Devotees and Hindu organisations are firm that the temple wealth should remain within the temple, that its safety should be guaranteed by the state and that its custodians should comprise a panel represented by devotees and various sections of the Hindu religion

The findings of Gopal Subramaniam, the amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court to examine the current status of the affairs at the famed ancient Hindu temple, Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram, and the invaluable treasures stored in its secret vaults, submitted before the apex court recently in the form of a 577-page report, literally stunned Keralites, Hindus everywhere and those interested in history and archeology. Mr Subramaniam said in the report that discomfiting things had been happening for the past several years in the administration of the temple under the trust headed by the custodian of the shrine, the representative of the former royal family of Travancore which had looked after it for several centuries.

The report suggested that pilferage in invaluable items — gold and diamonds — from the secret vaults of the shrine which is roughly valued at over `1,20,000 crore — could have been happening even when the royal family representative, Uthradam Thirunnal Marthanda Varma, was the trustee of the temple. Uthradam Thirunnal died on December 16 last year. Kerala’s senior-most communist leader VS Achuthanandan, Opposition leader in the State Assembly, had some time back alleged that gold and precious stones were being stolen away from the temple in utensils brought for prasada.

For the time being, affairs of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple are a legal issue under the consideration of the Supreme Court. But anything related to the ancient temple is an emotional matter for the devotees, and, understandably, the reaction to Mr Subramaniam’s report from the part of the devotees and Hindu organisations was a bit hot. Their objections are not unfounded as these are embedded in trust, faith, experience and devotion. As far as they are concerned, Uthradam Thirunnal, his successor Moolam Thirunnal Rama Varma and other members of the former royalty belonged to a family that had kept the kingdom of Travancore intact and the lives and properties in it safe; and protected the immense treasure within the temple till the middle of last century.

Every morning, when the ‘king’ returns home from his visit to the lord Padmanabha shrine, he must wipe off the dust on his feet gathered at the shrine’s entrance — a symbol of the royalty’s determination not to take home even the dust his feet could have collected from there. The present royalty belongs to a lineage that had surrendered the entire wealth of Travancore and the kingdom itself to lord Padmanabha way back in 1750. Since then, the rulers of Travancore had been known as Padmanabha Dasas — servants of lord Padmanabha. Is it fair then even to accuse anyone connected with that family of committing pilferage of the property of the same deityIJ Even the Kerala Government, headed by a Christian Chief Minister, expressed this doubt.

But the counter-response is whether it is proper to question the intent and logic of the top-most seat of judiciary of this democratic country which had through painful historical developments evolved from feudalism, monarchy and autocracy to a modern democracy. Despite the objection raised formally and informally against the amicus curiae’s report, the Supreme Court accepted it and decided to implement its proposals, starting with the disbanding of the current administrative body, removing the former royalty from the charge of running the shrine, appointing a temporary administrative panel for it headed by the district judge and initiating processes for an audit by former Comptroller and Auditor-General Vinod Rai.

There were several things in the report of Mr Subramaniam that threw a shadow of suspicion over the conduct of Uthradam Thirunnal with respect to temple affairs. One of that related to Chamber B, second of the six secret vaults at the temple that held all that gold, precious stones, coins and other invaluable items.

The evaluation panels appointed by the Supreme Court had done preliminary documentation of the items in the five vaults without meeting with much opposition but the moment efforts started to open Chamber B, Uthradam Thirunnal and his supporters raised stiff objection. They said that this particular vault had not been opened for centuries and that examining it might enrage the deity and lead to unforeseeable miseries to the people and the land. They supplemented their argument with the results of an astrological examination (Deva Prasnam) which agreed with their argument.

“But the judicial process is not dependent on such Prasnams. It is based on logic. You can abide by astrological prescriptions in matters of rituals but when it comes to property and wealth, it is a matter of law and legality”, says a lawyer who was a supporter of the royalty till recently. The amicus curiae, during his 45-day onsite examinations at the temple, had found that the chamber had been opened several times in the recent past. It was found that things had been removed from it and that items in it had been photographed several times, probably for the purpose of sale.

To make matters worse for the royalty, people like CV Ananda Bose, head of a panel the apex court had appointed earlier to assess and document the temple treasure, came out in support of Mr Subramaniam’s findings. “I had noticed problems during my examinations. I had information that there were registers that contained the details of the items in the vaults. But when I discussed this matter with Uthradam Thirunnal, he feigned ignorance. He agreed with me that all these things have to be documented properly and kept safely but the very first thing he did after that meeting was to demand my removal”, Mr Bose said.

Only a thorough examination — which the former CAG would now undertake with the help of experts — can assess the magnitude of the wealth contained in the six vaults (it is said that there are three more such chambers) and how much of it has been lost through misplacement and ‘pilferage’. There are enough indications that the affairs of the temple have been in disarray for quite some time and many complaints have already come up but somehow the authorities have failed to properly deal with them. Also, there are apprehensions that the security being provided to the shrine after the 2011 discovery of all this wealth within it, has not been adequate considering the fact that the temple is now famous globally.

Materialists (communists generally) and rationalists argue that the treasures held in the vaults of the shrine are things seized by the Travancore kings during their military campaigns and wealth amassed through taxations and, therefore, these were all State property that deserved to be made public wealth after the kingdom merged in the Indian Union. Devotees and supporters of royalty reject this argument saying that the treasures are offerings made to the deity through centuries and, therefore, are temple property over which the State should have no control.

The report has also re-enlivened the debate on whether this wealth, which has now come into focus internationally, should be kept in the temple itself or be shifted to a museum under tight security for the entire world to behold, considering their historical and archeological importance. Devotees and Hindu organisations are firm that the temple wealth should remain in the temple itself, that its safety should be guaranteed by the state and that its custodians should be a panel represented by devotees and various sections of the Hindu religion.

It seems they have a point, especially in the context of their argument that the places of worship and properties of other religions are not looked after by the State.