsnhighlandBurma,Leachmakesthis rgument ith strikingeries fexamplesof variationson mythswhich supportedvaryingpolitical nterests. n hisfamousphrase, myth nd ritual s a languageof argument, ot a chorusofharmony.The mainsignificancefthis nsight, rom each'spointofview,was itsfurtherroof hat he thenreigningssumptions f ntegration,qui-

librium ndconsistencynrelation o small-scale ocietieswere ndrastic eedof revision.My own argument, ollowing each,takesforgranted hatdis-course concerning he past between social groupsis an aspectof politics,involvingcompetition, pposition nd debate.But thecentral uestionwithwhich I am concerned s: howis suchdebate ulturallyrganised?his latterquestionhasnot so far eceived xplicit ttention romnthropologists.

To treat ebateconcerninghepastas an aspectofpolitics s,ofcourse,notthe same as to explainthesociologyof competitionnd dominance n anygiven politicalcontext.The ethnographic ortion fthis rticle eals argelywithantagonisms etween rganisednterestsn a south ndian emple, ut ts

purpose is not to account forthe sociologyof factionalismn thestandardsense. The argument s, rather, oncernedwithwhat Cohen and Comaroff(I976) have recently alled themanagement fmeaning'.By this heymeanthe competitive rocess by which valuesaredefined, magesoftransactionscontrived, nd interpretationsfa situationuccessfullymposedbyoneparty



ARJUN APPADURAI 203

on others. Cohen and Comaroffmake a forceful rgument hat nalysis fthosetransactionshat nvolve ompetition ver themanagement f meaningsshould precede analysisof those substantive nd intrinsic alues over whichthe competition s apparently akingplace. My own concernwith the pastin the politics f a south ndiantemple xtendsCohen and Comaroff's nsightin one important egard.Rather han aking orgranted hat olitical ompeti-tionover the meaning f transactionss constrainednlyby ts ocial context,I propose that here s a definable ulturalramework ithwhich uch debatesconcerningmeaningmust akeplace. The bulkof this rticles concernedwiththe ethnographic escription f one such framework. ut the prior uestionis: are suchsetsof norms whose functions to regulate he nherent ebatabilityof the past) entirely ulture-relativer do they peratewithin niversal on-straints?

I propose that lthough heremight e infiniteubstantiveariation oncern-ingsuchnorms bout thepast, heres a minimal etofformalonstraintsn allsuch sets of norms. These formal onstraints an be seen as four minimaldimensionsconcerningwhichall culturesmust make some substantive ro-vision.i. Authority:hisdimension nvolves ome cultural onsensus s to thekindsofsource,origin rguarantorf pasts'which rerequired or heir redibility.2. Continuity:nvolves omecultural onsensus s to thenature fthe inkage

withthesource ofauthority hich s required or heminimal redibilityf a'past.'3. Depth: involves culturalconsensusas to the relativevalues of differenttime-depthsn themutual valuation f pasts' n a given ociety.4. Interdependence:mplies henecessityfsome conventionbouthowcloselyany pastmust be interdependentithotherpasts' to ensureminimal redi-bility.

Substantiveconventionsconcerning ach of these dimensionscan, ofcourse, varybothcross-culturallyndintra-culturally.hus,whilepropheticdreamscan be a sourcefor he uthorityfchartersn northAmerica, hey o

not have this tatus n Hindu India.Similarly,he ubstantive orms oncern-ing continuitynAfrican ulturalystems an be verydifferentor etiologicalmyths in which significantreaks n the ink betweenpastand present repermissible) nd forpoliticalgenealogies wheresuch breaksmight everelyimpair hecredibilityfa charter). ut thepoint s thatno culture anmanagethe on-going collectivedebateamong 'pasts'without ome ubstantive ro-visionsconcerninghesefourdimensions. hese dimensionsmaythereforeetakenas constituting minimaluniversal tructureorthecultural onstruc-tion ofpasts.Sucha structureepresentsnlya formal etofconstraints, ithno necessary ubstantivemplications. he formal onstraintseitherimitnor

predetermine hevariation fsubstantive ormsfrom ulture o culture, ndthe minimalrecipe can, needlessto say,be variedand expanded;the ndiancase isone suchvariation.

Let me brieflyddresstheproblem fgeneralisationrom his ase. Treat-mentsof the role of thepast in contemporary oliticshave generally eenmade in the contextof small-scale,kin-basedpolities,where myth' in the



204 ARJUNAPPADURAI

classic senseof talesof the sacredand semi-sacred) re thebasic currencyfsuch discourse.The principal ifferencesetween hese ontexts nd the oneI describe are the productof the fact that southAsia has known a literatecivilisation orover two millennia, nd for good partofthisperiodsocialgroups have createdwrittenhistorical harters.-n addition,of course,themodem colonial mpacton southAsia was longer ndculturallymore ntensethan n most other reas. As a result, hepolitics fdiscourse oncerninghepasthave become almostcompletelyeveredfrom he anguageofmyth ndritual, n thetraditionalense. Rather, hey urn n linear ccounts f eventsorganisedaroundhistoricallyateablewritten exts f a variety fsorts, n-cludingcolonial egaland administrativeocuments. utthis s a differencenthemode and currency f suchdiscourse, nd not a differencen principle.Thereseemstobe every eason osupposethat ven nthose ocietiesnwhichthepast s largely rganisednterms forally ransmitted, ythic arratives,there should exist culturalnormsthat regulate ebateconcerning he past,though heir ubstantive aturemight e quitedifferent: hile t soutside hescope ofthis rticle o analyse henature fthesedifferencesnd similarities,tmight be noted thatthis problem s another spectof the cross-culturalndhistorical nalysis f the onsequences f iteracyGoody 977).

The Indian ase

The case of Hindu India is interesting artly ecause like slamic,Buddhistand pre-modern European societies) it combines features f small-scalesocieties inmatters frank, itual nd kinship)withothers hat ssume arge-scale organisation, emporal epth, iteracynd civilisationalomplexity.AsBloch haswittily ut t, ndia s anexcellent aseof too much' ocial tructure,infinite ierarchynd a superabundancef thepast n thepresent. he con-struction f thepast nthe south ndiantemple iscussed elow is not necess-arilyparadigmatic f ndian ociety s a whole,but tmaycertainly e taken san important xample.

In theparticularouth ndiantemplewhich studied, ivenorms erveto

provide the culturalframeworkwithinwhich the charters f specific ub-groups are constructed, efendedand mutually valuated: . thattextualevidenceortheauthorityfanycharters superior o anyotherkind; . thatthe evidencefor charterught o involve heratificationfa credible xternalauthoritativeigurewhether acredor secular) n thepast; 3. that he chartershouldbe basedon an authoritativeocument hat ncodes inaddition otheclaimsofthegroup nquestion) heprivileges fa maximum umber fotherrelevantroups; . thattheevidenceforthe chartern question hould be re-flected, s far s possible, continuouslynthedocumented ast,and 5. that hegreater heantiquityf thereferentsf thechartern question, he better he

case fortherightsnquestion. tappears s wellthat he bovefivenorms reindigenously onceived uchthat hey tand nan order fdecreasing ower:thus hefirsts the eastdispensablend the ast, hemost.

Whenone describesnorms uchas these, t s especiallymportanto relatehow theyare accessible o theethnographer. heyarebyno meansexplicit.



ARJUN APPADURAI 205

They are revealed, however, n conversations bout temple-politics,n theactual prosecutionof conflicts, nd in reflectionsn the evolution of the

managementof the Temple. I have formalised hem not because they areexplicitly odified,butbecause they re shared ssumptions epeatedly orneout by ethnographic xperience.n thecontinuing onversation hat s life ntheTemple, they onstit-utenepartof thegrammar fdiscourse, eflectednmanyparticular ormulations.

The ethnohistoricalasis formy argument omesfrom year ffieldworkndarchival research entered n the Sri Partasarati vami Temple, in Madras

City. I have elsewheredescribed his ontext n detail Appadurai 98I). Thefollowingdiscussion s therefore skeletal tatement hose solepurpose s toset the tagefor herest fthis ssay.

The SriPartasarati vami Temple is byits ongurbanhistory,tsVaisnavasectarian ffiliationnd its Tenkalaisub-sectarianontrol, n many respectspeculiar.But its social role andcultural orm re muchthe ameasmost outhIndian templessince at least theChola period (c. A.D. iooo). This sharedparadigm has alreadybeen discussed lsewhereAppadurai& Breckenridge:I976), and can briefly e summarised s follows.

The deityis the centreof the south Indiantemple.This deity s not a

mere image or icon fortheexpression f abstract eligious entimentsndprinciples. n its capacity o command and redistributeconomic resources,and in its capacityto rank ndividuals nd groups, by theunequalredistri-butionoftheseresources, hedeity sfounded n the outh ndianunderstand-ing ofsovereignty. he deity s a paradigmaticovereign,nd thus he outhIndiantemple s a polity, n whichall relationships ith theroyalfigure reprivileged.All contributionso thetemple,whether ndowments r services,areprivileged. o also theoutput f thedeity,nwhatever orm,sprivileged.The food he has eaten,the water n whichhe has bathedor has drunk, hevestments e wears,arequintessentialbjectsofvalue. In thedivine ourt f

the deity, rank and status are expressed by the amountof these divine'leavings'one receives, n whatoccasions, ndinwhatorder.Access to thesedivine remnants s systematicallyelated o the servicesor substances neoffers o the deity. Thus, endowingthedeity and servinghim in variouscapacities re alsoprivilegesonstitutivefrank.

For those who constitute he followingof the deity temple-staff,or-shippers, managers, donors) these sumptuaryprivilegesare not meredenotative emblems of rank and privilege. They are seen as constitutivefeaturesfshares panku)ntheredistributiverocess fthe emple, omposedof both ritual and economic entitlements. onflictbetwengroupsand in-dividuals n theTemple often ruptsntheform ftension urroundinghesesumptuaryprivileges,which are referred o as 'honours' (mariyatai). uchconflicts re endemicfora variety f reasons:because there s no overarch-ing bureaucratic rinciple ftemple-control;ecause there s no ecclesiasticalhierarchyn India thatgoverns temples; because the State is in a delicate



206 ARJUNAPPADURAI

position nregard o thecontrol ftemples; nd becausetheboundaries f theTemple as an institutionrepoorlydrawn.

Thus there s tensionbetweengroups thathave an enduring orporate n-

terestntemple-control.n the xpression nd resolutionfthese onflicts,he'pasts' ofthesegroupsplaya direct nd mportantole.Whenthesepastshavea highdegreeof mutualcredibility,onflictanbe mutedor reduced.Whenthis s not thecase, specific ontemporaryattles remore ikely o rise. n thelatter ventuality, hesechartersre likely o be reformulated,efined, ome-timesexpanded.The current ituations one such, and inthese ircumstancesit s especially italtounderstandhepolitics f thepast nthepresent. n suchconflicts,he normsthatgovern hedebatecome frequentlyntoview. I nowdiscuss hree roups hat laycentral oles nthepolitics fworship oday t theSriPartasarativamiTemple: the tate, heTenkalaiBrahminsfTriplicanend

thenon-Brahminworshippers.

The stateIn 1973-74, when I conductedfieldwork, he Government f the StateofTamil Natu (previouslyMadras State) was the dominantforce n templepolitics.Representativesf the HinduReligious nd Charitable ndowments(Administration) epartment hereafterhe f1RCE Department) ontrolledthe bureaucraticpparatus ftheTemple: thesupervision ftemple inances,the payment ftemple-servants,he ogistical peration f theritual alendar.They consisted f an ExecutiveOfficer, Superintendentnda small clericalstaff.This bureaucratic halanxoccupied a small set of officeswithintheTemple precincts romwhichthey onducted perations italto themanage-mentof theTemple.

The positionof theserepresentativesf theStatewas neither omfortablenor unanimously pproved.The HRCE Departmenthad come to exerciseadministrativend legal control ver theTemple onlyafter948, and in thesubsequentdecades they had been vigorously pposed (in Court) by localmembersof theTenkalai community. his protractedegal battle ndedinfavourof the State n I968, but even in I973 therewere a number f localTenkalaiBrahminswhowereplanning renewedegalbattle gainst heState.At the same time,the ocal representativesf theStatewerehardlyviewedwith sympathy y thepriests.The thengovernmentf theState had com-menced a frontal ssaulton the ritual nd economicprivileges f temple-priests,a matterthat had raised delicate egal and constitutionalssues of'religiousfreedom.'The local priests, herefore, ere openlyhostileto therepresentativesf theState.The three tate-appointedrusteesftheTemplerepresentedhe broad Tenkalaiconstitutencyfthecity fMadras.Althoughtheyowed their ppointmentso Statepatronage, heyneverthelessesented

day-to-daynterferencey the officials f theState n themanagementftheaffairs f the Temple. In factby I973 the trusteeship,n'ce a positionofconsiderableprestige nd power,had become a purely ecorative ffice, e-void ofpossibilities orpatronage-distribution,ecauseofthe ight ay-to-daysupervisionof the State. Nevertheless, s in all segmentedpolities, rep-



ARJUN APPADURAI 207

resentatives f the Statewere certainly apable of marshallingupport mongdonors, temple-servantsnd influentialorshippers,dequate opermit hem

to exercise significantmanagerial ontrol.But theywere nonetheless ecententrants nto the politics of temple-control,nd, as such, were obliged topresent rguments both n Court and in everydaynteractions)or he egiti-macy of their osition.Their charter'ooked n keyways to thepast.

In the most abstract nd inclusive erms, t is clearthat he bureaucracyfthe HRCE Department, t the State evel, viewed tself s following hepre-British ulturalmandate fHindurulers oafford rotectionraksai) o Hindutemples. n thisrespect, hecontemporarytateclearlydentifiedtselfwiththemodel of traditional indu royalty. his model, though arely rgued nterms fspecific extual ources, s so diffusendwidely ccepted hat t allows

contemporary ureaucrats o do two things t once: to claim a diffuse re-Britishtextual asis for their laims;and to identify heirpositionwith thedominant raditionalmodelofexternaluthority,hat s theHindu king.Thisvague, thoughpowerful, spectof their harter as considerablytrengthenedby thefurtherlaimforthecontinuityf thisroyalrole. It was argued, n thecourseof the egislative roceedings hat ed to theformationfthisdepart-ment n I95I, thatmany nstancesn the past, underHindu rulers, nder heEnglish East India Company and under the rule of the EnglishCrown,provided ample ustification or he nterferencef GovernmentntheaffairsofHindu emplesMudaliar974: I49).

But intheir egal battlewith heTenkalai ommunity fTriplicane, verthecontrolof the Sri Partasarati vami Temple, thisgeneralmandatewas in-adequate. The Tenkalai case, as we shall ee shortly, as formulatedargely nthe basis of legal and administrative recedents rom the nineteenthndtwentieth enturies. heyhad to be beatenon thesenarrowgrounds.Essen-tially, he Stateassertedtsright, hrough heHRCE Department,o appointtrustees or hisTemple, startingn 95I. Trustees adpreviously eenelectedby the Tenkalai residents fTriplicane.This electoral rocess,begun n theI880's, had finally ome to be formalisedn a schemefor hemanagementftheTemple whichwas partof the udgement n an election uit at theHigh

Court of Madras in I924. This 'scheme' (hereaftereferredo as theHighCourtSchemeof 924) was thefundamentalonstitutionalocument or hosemembers f theTenkalaicommunityfTriplicanewho wereopposedto themanagerialncursionsf theState.

Innullifyingheprovisions f the 924 scheme,whichwereclearly pposedto their nterests,herepresentativesf theHRCE Department ested n thelegislativefiatof an Act passed in I95I, whichsimplypermittedhemtoappoint trusteesto all temples except those which had had 'hereditary'trustees. ut the 1924 schemehadprecisely pposedtheelectoral rincipleothehereditary rinciple.Most importantly,t was part fthe rgumentftheStatethat uch egalschemes uperseded nyusageson which heymight avebeen based, and werethussubjectto legislativemodificationr veto. Essen-tially,however, t came to this: later ieceofstatutoryaw (ActXX of 95 i)was held to invalidatean earlier egal judgement the one of I924). Theargument f theState n one stroke pposeda larger xternaluthority-the



208 ARJUN APPADURAI

legislature-to a more limited ne-the benchof udgeswho hadpassedtheHigh Court schemeof 1924. Furthermore,hey dvancedthesuperiorityfexplicit egaltextso thevagueantiquityf custom ndusage',whichwas the

cornerstonef theTenkalaicase. On theother and, heTenkalai ase,thoughbased on legal texts hatwere ntrinsically odifiable, adcontinuityfdocu-mentation n their ide after 843.To this, heState imply espondedhat heGovernment f theEast IndiaCompanyhad appointed' rusteesrior o I843.

In exercisingroutinecontrolover the affairs f the Temple today, theExecutiveOfficer nd theSuperintendentonsistentlyave recourse o all ofthese rguments ooted nthepastto ustify heir wn share fcontrol. heircredibilityestsprincipallyn one subtlebutsignificantransformationfthepast. Whereas he role of theState, nbothpre-Britishnd British imes,hadbeen relatively istant, ntermittentnd uneven, t was reformulateds a

naturalbasisfor heState's present etailed upervisionfvirtuallyll aspectsof temple ife.The present elicateposition f theState ntheTemple npartreflectsheir mbiguousand unevenconformity iththe cultural orms ntermsof which suchchartersreevaluated.The pre-Britishextual asisforthe current ositionof the State'sofficers-namely, he mandateofHindurulersto 'protect' Hindu temples-is too abstract o encode their pecificpowersand actions ntheTempletoday.Their trong extual trengthsbasedon recentegislation,whichhasgiventhe State ncreasing owersoverHindutemples n Tamil Natu. But thedifficultyith hese egislative exts, reciselybecause of theirState-wideapplicability,s that theydo not embed theprivileges f theState n a set ofspecific rivilegesttached o thoseofotherenfranchised roups ntheTemple today.These texts erve o isolate he ocalrepresentativesf theState,while simplygivingthemthecredibilityf thehighest external uthority', properly lected egislativessembly. astly, herole of theState shighly iscontinuous vertime, ndthe ntlquity fpartici-pation s insufficientlyvident o compensate or his ackofcontinuity.heStatehas thusfar,fornumerous easonshaving odo with hemacro-politicsofTamil Natu, been successfuln thecourts f aw. But itsopponents nthelocality of theTemple have by no meansallowed thisdefactovictory o betransformednto genuine ocal legitimacy. he

State'srepresentativesavefailed eitherto defuse or to suppressthe arguments f theirprincipal p-ponents,the TenkalaiBrahmin ommunity fTriplicane, o whichwe shallnow turn.

The TenkalaiBrahminommunityf TriplicaneThe Tenkalai Brahmins of Triplicaneare a large and highlydifferentiatedcommunity,withmultiple nd diverse nterestsn theSri PartasarativamiTemple, including hoseofregularworship, onation fendowments, artici-

pation n temple-management,ndmonopolyofcertain itual ervicesn theTemple. Withinthis arge and relativelyoose-knit ommunity, here s asmallercommunity f betweenthirtyndforty amilies,inkedbymarriageties,friendship,haredritual xpertise, nduring olitical lliances, nd resi-dentialpropinquity,incethey iveby and large n theresidentialtreets hat



ARJUN APPADURAI 209

surround he Temple. This smallergroup, although tself ubject o internalfactionalism, oes sharea common identity, commonset of interestsnTemple managementnd ritual, nd thus common deology.By extension,thisgroupof TenkalaiBrahmins hares commonpast,which npartframestheir ights ndprivilegesgainst ealorperceivedhreatsrom heState, romtheVatakalai community fTriplicane members f an antagonisticub-sectof SouthIndian SriVaisnavas),and from ther nterestedroups,principallytheVaikhanasapriests f theTemple.

In general,these Tenkalai Brahmins re membersof families hat haveresided n Triplicane or everalgenerations, hose male headsare nmodernwhite-collar rofessions often awyers),but who preserve powerful om-mitment o the ocal religious raditionss theyperceive hem.As an identi-

fiable nterest roup nthe politics f theTemple, they reviewed with ometrepidation yothergroups,for hey ombine fierceealousyof their ightsand privilegeswith a strongpenchant or itigation. his penchant or iti-gation is strengthenednd exacerbated y theirmanyties to members, tvarious evels,ofthe egal professionnMadrasCity.

The primaryritual nterest f this group of Tenkalai Brahmins n theTemple is theirorganisationalmonopolyof the daily recitation f certaindevotionalhymns othedeity.Thesehymns,writtenytwelve aint-poetsfthemedievalperiod,have been for ome centuriesart f thecodifiedcanon'of SriVaisnava theology, s their ecitation as come to be partofthefixed

ritual fmany Sri Vaisnavatemples. n virtue f their ommand f thispoeticand religious corpus, known as the Prabandham,nd their establishedmonopoly over its recitationn dailyand calendrical itual, his group seesitself s therepositoriesnd guardians ftheessence f TenkalaiSri Vaisnavatradition t thisTemple. Of all thegroups nterestedn the Temple today,theseTenkalai Brahminshave the mosthighlydevelopedpicture f the inkbetween their pecificprivilegesn thepresent nd the socialhistory f SriVaisnavasm n south ndia since he arlymedieval eriod.

Today, south ndianHindus who see themselvess SriVaisnavas followersof thetwelfth-centuryeligiouseader,Ramanuja), redivided nto ub-sects,

knownrespectivelys theTenkalai Southern chool)andVatakalai Northernschool). Although here rea number fritual, ietarynd marital istinctionsin the lifestyles f these two sub-sects, he dominant ntagonism etweenthem pertainsto temple-ritualnd temple-management.hese issues oftemple-control ave been matters f disputebetween ocal members f thetwo sub-sectsfor the ast two centuries,t the SriPartasarativami Templeand at many other SouthIndian Vaisnava temples.Both indigenoushistori-ographyand my own investigationsoncurin placingthe originsof thisschism n thecenturies ollowing hedeathofRamanuja c.A.D. 1137). Thecontemporary enkalai Brahminversion f thismedieval chism s the basic

charter f their eligious dentity,ven f t does not relate pecificallyo theircontrol f theSriPartasarativami Temple.

These TenkalaiBrahminshave a highly rticulated istorical iew of theircontemporaryectarian osition.Central o their iew of thedevelopment fthe schismbetween themselves nd theVatakalai s the importance f the



210 ARJUN APPADURAI

Prabandhamorpus. The medieval aint-poets ho composed hese oems,theAlvars, are today also enshrined s divinefigures n the Temple. Portions f

this argepoeticcorpus re recited oth s part fthedailyworshipnthe nnersanctum and during the processional estivalswhen thevariousdeities reborne,with lltheir oyalparaphernalia,hroughheneighbourhood.

TenkalaiBrahmins odayview thesepoems as providing kindof mysticalguide to the classicalreligious iterature f Hindu India, principallyo thefoundation exts fHindu religion, heVedas. In fact his orpusofpoems soften referred o as the Tamil Vedas. For the Tamil-speakingTenkalaiBrahmins fTriplicane, he most mportantact boutthispoetic orpus s itsequalitywith,and complementarityo, the classical anskrit edic corpusof

theNorth,the ultimate eferentfall

religious uthorityn

Hindu ndia. t isalso of mportance hat hesepoems werecomposedbya multi-caste roupofpoet-saints, n a vernacular anguage Tamil), and in the affectivemode ofdevotionalpoetryrather han n the esoteric anguageof Sanskrit eligioustexts. Tenkalai Brahminshold that, n so far as the Alvar poet-saints reconcerned,caste is an irrelevantategory, orthose ndividualsweremani-festationsf thedivine.But,as we shall ee later, heseTenkalaiBrahmins onot see the Alvar poetryas necessarily charter or the full and equalparticipationfnon-Brahminsntempleworship.

The Tenkalai Brahminsdo, however,contrast hemselveswiththeVata-

kalai, at least in part because they see themselves s descendants f a sub-tradition lways dedicatedto the celebration nd transmissionf theTamilPrabandham.ut they lso seeanother istoricalmplicationfdevotion othiscorpus of religiouspoetry.They arguethattheir eader, Ramanuja, nstitu-tionalised herecitation f thesehymns n temple-worship. s a result, heybelieve, a genuinely ongregational lementwas added to temple-worship,and non-Brahminswere thusmorefullyncorporatedntothetemple. n thisview, the medievalforebears f thecontemporaryenkalaiBrahminswereequallydedicated o thePrabandhamorpus nd to tsrole ntemple-worship.

In this medievalphase, according o thecontemporary enkalai view, the

VatakalaiBrahminsremained riented o theSanskrit exts f thenorth, odomestic (as opposed to temple)worship,and by implicationwere moreconcernedwith theirown salvation as Brahmins, han with their ongre-gational dentitys SriVaisnavas.The Tenkalai, nd here s thecriticalrgu-ment, thus came to dominate Sri Vaisnava temples n the earlymedievalperiodnot by chicanery r force,but simplydue to the ndifferencef theVatakalai. This constituteshe broadhistoriographicalasis of the TenkalaiBrahmin claim that theyhad been interestedn temples ong before theVatakalai. The modern colonialand post-colonial) xtension f thishistori-ography s that n the asttwocenturies,members ftheVatakalai ect,fanned

by envy, supported by royal patronage nd subsequently ncouragedbyBritishadministrativend udicial mechanisms,made a sustained nd 'con-spiratorial' nslaught n temples reviouslyontrolledyTenkalaiwith omedegree of success. In short,for the Tenkalai Brahminsof contemporaryTriplicane,theirpresumptive ight o the control f SriVaisnavatemplesngeneral, nd theSriPartasarativamiTemple inparticular,s rooted ntheir



ARJUN APPADURAI 211

specialrelationship,oth ancient ndcontinuous,o a body of texts-theTamilPrabandham-whichtands n a parwith hereligious uthorityf theVedas.

However, inrecent ttempts oresistVatakalai ncursionsntothemanage-

mentof the Sri Partasarativami Temple, and n their ontemporarytruggleswith the State, ocal TenkalaiBrahmins efer o a more modern extual ra-dition: the dicta of British dministratorsn theeighteenthnd nineteenthcenturies nd the udgementsof theAnglo-Indianudicial systemn the atenineteenth nd twentiethenturies. hese modem texts, o whichthisgroupmakes frequent nd astute recourse, are seen to be mere ratificationsf'immemorialusage.' In a sense, the factthatthese administrativend legaltexts are specific n termsof Tenkalai controlof the Sri Partasarati vamiTemple, and concretenterms f therights heygrant o variousmembers ftheTenkalai community fTriplicane,makes them venmorevaluablethan

themoreabstractmedievaldevotional exts. t is importanto note, lso, thattheBritish reoccupationwith hepreservationf custom nd usage' nnativereligiousaffairsmakes these texts nherently ontinuous nd progressivelyself-fulfilling,n their anguage fnot in their ffects. hus the authorityndcontinuity f these British egal and administrativeocuments, s socialandpolitical harters,ends ospiralnthenineteenthnd twentiethenturies.

Today, Tenkalai Brahmins end o be remarkablyware, particularly hencontemplatingitigation,f this xtended eries f colonial extual esources.tis a principal ource ntheir laims gainst heState ndsectarian pponents.nparticular, heytend to ustify heir laimsbyreferenceo two specificHighCourt udgments: heudgment ndscheme f 924 (already eferredo)andacloselyrelated ase, nwhich herights fa closedgroup fTenkalaiBrahminsto recite the Prabandhamoems in this Temple were elaborately odified.Taken together hese two High Court udgmentshavehighvalue and con-siderable redibilitynthe yesof therest f the ommunity,or hey lacetheclaims of the Tenkalai Brahmins n a widerconstitutional/legalrameworkwhich links the legitimacy f theirclaims to those of othergroups.Thisaccordswith the third ultural ormthat, ccording omy argument, efinesthe status and credibilityf particularharters: amely,for an authoritative

past utterance o have the maximumvalue as a charter,t mustencodethemaximumnumber ffeatures elevant o the hartersfother roups.This interdependencef charters an occurin one of two ways. Either

specific uthoritativeext n thepastencodes therights fa largenumber fgroupsin theTemple, namely Hindu royal order, British dministrativeruling r a High Court udgment.Or it can occurwhena group inks tsclaimin a general way with a broad textual radition r corpus,to whichothergroupsmust also necessarily averecourse.n this atterense,bothBrahminand non-Brahmin enkalai n Triplicane nchortheir elf-perceptionsn thePrabandham orpus of medieval devotional poetry; both Vatakalai and

Tenkalai reverethe writings f Ramanuja as authoritative;oth TenkalaiBrahmins as well as Vaikhanasatemple-priests,s well as virtually veryorganised nterest roup n theTemple today,have a vested nterestnHighCourt judgmentsas valid charters f their ights-largely productof thehighlygenerative eriodbetween 88oand 1925, whentheTemplewas almost



212 ARJUNAPPADURAI

continuouslynCourtfor neoranother eason, nd native itigantsearned oconceivetheir laims nAnglo-Indianegalterminology.

The strength f theTenkalaiBrahminsntheTempletoday, nd the we in

which theyare held by mostother groups n theTemple, is not simplyfunction f caste superiority,egalskills, r ferocitynconflict.t s as muchfunction f thekindofpast that hey an crediblymarshalln defence f theircollective nterests, past that ulfilsdmirably ll thefive ultural orms hatdetermine he differentialredibilityf such charters: extual vidence, x-ternal uthority,nterdependenceith ther asts, ontinuitynd antiquity.

Non-Brahmin orshippersThe non-Brahmin ommunitynterestedn theSriPartasarati vami Temple,like its Brahmin ounterpart,s large, patially preadoverMadras City, andsociallyhighly segmented. t includes wealthynon-Brahmin onorsto theTemple, powerfuland politicallywell-connected on-Brahmin rustees, swell as a largebodyofpoorandrelatively isenfranchisedon-Brahmin or-shippers, esidentn and aroundTriplicane. t s this ast etofnon-Brahmins,who have beenexplicitlyoncernedwith heir ights uanon-Brahmins, ithwhich I am here concerned.This group providesthemass of worshippers(sevartikal) uring aily nd calendrical estivals.

Startingn the 940's, andcontinuing p to thepresent, looselyorganised

group ofthesenon-Brahminworshippersconsistingargely f ower middle-class Telugu migrants o Madras City) has conducted vigorouscampaignagainstwhattheyperceive s discriminationgainst hemnkeypublic spectsoftemple-ritual.n theprocess, heyhaveantagonised umerous ther roupsin theTemple, but,most mportantly,heyhaveprovoked hehostilityf theTenkalaiBrahminswho monopolise herecitationfthePrabandhamymnsndailyritual.Further,hesenon-Brahmin rotestsntheearly 960's providedyetanotherpretext orthe extension fStatecontrol ver thetemple,n therole ofmediator.

In the ast threedecades,theprotests f non-Brahminworshipperso the

temple-trusteesnd to theState,havefocused n a series fpractices aving odo with the distributionf thesacred eavingsof thedeity honours) o thecongregation,tfixedmoments uring hedailyritual utside he anctum.nthesecritical ublic aspectsof the redistributiverocess, hesenon-Brahminsfelt that theywere systematically iscriminatedgainstand publiclydis-honoured. It is important o understand hesecomplaintsn their pecificcultural ontext, or hey uggesthow powerful pecificransactions iththedeitycan be, even whenthey re notexplicitlyinked o property,ffice remoluments.

Just s shares nthe divine eavingsdemarcatepecialrightsnd roles nthe

context fworship, o also they an serve o symbolise heunity, dentityndessential qualityof the entire ongregation.t is this atter spectofthedailydistributionhatthesenon-Brahminworshippers eltwas being deliberatelysubverted.They complained f three pecificmalpractices:) whilethetirttam(holywater)was givento the assembledBrahminsnone vessel, twas then



ARJUNAPPADURAI 213

deliberatelywithdrawn nd thispartof the divine eavingsdistributedo thenon-Brahminmembersof the congregationn anothervessel; 2) while the

entire congregationwas obliged to remainstandingwhile the Brahminsreceived he holy water nd the Sri Satakopan themetalrepresentationf thefeet fVisnu), the atter mmediately at down to receive heprasatamsacredfood), while thenon-Brahmins erestill tanding o receive heholywater; )the non-Brahmins rarelyreceived the Sri Satakopanhonour at all, andcertainly ot, nthewords ofonenon-Brahminnformant,immediatelyfterandincontinuation ith heBrahmin evotees'.

My own observations f dailyritual t theTemple in 1973-74, after hisissue had allegedlybeen resolved, uggest hat hese omplaintswere neitherincredible or esoteric.The atmosphere f thedailyredistributiveeremonials

is one of considerable renzyndcrowding, n the urface. loser observation(difficultna crowd of two or three undred eople) suggests hat erhaps hepriests grow increasingly isrespectful hen the honours' in question aredistributed o the non-Brahmins.Whereas Brahmins stand close to thesanctumand are scrupulously erved,non-Brahminswho form crowdedoutercircle ertainly o not merit he amecare. Forthemass of non-Brahmindevotees,who hold no office nd subsidisefew rituals s donors,thedailyreceipt f thesedivine eavings s the sole transactionhat heypublicly on-ductwith thedeity.To them, t is boththesymboland substance f theirparticipationn this divine polity.Crowded, impersonal nd hurried s their

contactwiththedeitymightbe, themanner fthe transactionsaboutwhichthey omplain) s inextricablyinkedwith heirmeaning. hedeprivationheyfeel n thispublicritual rena s, to the non-Brahminworshippers, signoftheirdishonourand indeed theirdisenfranchisementrom he redistributivedomain of thedeity.This is an unseemly ntrusion, hey laim,of the worstfeatures f the castesystemnto theputatively galitarian orld of a TenkalaiSri Vaisnava Temple. There is one kind of discrimination,owever,whichtheydo notchallenge.Theyhaveno quarrelwith he pecialprivilegeshownto the fixednumberofBrahminmales the attiyappaka)ho legallymonop-olise therecitationf thePrabandhamndailyritual. t is theextension f thispriority o any and all Brahmins male and female,Tenkalai and Vatakalai,Vaisnava and Non-Vaisnava) to whichtheytake exception. n their rgu-ments, t s this atter xtensionwhich sdiscriminatory,nd which hey ee asboth contraryo the aw in force nd to Sri Vaisnavatradition'. hiskindofassertionpithily ummarises heirview of theinequities f thepresent,nrelation o their onception f thepast, mattero which shallnowturn. hefollowingaccount of the way in which thisgroup of non-Brahminwor-shippers ses thepasttoargue bout the egitimacyf their resent omplaintsis based partly n petitionsndpamphlets roducedby them,nthe ast three

decades, and partly n aseriesof interviewswithone of the eadersof this

group, who spearheaded ts ctivitiesnthe 960's.

To some extent he non-Brahmin iew of theSriVaisnavatradition' sesprecisely he samearguments gainst heir rahmin o-sharersnthisTemplethat heTenkalaiBrahmins ally n support f their uperiorityo theVatakalaisub-sect. n the first lace, thesenon-Brahmins laceconsiderableweight n



214 ARJUNAPPADURAI

the sacredness f the Alvarpoet-saintsseveral f whom werenon-Brahmins)as a charterfor theirownimportancen contemporary emple-ritual. ut

further,nd heretheydivergefrommostBrahmin nterpretations,hey itespecific ersesfrom hisdevotional orpusof texts o arguethe rrelevance fcaste discriminationsn the context f the worshipofVisnu. These verses,theybelieve, emphasise heequality nd dentityf allworshippers, egardlessof caste, nthepresence f thedeity.

It is this aspectof the non-Brahmin ersionofthe Sri Vaisnava Traditionwhich s the mostembarrassingor heir rahmin ntagonists, or, s we haveseen, the egalitarian, opulistic, nd congregational spects of the life andwritingsof the Alvars are also fundamental o the ideology of TenkalaiBrahmins n their truggleswith Vatakalai Brahmins.On the otherhand,

these exts renecessarilyormulaicnduniversalisticn heiranguage nddo notbeardirectly n specificmattersf rank ndordernparticularitual ontexts.To achievethis pecificity,hesenon-Brahmins ely n what s referredo as

Ramanuja's Code (RamanujaDivyajna).This code, whichtheytreat s ifitwerea text, s infact elievedbySriVaisnavas o be enshrinednthe rrange-ments thatRamanuja made for temple-worship t the great Sri Vaisnavatemple t Srirangam. hey arguethat hiscode' hashistoricallyeen adheredto at all Sri Vaisnavatemples, y loyal followers f Ramanuja, o thepresentday. In their iew,the custom' t theSriPartasarativamiTemple sa 'recent'and illegitimate eviation rom hiswidely ccepted raditionnshrinedn the

Code of Ramanuja. While thenon-Brahmins an invoke theunquestionedauthority fRamanuja, the sharedtradition f all Sri Vaisnava temples, ndthe pseudo-textualCode of Ramanuja (all of which have wide credibility),thesedo not beardirectlyn their wn protests. utcertainlys elements f acharter hat embed theirown claimsdeeply n historic ntities ear to theself-perceptionfothergroups n the Temple, these re a strong oundationfor theircontemporary rotests.The non-Brahminsoosely gloss all thesecomponentsof theirview of tradition s 'theVedas and the Shastras', hehighest ymbols fHindutextual uthority.

They also refer,s bestthey an,to aspects ftherecentegaland adminis-

trative ontext n supportof their laims.One of theirpetitions efers o aHigh Court udgmentof I935, involving nother emple,nwhichtheudgeestablished hatthe term Sri Vaisnava' was a comprehensive ategory,n-cluding ll thosewho wereborn ntothe reed nd observed tstenets, egard-less of caste. They cite this udgment,drawn fromanothercontext,butcarrying heauthority f theAnglo-Indian aw, in support f the usticeoftheir laims.Much morepowerful nd to thepoint,theyrepeatedlyitethefollowing rovision f theMadrasHRCE Actof 959;

NotwithstandingnythingnthisAct or nanytext, ule r nterpretationfHindu aw,orany

customorusageas part f that aw or nanyother aw or nanydecree fCourt,there hallbeno discriminationn thedistributionfanyPradadam r Theerthamnanyreligiousnstitutionon grounds nlyofcaste, ex,placeofbirth ranyof them.

There is little doubt that this egal provisionprovidedfresh uel to thelong-standing on-Brahminmalaise, nd tcertainly as the trongestextual



ARJUN APPADURAI 215

charter ortheir laims. n general,however, henon-Brahmins ad to arguethe validity f general extual njunctions whether ncient eligious nes orrecent egal ones) against he counter-argumentsf ocal Tenkalai Brahmins.These counter-arguments, hile denying ome of the more shockingnon-Brahmin accusations, n general defendedcurrentpractice s having thevalidity f local usage (mamul).Under the nfluence f British dministrationand law, a greatmany ssueswere resolved yreferenceo whatwasperceivedto be 'customary.'Thus Indian itigants apidlyearned o makeeventhemostoutrageous and innovative roposals n the anguageof custom and usage'.The non-Brahmins ecognised he double-edgednature f resorting o tra-dition n order to maketheir ase. The following aragraphs takenfromletterwritten y one of the eadersof the non-Brahmin rotestorsn 1948 to

thePresident ftheHinduReligiousEndowments oard:... The procedurementionedn theforegoing arasandinvoguein this emple s improperand unjust nd unbearably umiliatingo themajorityfthecongregation;utthis s resortedtobythecultured emple uthoritiesheerly nder hepretextf Mamul'. Mamul sofour ownmaking o serveour nterests.fa mamul erves tspurpose t s allowed to ive; otherwiset sputtodeath. Manya mamuldied and nowwould-bemamulshavemadetheir ppearance. herecent nstallation f electric ightswill become a mamul n course of time. n thesecircum-stances he ruelmamul nquestiondeserves o berooted ut without urtheross oftime.

Eventually, n I967, theHRCE Department,n itsquasi-judicial apacity,passed an administrative rderbanningthe specific cts of discriminationcomplained about, while carefully rotecting he specificrightsof maleBrahmin Prabandhameciters.n I973, however,the feelingwas widespreadamongthenon-Brahminworshippershat hiswas only 'paper' victory, ndthatmuch had to be done before heir otionof tradition'was restored t theTemple. To theextent hat hesenon-Brahmins id receive serioushearingand seriouscounter-arguments,hiswas because of their stutereliance nshared textual r pseudo-textuallements f theSriVaisnava traditionnd afewrecent dministrativend egaldicta.Buttothe xtent hat hey ouldnotlink thesebroadlyauthoritative exts to their pecificgrievances, hey aid

themselves pen to a counter-argumentased upon the moral force f local'customandusage'.

Theshared astNaturally hese hree ersions f thepast,heldbythree istinctnd mportantgroupsat the Sri Partasarati vami Temple, do not exhausethe pasts'of thecommunity s a whole. Limitations fspacehavepreventedme from ealingwiththespecialand fascinatingase of thepriests t theTemple,who consti-tutea distinctnterest roup n thepolitics f theTemple,andwhosecurrent

isolationfrom ower sclosely inked othepeculiar ndseparateources romwhichtheyderivetheir wn textualmandate.They do, however, onstitutethe threemosthighlydetailed, xplicitly eldandpublicly iscussed hartersofthepast ntheTemple.Particular orshippers, onors, rusteesndtemple-servants,dependingon the context,are likelyto propose simpler,more



2i6 ARJUN APPADURAI

specific,more shallowand ess nclusive ersions f thepast.Thus,a particularpersonvyingfor heoffice f trusteemight romotehis candidacynterms f

his own experiencentemple-affairs,hedonations e or hisfamily avemadeto theTemple, or some specificmisdeeds f hisopponentsn thepast. Wor-shippers ften omplain bout particularspects f the urrentmanagement ftheTemple, interms fvague, casually ormulated odelsof theway twas.'A Temple-servant, boutto get dismissed y the trustee,might itehis ongrecordof dedicated service,theconditions nd termsunder which he washired, past precedents or the dismissal f temple-servants,nd so on. Thetemple-priests,nquarrels mongst hemselves,end ospeak nvery hallowhistorical erms,restrictingheir eferenceso thepastto thoseeventsmostrelevant othevery pecificssue athand.A particular onor, n contestinghe

way thattemple-servantsonductthe festival e sponsors,would generallyrecite he history fhis endowment, ecentitigationnvolving t, thefacts fthe case, and little lse. Such examplescouldbe multiplied,nd they, akentogether,form the bulk of the occasionsin whichthepast is a consciouselementof contemporarynteractions.When, however,theconflicts moreserious, nd the stakeshigher, hose nconflictre ikely o drawfrom ne orother,or some combination, f the three paradigmatic' asts that havediscussed.

Since these pasts' stand,by and large, n a segmented elationshipo oneanother,does this mplythatthere s no generalised iew of thepastthat s

shared mong those who have regular nterestsn the Temple, either smanagers, servants,worshippers r donors?There is such a sharedpast,although t s largely omposedof elements lready ontained n thedivergent'pasts'ofparticular roups.

Most individualswho have any on-going nterestsn thisTemple sharethree etsof deasconcerningtspast.The firsts a belief n themythic riginsof thetemple,described n a specific thala-puranalocal history),which s agenreofhistoricaliteraturelwaysfoundnsacredplaces. This work,follow-inga set format, escribesna mixturefSanskritndTamil,a series fdivinedialogues thatpertain o the sacredorigins f thisTemple and thedeity n-

shrinedn it. Few personsknowmuchof what s inthis ext, utmostknowsome legendor story ontainedn it. Secondly,mostofmy nformantsnewthat heearliest tone nscriptionntheTempleis datedto theeighth enturyA.D. and takepride n thefact hat hismakes t theoldest hrinenMadrascity.There s alsowidespread nowledge f the inks etween hisTempleandthe devotionalhistory f south IndianSri Vaisnavism.Lastly, many ndi-vidualsknow thebroadoutlines ftheadministrativendpoliticalhistory ftheTemple inthe olonialperiod.

The pastthat s shared,however, lwaysstands n a delicate elationshipothe pasts' that re held dearbydistinct roups oday.The propositiontteredby many personsaroundthe Temple, in many contexts,thishas been aTenkalaiTemple from ime mmemorial',s an important omponent f thesharedpastof theTemple. Yet it means differenthings o differentroups.To the representativesf theState, t means hatnritual erms heproceduresfollowed n thisTemplemustconformo thetenets f theTenkalaifaith. o



ARJUNAPPADURAI 217

Tenkalai Brahmins, t additionally ncodes the legal rightof theTenkalaicommunity fTriplicane o exclusivelymanageheTemple,without ny Stateinterference.o thenon-Brahmin orshippers,tmeansthat hisTemple hasalways been controlled ya sectthathas been especially esponsive otheir ullparticipation n temple-worship, ntil recently.To the priests,one mayfurtherote, t simplydefines nunalterablendreceived eature fthe and-scape, to be stoically nduredbut not especially o be encouraged r em-broidered.Each group s aware oftheconstructionhat heothers laceuponthisproposition, ut simply mphasisests own preferrednterpretation.tisprecisely hisself-consciously aried nterpretationf core propositionshatbestcharacteriseshepolitical ulture f theTemple.

In the south ndiantemple, hepast s an extremelymportant omponent fdebateanddivision nthepresent. ut tdoes not seem nfinitelyusceptibleocontemporarynvention.ndeed,there ppearto be a setof norms, ertainingto authority,ontinuitynd interdependence,hich govern he terms f thedebateconcerninghepast.These norms erve oprovide formal rameworkwithin which 'charters' re mutually valuated and interpreteds part ofpolitical action in the present.Further, hese norms permita controlled

accommodation f the tructurallynew' featuresf colonialrulewith he oreconceptsof thecultural ystem fthetemple.Suchnorms, herefore,ave adual function: n the one hand,theyprovide set of ruleswithinwhich thepast maybe debated; and,on theother, heyprovide n idiom formediatingthe effects f structuralhangeon cultural ontinuity. his latter oint hassome generalmplications.

Bloch has made an elegantand complex argument bout thetheoreticalproblemof thepastand itsconsequences or heanalysis fsocialchange.Hearguesthatneither tructural-functionalistor Marxist pproaches an accountadequatelyforsocial change,because the former pproachsees 'the social

process n termsused by the actors nd so is unableto explainhow it is thatactors can change those terms',whereasthe neo-marxian nalystssee themechanisms s occurringnterms otally lien to theactors nd so are unableto explainhow thesemechanisms anbe transformedntomeaningfulction'(I977: 278). Bloch sees thecommonrootof theseproblemsna belief, erivedfrom. urkheim, n the social determinationf concepts,whichleaves theactors withno languageto talk bout heir ociety nd so change t,since heycan onlytalkwithint' (I977: 28i). His solution o this mpasse s to proposethat here xist n allhuman ocieties wokinds fcognition.One is universalinnature,withduration s itsbasis,and soriented o pragmaticndeveryday

contexts, uch as agriculture.he others- ulture-relative,ithvariableoftennon-durational) erceptions f timeunderlyingt, is expressedn ritual ndritualised ommunication,nd swhathasgenerally eenobjectifieds socialstructure'. loch arguesthat ocial changecan occur,because thepragmaticpastcan be a sourceofconcepts or hallengingheritualised,ften tatic ast,thatgenerally ominates hepresent.



ARJUNAPPADURAI 2I9

sity. On both occasions receiveduseful riticism. pecial thanks re due to my colleague, gorKopytoff, or careful eading fthefinal ersionwhichhelped oclarifyhe rgument onsider-ably.

REFERENCES

Appadurai,A. I98I. Worshipnd onflictnder olonial ule: southndian ase.New York, London:CambridgeUniv. Press.

& C. A. Breckenridge976. The south ndian temple: uthority, onourand redistri-bution. Contrib.nd. Sociol. 0, I87-2II.

Bloch, M. I977. The past nd thepresentnthepresent.Man N.S.) 12, 278-92.

Cohen, A. P. & J. L. Comaroff976. The managementfmeaning: n thephenomenologyfpoliticaltransactions.n Transactionndmeaning:irectionsnthe nthropologyf xchangendsymbolicehaviored.) B. Kapferer. hiladelphia:nstitute or he tudy fHuman ssues.

Durkheim,E. I954 [I9I2]. Theelementaryformsf he eligiousife.New York:Macmillan.Evans-Pritchard, . E. I940. TheNuer.London: OxfordUniv. Press.Firth,R. I930-I. Totemism nPolynesia.Oceania , 29I-32I, 378-98.Fortes,M. I945. Thedynamicsf lanshipmongheTallensi. ondon: OxfordUniv. Press.Geertz,C. I966. Person, ime ndconductn Bali: anessayn culturalnalysis. ale South-EastAsia

Program,CulturalReports eries 4.

Goody, J. 977. The domesticationf he avagemind. ew York:CambridgeUniv. Press.Hallowell, I. A. I937. Temporal orientationnWestern ivilization nd in a preliterateociety.

Am. Anthrop.9, 647-70.Leach,E. R. I965 [I954]. Politicalystemsfhighlandurma. oston:Beacon Press.Lee, D. I959. Codifications f reality: ineal and nonlineal.Reprinted n D. Lee, Freedomnd

culture. ewJersey: rentice all,

Levi-Strauss, . I966 [I962]. The avagemind. ondon: Weidenfeld Nicolson.Mudaliar, C. I974. The seculartate ndreligiousnstitutionsn ndia: a study f he dministrationfHindureligiousrustsnMadras.Wiesbaden: ranz teiner.

62234204 appadurai arjun 1981 the past a a scarce resource en man new series vol 16 no 2

Documents