The Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple

By C. J. Fuller

Much has changed for the priests at the Minakshi Temple, one of the most famous Hindu temples in India. In The Renewal of the Priesthood, C. J. Fuller traces their improving fortunes over the past 25 years. This fluidly written book is unique in showing that traditionalism and modernity are actually reinforcing each other among these priests, a process in which the state has played a crucial role.


Since the mid-1980s, growing urban affluence has seen more people spend more money on rituals in the Minakshi Temple, which is in the southern city of Madurai. The priests have thus become better-off, and some have also found new earnings opportunities in temples as far away as America. During the same period, due partly to growing Hindu nationalism in India, the Tamilnadu state government's religious policies have become more favorable toward Hinduism and Brahman temple priests. More priests' sons now study in religious schools where they learn authoritative Sanskrit ritual texts by heart, and overall educational standards have markedly improved.


Fuller shows that the priests have become more "professional" and modern-minded while also insisting on the legitimacy of tradition. He concludes by critiquing the analysis of modernity and tradition in social science. In showing how the priests are authentic representatives of modern India, this book tells a story whose significance extends far beyond the confines of the Minakshi Temple itself.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Release date: Feb 9, 2021
• ISBN: 9780691225517

Book preview

THE RENEWAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD

THE RENEWAL

OF THE PRIESTHOOD

MODERNITY AND TRADITIONALISM

IN A SOUTH INDIAN TEMPLE

C. J. Fuller

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS  PRINCETON AND OXFORD

Copyright © 2003 by Princeton University Press

Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540

In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1SY

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fuller, C. J. (Christopher John), 1949–

The renewal of the priesthood: modernity and traditionalism in a South Indian temple / Chris Fuller.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN: 0-691-11657-1 (alk. paper) — ISBN: 0-691-11658-X (pbk. : alk. paper)

eISBN: 978-0-69122-551-7 (ebook)

1. Priests, Hindu—India—Madurai. 2. Maturai Aruòmiku Måöåòci Cuntaråsvarar ålayam 3. Månåkòå (Hindu deity)—Cult—India—Madurai. 4. Madurai (India)—Religious life and customs. I. Title.

BL1241.44.F83 2003

294.5'61'095482—dc21    2003040491

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

https://press.princeton.edu/

R0

To the priests of the Minakshi Temple

and the members of their families

Contents

Figures and Tables  ix

Preface  xi

Note on Transliteration  xv

Key to Figures 1 and 2  xvii

Chapter One The Priests and the Minakshi Temple’s Renovation Ritual  1

Chapter Two Rights, Duties, and Work  19

Chapter Three Family and Domestic Life  57

Chapter Four The Agamas and Priestly Education  80

Chapter Five Religious Politics and the Priests  114

Chapter Six Modernity, Traditionalism, and the State  152

Notes  169

Glossary  191

Bibliography  195

Index  205

Figures and Tables

Figures

1. Plan of the Minakshi Temple, Central Area

2. Plan of the Minakshi Temple (adapted from the plan dated 1896 in W. Francis, Madura [1906])

3. Partial Genealogy of Leading Priests in the 1995 Renovation Ritual

4. Partial Genealogy of Kulacekara Priests and Suppu Sokkaya Bhattar’s Heirs

Tables

1. Leading Priests at the 1995 Renovation Ritual

2. Men’s Educational Standards by Age

3. Women’s Educational Standards by Age

4. Pillaiyarpatti School Daily Timetable

Preface

THIS BOOK about the priests of the Minakshi Temple in the South Indian city of Madurai is partly a sequel to Servants of the Goddess: The Priests of a South Indian Temple (cited throughout as SG), which was published in 1984. That book was mainly based on fieldwork carried out in the Temple for twelve months in 1976–77 and two months in 1980. In 1984, 1988, and 1991, I returned for short visits to Madurai, each lasting about two weeks, and even on the first occasion I could see that the priests’ position had started to improve. By 1991, the improvement in their fortunes was unmistakable, and I then planned a further period of research to collect the material needed to bring the priests’ story up to date. In the winter of 1994–95, I carried out four months of fieldwork, supplemented by another visit later in 1995 to observe the Temple’s renovation ritual (described in chapter 1), and I also returned to Madurai for short periods each year from 1996 to 2002 (except 2001). On each of these visits, I also spent time in Chennai (formerly Madras) collecting information about the wider context of political and religious change affecting the priests. A large part of the information reported in this book was collected in 1994–95, but some of it comes from earlier years and some from the more recent visits, which, despite their brevity, have allowed me to keep an eye on the continually changing picture.

As I noted in the preface to SG, the Minakshi Temple cannot be given a pseudonym. In 1976–77 and 1980, the priests were very concerned about their future in the Temple and therefore justifiably worried about the effect of the publication of any potentially damaging information. Now that conditions have changed, there is less worry, but as in SG, I have sometimes suppressed or omitted information because it might be damaging or hurtful, and again I must ask the reader to believe that the accuracy of my account has not been compromised. In some respects, indeed, the problem of anonymity and confidentiality is now more difficult than it was. In SG, I never identified living people in the Temple by name; this was quite easy because all the priests used to be in fairly similar circumstances, so that differences between individuals did not matter very much. By the 1990s, that was no longer true; as this book shows, the priesthood has become increasingly differentiated, especially by education and income, and particular individuals have become more prominent. In telling the story of the priests today, therefore, I cannot avoid reference to individuals altogether, and in practice it would be impossible to disguise their identity by giving them pseudonyms. Anyone familiar with the priests would easily identify these individuals, even if they were given false names (which would probably just sow confusion about who actually is who), and to anyone unfamiliar with them—almost all my readers—it makes no difference anyway. In this book, I have therefore decided to use real names (usually formal given names but for some men the nicknames by which they are always known), although I only do so for people I know fairly well or, in a few cases, for priests who have taken on public roles (as in the renovation ritual); I have also tried to ensure that nobody is ever identified by name when I am referring to anything that might be regarded as prejudicial.

To the priests, I have always made it clear that one main purpose of my research would be to write about them. In general, the priests are fairly well educated and they belong to a community in which education and learning are traditionally accorded very high value, so that they had little difficulty in understanding the nature of research. Moreover, the priests probably know more about my work than most anthropologists’ informants do, because they have received copies of SG, in both English and Tamil. When SG was published in 1984, I presented one copy to the priests’ association at a ceremony in the Temple, but in those days I just could not afford to give away lots of expensive hardback books. In 1991, a South Asian edition of SG was published in Delhi, and I arranged for a copy to be given to every household, so that all the priests and their family members would have access to it. In 1999, a Tamil translation of SG was published; its release was marked by a ceremony in the Temple and copies were again distributed to all priestly households. A few people have complained that their families never got copies, but although fairly confident that this is untrue, I admit that I have no idea how many people have ever looked at the book. Some priests have told me that they are convinced that most of the books, in both English and Tamil, have disappeared unopened into cupboards, except for a glance at the photographs. On the other hand, I know that the handful of priests who can read English reasonably well have looked at the original text, and that a sizeable minority of men have consulted the Tamil version. One young man read the whole book in Tamil carefully and made some quite detailed comments about it, but as far as I can tell, the majority of the priests who have looked at it have been interested in reading about their own history, and especially the description of their rights and duties in the Temple (SG, ch. 4), which has been periodically consulted for information on specific issues. A couple of priests have complained that information about them should never have been published at all, but many more—even if they have not read it—have said that they are pleased that a book about them exists. Some younger men have expressed particular satisfaction that they can now read about their own history. To some extent, my decision about what to include and omit in this book, and about the use of names, has been reached on the basis that the priests who have given me information have been able to see the previous product of my research and have a reasonable understanding of it.

In my research in the Minakshi Temple, partly because of my relationship with the priests, I have never had close contacts with officials in its administration. I have obtained some information from officials, who have always been formally polite to me, but I should make it clear that their side of the story is largely unreported in this book. In the preface to SG, I expressed sympathy for the priests in their less than ideal predicament in the late 1970s, but also said that I had tried to avoid any lapse into partiality on the priests’ behalf. In this book, reporting on the renewal of the priests’ fortunes, I remain sympathetic, but again I have tried to avoid partiality, and like all liberal secularists, I am dismayed by the rising tide of religious nationalism in India, which has contributed much to the priests’ betterment.

My acknowledgments must begin with the Minakshi Temple priests and the members of their families—almost all of whom have always been courteous, friendly, and helpful—and as a token of my immense gratitude I dedicate this book to all of them. Some priests, of course, have given me much more information than others, but it would be invidious to try to discriminate among them. However, I do owe special thanks to Sathasiva Bhattar for many years of friendship and, alongside his wife, Chellammal, and the rest of his family, for a great deal of hospitality as well.

The material on priestly education reported in this book could not have been collected without the kind cooperation of the gurus and students in the schools at Allur, Pillaiyarpatti, and Tirupparankundram. I visited Tirupparankundram school frequently and am particularly grateful to its guru, Raja Bhattar, and his students.

In SG, I thanked K. S. Sasisekaran, my research assistant who also acted as an interpreter. After working with me in 1976–77 and 1980, Sasi moved permanently to Chennai, where he eventually became a senior computer engineer and trade unionist, but when I have returned to India, he has usually taken leave for a week or two to work in Madurai, and with his assistance my productivity in the field has always dramatically improved. Our working partnership and friendship have lasted for twenty-five years and I am immensely grateful to Sasi for all the help he has given me. I also owe thanks to several other part-time research assistants: in Madurai in 1994–95, I was helped by D. Rajesh and S. Sukumar, and in Chennai in 1995–97 by Haripriya Narasimhan, who also, with Thulasirani Rajkumar, carefully collected press cuttings for me.

Véronique Bénéï, John Harriss, and Johnny Parry read an earlier draft of this book, on which they gave me valuable advice and criticism, although I also want to express my gratitude to them for sustained encouragement and critical support over many years. Mattison Mines and Peter van der Veer read the penultimate version for Princeton University Press, and I thank them for their endorsement and critical comments; I also thank Haripriya Narasimhan for her perceptive observations on this version. For twenty years, in all my writing about Agamic texts and education, I have depended greatly on the expert advice of Hélène Brunner, to whom I am most grateful. During the course of my research and writing, countless other friends and colleagues have helped me with encouragement, advice, information, and comments. Unfortunately, it is impossible to name them all here, but I particularly thank Jackie Assayag, Laura Bear, André Béteille, Nick Dirks, Henrike Donner, Tony Good, Thomas Hansen, Ginni Ishimatsu, Helen Lambert, Loki Madan, David Mosse, Caroline and Filippo Osella, M.S.S. Pandian, Sheldon Pollock, P. Radhakrishnan, Arvind Rajagopal, Sumathi Ramaswamy, Marie-Louise Reiniche, Gilles Tarabout, and Sylvia Vatuk. I also owe thanks to Mary Murrell for her efficient support and Barbara Coster for her precise copyediting.

In Chennai, I have long depended on M. A. Kalam for consistently interesting conversation, perceptive insights, and practical assistance, and I am also indebted to him and Nagina for all their hospitality. In Madurai, especially in 1994–95, I was grateful to be given a great deal of practical help and useful information by S. Kitchlu and much kind hospitality by Fatima. I thank K. Rajivan for providing important information and unblocking bureaucratic obstacles in Madurai and Chennai, and with Anuradha Rajivan, for generous hospitality. I thank Francis Jayapathy for his always wise insights and his loyal support. In 1994–95, I received a lot of help and hospitality in the French Institute of Pondicherry and the

École Française d’Extrême Orient, for which I am particularly grateful to Jackie Assayag, François and Sonia Houllier, and the late Françoise L’Hernault; I also thank S. Sambandha Gurukkal of Pondicherry for valuable advice on Agamic texts.

Versions of parts of this book have been presented in lectures, seminars, workshops, and conferences in Britain, France, Germany, India, the Netherlands, and the United States, and I thank all those who gave me the benefit of their comments on those occasions. Among them are many of my present and former colleagues and students in the London School of Economics, to whom I am particularly grateful. I thank Mina Moshkeri of the LSE for carefully preparing the figures in this book.

Thanks are due to the Economic and Social Research Council, which financially supported the research in 1994–95. Subsequent research visits were supported by the ESRC or the LSE.

As always, I have an inestimable debt of gratitude to my wife, Penny Logan, and my son, Alexis.

Note on Transliteration

THE MAJORITY of technical ritual terms used in the Minakshi Temple, as well as the names of deities and texts, are Sanskrit in origin, and in the speech of Temple officiants their pronunciation does not deviate very far from Sanskrit. Transliterated Tamil orthography often makes these words almost unrecognizable by other Indianists, however. For these reasons, almost all these terms and names are transliterated from their Sanskrit form, unless the context requires the Tamil form. Occasionally, it is impossible to avoid a rather odd mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil forms. All words, Sanskrit or Tamil, are systematically transliterated with diacritical marks on their first appearance; thereafter, they are printed without diacritics and their spelling is adjusted in the usual way: ri for ṛ, ch for c, v or w for v, sh for ś and ṣ, and in Tamil the consonantal sounds g, j, d, b, sh, and s are indicated. An exception has been made, however, for the names of the Temple priests’ groups, so that they are consistent with the spellings used throughout SG: thus Vikkira Pantiya, Kulacekara, and Tirucculi, instead of Vikkira Pandiya, Kulashekara, and Tiruchuli. Terms and names that occur at more than one or two places in the text are included in the glossary. Personal names, geographical and historical names, and the names of castes are, however, spelled in their conventional, anglicized forms.

The Tamil-speaking region of the Madras Presidency became Madras state after Indian Independence; the state was renamed Tamilnadu (Tamil Nadu) in 1969. The name of its capital city was changed from Madras to Chennai in 1996. Throughout this book, I use the modern names for the state and city, except where the historical context requires Madras. Tamilnadu is divided into administrative districts that have been repeatedly reorganized and renamed; they are referred to by their names at the time of writing.

Key to Figures 1 and 2

Figures 1 and 2 are simplified versions of the more detailed maps 3 and 2 respectively contained in SG (xx–xxvi). Unless otherwise indicated, all numbers refer to deities’ immovable images. AM and MM in figure 1 indicate the ardhamaṇḍapa (half hall) and mahāmaṇḍapa (great hall) respectively. It has been impossible to avoid a sometimes odd mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil forms of names in this key.

Minakshi’s Temple

1 Mīnākṣī, principal image (mūlamūrti) in main shrine

2 Caṇḍeśvarī, form of goddess to be worshipped after Minakshi

3 Bedchamber (paḷḷiya ai) with movable image of Minakshi (Paḷḷiya ai Amma ) inside

4 Main flagstaff of Minakshi’s temple, next to sacrifice stone (balipīṭha)

5 Kūṭal Kumāra, Kumara [Subrahmaṇya] of Madurai, with his two consorts Tĕyvayā ai (Devasenā) and Vaḷḷi

6 Fire-sacrifice hall (yāgaśālā), used for festivals celebrated for Minakshi alone

7 Kumāra, with his two consorts

8 Siddhi Vināyaka, Vinayaka with all the powers

9 Ūñcal maṇḍapa, swing hall, the location for the weekly festival of Minakshi and Sundareshwara seated on a swing

Sundareshwara’s Temple (Inner Area)

10 Sundareśvara, svāyambhuva (self-existent) principal liṅga in main shrine

11 Cŏkkar, movable image of Sundareshwara kept in his temple during the day and taken to the bedchamber at night

12 Vĕḷḷiyampalam (silver stage) Naṭarāja, Shiva as lord of the dance, with his consort Śivakāmi

13 Dakṣiṇāmūrti, Shiva as the ascetic guru

14 Liṅgodbhava, Shiva within the linga of flames

15 Siddha, Shiva with all the powers

16 Durgā, fierce form of the goddess

17 Caṇḍeśvara, form of Shiva to be worshipped after Sundareshwara

18 Sarasvatī, goddess of learning and music

19 Utsava Nāyakar, lords of the festival; this shrine contains the movable, festival images of Somāskanda (Sundareshwara) and Minakshi, and other deities

20 Kāśī Viśvanātha shrine, the Temple’s principal replica of the Vishwanatha (Shiva) temple at Banaras

21 Fire-sacrifice hall (yāgaśālā), used for festivals celebrated for Minakshi and Sundareshwara

22 Mahālakṣmī, goddess of good fortune and wealth

23 Bhairava, the dreadful form of Shiva

Sundareshwara’s Temple (Outer Area)

24 Taṇṭāyutapāṇi, the ascetic Subrahmanya at Palani temple

25 A ukñai Vināyaka, Vinayaka who grants permission

26 Mukku uṇi Vināyaka, Vinayaka whose belly equals "three kuruni [measures of rice]"

27 Navagraha, Nine planets, including inauspicious Śani, Saturn

28 Main flagstaff of Sundareshwara’s temple, next to sacrifice stone (balipīṭha) and massive image of Nandin, the bull who is Shiva’s vehicle and devotee

29 Agnivīrabhadra and Aghoravīrabhadra, fiery and euphemistically named nonterrifying forms of Virabhadra, an angry and destructive form of Shiva

30 Ūrdhva Tāṇḍava, Shiva dancing with his leg erect, and Bhadrākālī, a similar image of the goddess Kali dancing

31 Kalyāṇasundara, beautiful lord of the wedding, Minakshi being married to Sundareshwara by Vishnu

32 Naṭarāja with his consort

Outer Precincts

33 Naṭarāja with his consort

34 Vaṇṇi-tree Vinayaka temple; a small modern temple built in a garden

FIGURE 1. Plan of the Minakshi Temple, Central Area

FIGURE 2. Plan of the Minakshi Temple (adapted from the plan dated 1896 in W. Francis, Madura [1906])

THE RENEWAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD

One

The Priests and the Minakshi Temple’s Renovation Ritual

IN SEPTEMBER 1976, when I had just begun research in Madurai, two young men accompanied by their wives were consecrated as new priests in the Minakshi (Mīnākṣī) Temple. Ugrapandya Bhattar was then twenty-eight and Manikkasundara Bhattar was twenty-three; Ugrapandya had just married Madhuravani, Manikkasundara’s sister, and Manikkasundara had married Umarani, daughter of one of the Temple’s chief priests. Manikkasundara had also recently graduated from a religious school in which he had spent six years learning the Sanskrit ritual texts known as the Agamas (Āgama), and he was now the first priest in the Minakshi Temple to possess this qualification.

Nearly twenty-five years later, in April 2001, I visited Manikkasundara and Umarani at the Minakshi temple in Pearland, Texas, one of Houston’s sprawling southern suburbs.¹ As I drove down a long straig ht road leading from yet another shopping mall, past new housing developments for the well-off and prefabricated trailer homes for the poor, the towers of a temple in the distinctive South Indian style incongruously appeared through the trees. In the car park, a young man who was playing basketball introduced himself to me as Praveen Kumar, Manikkasundara’s twenty-two-year-old son. Manikkasundara and his family had been in America for nearly six years, and as I soon found out, they were eagerly looking forward to going back to Madurai in May for their first return visit. Only recently had they acquired their green cards, which would allow them to reenter the United States freely. For Manikkasundara and Umarani in particular, settling down in Pearland had been difficult, and after six years they were still ambivalent about America and often homesick for India. Their children, however, had few qualms, and Praveen Kumar, studying for a degree in computer engineering, and his nineteen-year-old sister, Vijaya Shri, starting her training as a doctor, had thrived in American schools and adapted fairly easily to American life. To Manikkasundara and his wife, it was their children’s educational achievements that had made all their struggles worthwhile, and they were determined to stay in America at least until Vijaya Shri had qualified as a doctor. Praveen Kumar’s principal ambition was to work in America as a computer engineer specializing in software, just like the son of Rajarathna Bhattar, also from Madurai, who had been replaced by Manikkasundara when he retired, as well as the son of another priest from India also working in the Pearland temple. Praveen Kumar will probably succeed and Vijaya Shri will probably become a doctor, and in a few years’ time they will become two more members of the highly successful Non-Resident Indian (NRI) population in America, exactly the kind of professional people who prosper in Houston and drive out to worship in Pearland.² In many respects, the transnational social mobility exemplified by Manikkasundara’s family is now a very familiar feature of globalization, but because he is a priest it has its distinctive features.

In 1976, Thangam Bhattar, then in his late forties, who had briefly visited Malaysia three years earlier, became the first Minakshi Temple priest to work overseas when he went to a Singapore temple for a few months. In 1982–83, Thangam worked in Pearland for nearly a year when its Minakshi temple was first opened, and he was then replaced by his younger brother Rajarathna; Thangam also returned for over a year in 1986–88, when the temple was extended in size, but Rajarathna stayed on permanently in Pearland until retirement and now lives there with his wife. Thangam and Rajarathna both acquired green cards in the mid-1980s. Back in 1976, though, nobody in Madurai would have predicted that Thangam, Rajarathna, and then Manikkasundara would work in Texas, and that the latter’s graduation from an Agamic school would be so important for his career in Madurai and his eventual move to America. Indeed, although it may be a very small element in the history of latterday globalization, the emergence of traditional education in Sanskrit scripture as a valuable asset in the United States is a striking sign of how the world changed during the twentieth century’s last quarter, for it was not only unpredictable in the mid-1970s, it was virtually unimaginable. This book’s principal objective is to describe and explain how events unforeseen in Madurai and the Minakshi Temple twenty-five years ago came about, and what they have meant for its priesthood during the interveningyea rs.

The Minakshi Temple Priests and Change since the 1970s

My previous monograph about the Minakshi Temple priests, Servants of the Goddess (SG), was based on fieldwork carried out in 1976–77 and 1980, and those years provide the main baseline with which the contemporary position will be compared.³ As explained in SG (ch. 5), a crucial date in the Minakshi Temple’s modern history is 1937, when its management was taken over by the provincial government of Madras through its agency, the Hindu Religious Endowments (HRE) Board. Two years later, the Temple was opened to untouchable Harijans (Dalits) and low-caste Nadars, who had always been excluded from it, and virtually all the priests then began a strike, which lasted until 1945. During the six years when the priests were absent, they became much poorer and the Executive Officer in charge of the Temple since 1937 imposed a series of changes that greatly undermined their rights and privileges; in the years after 1945, the priests’ position mostly continued to deteriorate, notably when their tax-free lands were confiscated in the 1950s following land reform legislation. In 1970, when the anti-Brahman Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party was in power, the government of Tamilnadu brought in legislation to abolish the hereditary temple priesthood throughout the state. The abolition act was challenged in the courts, and in the end its impact was minimal, but in 1976, when I first worked in Madurai, the Minakshi Temple priests had witnessed forty years of continual decline, includinga recent threat to their very existence.

For understandable reasons, demoralization was widespread among the priests, most of whom said that they hoped their sons would find better jobs outside the Temple. The constant pressure exerted on the priests by the Temple administration (Devasthanam) and, at one remove, by the Tamilnadu government and its Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department (which had replaced the old Board) was further increased by continual criticism of their incompetence and ignorance of the Agamas, the Sanskrit texts that are believed to contain the instructions of Shiva (Śiva) himself for his proper worship. The priests themselves had internalized this criticism, and in concluding SG (166), I said that they could only respond to it by insisting on their devotion to Minakshi—the devotion (bhakti) of a compelling love which overcomes all rational barriers (O’Flaherty 1973: 38–9).

Social scientists have a poor record in foretelling the future, and my implied prediction has turned out to be wrong. The priests’ position in the Temple, and their demoralization as I saw it in 1976–77 and 1980, did not continue to worsen. On visits to Madurai in 1984 and 1988, some improvement was already apparent, especially in their economic position and in their more relaxed attitude toward the government, and this continued during the 1990s and until the present day.⁴ Just as importantly, the priests’ growing commitment to Agamic education for their sons and themselves, which is both product and cause of their generally improving morale, has meant that they have been able to respond to reformist criticism much more effectively than earlier seemed likely. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that by the end of the 1970s, the worst was actually over for the priests. But it was not obvious either to them (or me) at the time, mainly because they had been suffering forty years of actual or threatened losses to their rights and privileges, so that it was only reasonable to assume that the decline would continue. Furthermore, because the most senior priests could remember the better days before the temple-entry dispute, there was a persistent tendency to hark back to them, which only served to exacerbate pessimistic comment about the future.

Since the late 1970s, the Minakshi Temple administration and its superior authority, the HR&CE Department, have been no more favorable to the priests than they were in earlier years, and there are still constant complaints about them. On the other hand, anti-Brahmanism as a political ideology has greatly weakened over the last two decades. Moreover, in almost all directions, the religious policy of the Tamilnadu government has become considerably more favorable to the priests’ interests, especially since 1991 when the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party came to power under the leadership of Ms. J. Jayalalitha. Her government further encouraged religious revivalism, and started to support and promote Brahmanical Sanskritic Hinduism almost as if it were the state religion, a development linked to the rise of Hindu nationalism—most evident in northern and western India—since the late 1980s. For the priests, although the state still has a negative side represented in particular by the Temple administration and the HR&CE Department, it has acquired a more positive, supportive side as well, especially since the early 1990s.

The administration’s control over the priests has also been diluted inasmuch as they now do far more work outside the Temple than they used to before the early 1980s, and this—together with the introduction of more expensive forms of private worship inside it—has significantly raised their income. The priests’ autonomy and standard of living have therefore both improved. These changes have mainly come about as a result of rising middle-class affluence produced by India’s economic liberalization—which began in the mid-1980s and accelerated from 1991— assisted by the Tamilnadu