The ancient Sabhanayagar temple, also known as the Nataraja temple, in Chidambaram in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu is often plagued by controversies. The administration of the temple has been a contentious subject between the Podhu Dikshitars (administrators-cum-priests) and the State government.
While Chidambaram is the prime centre of Saiva philosophy, the temple, located 215 km south of Chennai, enjoyed the patronage of different rulers including Simha Varman of the Pallava dynasty, Aditya I of the Chola dynasty, Krishnadevaraya of the Vijayanagara empire, and Nayaka kings, points out T. Satyamurthy, veteran archaeologist. The sheer historical significance of the temple has meant that every issue impacting it has been considered newsworthy.
In 1885, a question was placed before the Madras High Court on whether the temple was public or private property. This is still being debated animatedly, even though a 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court reinforced the right of the Dikshithars to administer the temple and reaffirmed their position as a religious denomination.
The latest incident, which sparked a row between the Dikshithars and the State government’s Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, meant for the administration and supervision of about 45,810 religious institutions, was the denial of access to devotees to the Kanagasabai mandapam for worship during four days of Aani Thirumanjanam, a festival celebrated during the Tamil month of Aani. The Dikshithars put up a notice board outside the mandapam denying access. This was reportedly opposed by some devotees who felt that they were not able to have ‘darshan’ of the deity. Officials of the Revenue and HR&CE Departments removed the notice board later. But by then, there had already been conflict between the two sides. A complaint was lodged with the Chidambaram police that an official of the HR&CE Department was obstructed from discharging her duty on June 24. A case was then filed against 11 Dikshithars. The Dikshithars feel that it is customary not to permit devotees atop the mandapam for reasons including the security of jewellery. HR&CE officials argue against the denial of permission to the devotees on any day.
In May last year too, the issue of ‘darshan’ of the deity from the Kanagasabai mandapam was raised, when restrictions were imposed in view of the pandemic. HR&CE Minister P.K. Sekar Babu had said that the government would take a call on the matter, citing a ruling of the High Court. Thereafter, there was silence.
Controversy struck the temple a few months ago when Governor R.N. Ravi alleged that the two-finger test was conducted in October last year on minor girls belonging to the community of Dikshithars. The erstwhile Director-General of Police, C. Sylendra Babu, said the police, after establishing prima facie evidence that child marriages were being conducted in Chidambaram, had registered cases under Section 366A (procuration of minor girl) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. The Chidambaram all-women police wing arrested 11 persons, including three women in the case. Of the four affected minor girls, two were referred for a medical examination by a woman doctor. No forced virginity test was done, Mr. Babu asserted. Later, Health Minister Ma. Subramanian also refuted the allegations.
Yet another controversy occurred in June-August last year when the HR&CE Department decided to verify records beginning 2014 relating to income and expenditure as well as audit reports, and also valuate assets and jewels belonging to the temple. Initially, the Department complained that the Dikshithars were not cooperating with its officials. But in August, there was no issue between the two sides when the officials took stock of the jewellery and other valuables, which the temple owned. Even at the time of appraisal of the jewellery, the Dikshithars said that the Department had “no locus standi” to verify the records or take stock of the jewellery. They said that they had cooperated with the Department only to “establish transparency and accountability in the maintenance of jewellery”.
Now, no solution seems to be in sight as both the sides are holding firm on their traditional positions. Unless the two parties come to an amicable understanding, another round of litigation over the temple looks imminent.
