Does Thazhamon family have a better story than Cheerappanchira

and Malayarayans?

Once upon a time there was a king ….

Long, long ago, there lived a ….

These are sound openings for fables.

“The Heredity (sic) rights of Sabarimala temple was (sic) and is (sic) with Tazhamon
Family from time immemorial for millenniums”. This statement can also be placed in the
category if fables.

Ask the Thazhamon spokesman when and how the family acquired its hereditary rights in
Sabarimala, and the answer is that there is a “lack of record”. Then comes the explanation
that this is the case with all the temples, families etc. You also get a counter-question: can
you tell the name of your great-grandfather of 30 generations ago?

Many royal families of old, in India as well as other countries like Japan, used to claim
descent from the Sun or the Moon. This was done to establish not only antiquity but also
Divine sanction for their hereditary title. Out of feudal loyalty, the people tacitly accepted
the claim.
The solar and lunar dynasties of India have all disappeared. Japan’s imperial family, with
a claimed history of 2,500 years, is still there but now it does not talk of descent from the
Sun. This is because it does not need the fib of divine origin any more, the country
having graduated from empire to constitutional monarchy.

The only ones who still hold on to fictional accounts that originated in the tribal or feudal
past are those connected with various religions. Many people who accept current
scientific theories about the origin of Earth and Man and reject the myths about them still
believe in God and religion. This shows that a religion does not really need fables for
survival. But there are people who live by the religion and feel the need to perpetuate the
fables for their own survival.

The Sankara Mutts have in their possession records which list all those who headed the
institutions, from Adi Sankara down to the present incumbents. The lists go back to about
500 BCE, although it is now widely accepted that Sankaracharya, who founded the
institutions, lived from 788 to 820 AD. The lists cover 2,500 years because they were
created when the Vedic establishment was trying to push back Sankara’s period to the
Buddha’s. Some people still want to do that. (Please see my blog post at
http://brpbhaskar.blogspot.com/2009/09/times-group-steps-in-to-help-revive.html).

Other religions, too, contain such fabrications. The Bible, for instance, lists the names of
Adam’s successors down to Noah and on to Solomon and beyond. However, few
consider it a historical record.

True, no one will be able to name his/her forebear of 30 generations ago. But, then, it is
not necessary either – so long as he/she does not enjoy or demand any special right or
privilege on the basis of descent from that person.

When a controversy arose over the purification ceremony conducted at the Guruvayur
temple following alleged desecration by members of Vayalar Ravi’s family, the late K. P.
C. Anujan Bhattathiripad, a widely acclaimed authority on rituals and author of
"Kshethraachaarangalum Vrathaanushtthaanangalum", said in a magazine article that the
Chennas family has been associated with that temple as Thanthris for 6,000 years! In a
letter to the editor of the periodical which published the article, I pointed out that the
Chennas family’s own claim was that it obtained its rights at this temple from the
Zamorin (Samoothiri) of Calicut and that 6,000 years ago neither the temple nor the
Samoothiri existed. Anujan Bhattathiripad made no attempt to defend his statement.
Evidently he was ready to respect facts.

MAHARAJAS’ CONTROL OVER TEMPLES

At the time of Independence, the Maharajas of Cochin and Travancore controlled the
major temples in their states. It was Munro, a British Resident who also served as Dewan
of Travancore, who brought the state’s temples under the government. Though the
creation of a white officer, the department scrupulously followed the caste rules, and
reserved all jobs for members of the so-called upper castes. Even though these rules are
no longer in force, these castes, which constitute a minority of the Hindu population, still
hold a lion’s share of the jobs.

The Maharajas of Travancore and Cochin as also the Zamorin of Calicut (the British
allowed him to retain the title even after his kingdom was taken over) came to have a say
in the affairs of temples in their respective areas by virtue of the political control they had
over the regions. The case of Jammu and Kashmir illustrates how political power leads to
control over temples.

Jammu and Kashmir did not exist as a state until after the Anglo-Sikh War. The British,
who defeated the Sikh ruler of Punjab, were not keen to take over the territory. They
demanded Rs 15 million as war reparations. Punjab could not come up with the money.
Gulab Singh, who was commander in charge of the Jammu and Kashmir area, which was
part of the Sikh empire, offered to pay the money. The British took the money and made
him Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.

On becoming the Maharaja in 1846, Gulab Singh created the Dharmarth Trust with
himself as sole trustee. Subsequently his successors became the sole trustees. Karan
Singh, who was Yuvaraj at the time of Independence, did not become Maharaja on the
death of his father Hari Singh but he became the sole trustee of the Dharmarth Trust. In
that capacity, he receives one-third of the revenue of the major temples including the
Vaishnodevi temple in Jammu and the Amarnath cave temple nestling in the Himalayas.
The Thakur families, which controlled the Vaishnodevi temple before the Maharaja’s
entry, get another one-third and the Brahmin priests the remaining one-third. In the case
of the Amarnath temple, too, the trustee and the priests each get one-third, the remaining
one-third going to a Muslim Bakharwal (shepherd) family, whose ancestor had helped
trace the cave after it had remained inaccessible for a few centuries.

The J and K Assembly was informed recently that 171 temples in the state were
destroyed or damaged during the past decades of militancy. The state BJP has demanded
enactment of a law to protect the temples. This once again illustrates the connection
between political power and temple administration.

CHEERAPPANCHIRA AND SABARIMALA

Until a few decades ago the Cheerappanchira family of Cherthala enjoyed the right to
conduct ‘vedi vazhipadu’ at Sabarimala. The Devaswom Board abolished it and started
auctioning the right in order to raise the revenue. The family challenged the decision in
court, where it produced a copper plate on which was inscribed a royal decree granting it
the right. The court ruled that the board had the power to make alternative arrangements.

The judiciary cannot be faulted for refusing to honour the decree of a ruler who no longer
exists. Its decision was in conformity with the new political realities. But the fact that this
family had in its possession a document to support its claim of hereditary rights deserves
to be noted.
How did the Ezhava family of Cheerappanchira acquire hereditary rights at Sabarimala
through a royal decree?

According to the family’s tradition, its chief had imparted training in martial arts to
Ayyappa, adopted son of the Pandalam king, who was preparing to challenge the
tribesmen from Tamil Nadu who had seized the Sabarimala shrine. The chief’s daughter,
Poonkodi, fell in love with Ayyappa. The chief and Vavar, a Muslim, along with their
men, actively participated in Ayyappa’s successful campaign against the tribesmen. Since
Ayyappa did not return from the mountains, Poonkodi, accompanied by relatives, went to
Sabarimala looking for him. Ayyappa, who had turned an ascetic, advised her also to lead
an ascetic life.

Ayyappa’s association with the Cheerappanchira family is mentioned in Kottarathil

Sankunni’s Aithihyamala, which is a collection of legends which, for the most part,
reinforces casteist theories. CPI State Secretary C.K. Chandrappan and the late CPI-M
leader Suseela Gopalan are among the Cheerappanchira family members of our time.

The Pandalam family claims descent from the Pandyans who had ruled from Madurai. To
escape harassment by tribesmen they moved into Kerala. They were initially based at
Ranni. They did not reach Pandalam until around 1000 AD. P.R. Rama Varma of the
Pandalam family, in his “Ayyappan Charithram”, avers that Ayyappa was born in 1006.

This story makes it clear that the shrine was in existence before the time of Ayyappa, the
adopted son of the Pandalam family. Going by the tales propagated by the Vedic and
royal establishments, there was already a temple at Sabarimala before the king of
Pandalam picked up Hariharaputra whom Siva and Vishnu had abandoned in the forest.
Whose shrine was it?

THE MALAYARAYANS AND SABARIMALA

In an affidavit filed in response to a Kerala High Court directive, the Travancore

Devaswom Board recently confirmed something that was already known to and accepted
by all but the incorrigibly superstitious. It said the Makara Vilakku, which flashes thrice
on Ponnambalamedu on the last day of the Sabarimala festival, is lit by humans, and not
of divine origin. It stated that the practice was started by tribesmen living in the area as an
offering.

The court decided not to open the can of worms. It steered clear of questions like how,
why and when the Police, Electricity and Forest departments of the secular government
of Kerala took over the ritual from the tribal population. It allowed the Devaswom Board
to take over the job from the government departments.

A few months earlier, former Devaswom Commissioner P.V. Nalinakshan Nair had said,
in a letter to Justice (retired) R. Bhaskaran, the Court-appointed Ombudsman for the
Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, that in 2008 he, along with a few Devaswom
officials, had visited Ponnambalamedu where the Makarajyothi was being lit.
He revealed that Makarajyothi had a history of only 45 years. He wrote, “The lighting of
the Makarajyothi had originally been done by a few families of the Malayaraya tribe.
Officers attached to the Kerala State Electricity Board continued the practice when the
forest-dwellers were evicted in connection with the Sabarigiri hydro-electric project. The
TDB and the Police Department took over the duty when the KSEB officials too left the
place at a later time.''

After the court verdict of the subject, the Malayarayan community, whose members live
in the area, came forward to re-claim their right to conduct the Makara Vilakku ritual on
the hill.

Unlike the Devaswom Board and the Thazhamon family, the Malayarayans are not
endowed with the kind of resources needed to secure justice through the Indian legal
system. Even if they approach the courts, they are unlikely to succeed. When the
Cheerappanchira family’s copper plate was of no avail, what chance is there for a tribal
community which cannot produce written evidence of any kind?

SOME PERTINENT QUESTIONS TO ASK

The Thazhamon family has evaded a pointed question about how and when it acquired its
hereditary rights. The only authority its spokesman has cited so far in support of its claim
of antiquity is the work of two British army officers engaged in survey work in
Travancore in late 19th century.

We can disentangle ourselves from the fables and arrive at reasonable, plausible
conclusions about Sabarimala’s past by raising some pertinent questions.

Who are the Malayarayans?

Several websites including a governmental one provide the following information about
this community: “Among the scheduled tribes, Malayarayans outclass all the other
factions in socio-economical and educational aspects. Renegades and traditional Hindus
following the hereditary regulations and customs are included in this group. When an
evaluation in the educational and employment prospect is taken, it will be found that
almost all the Government Servants and other employees are coming from this faction of
scheduled tribes. Their dwelling places and surroundings are showing the bright prospect
of development and they have always been showing the tendency to dissolve with the
then prevailing socio-developmental programs.”

The use of the tern ‘renegades’ to refer to those who are not ‘traditional Hindus’ is
significant. It recognizes the presence of persons outside the Hindu fold in the
community. It is not clear whether the term is used to refer to those who converted to
some other religion in recent times or to those who still adhere to pre-Hindu beliefs. It
may be noted that followers of the Vedic tradition have used terms like ‘renegade’ and
‘apostate’ to refer to the Buddha and his followers. In Aurobindo’s writings, the Buddha
is referred to as apostate.

Why should a tribal community living in a nearby hill make an offering to the Sabarimala
deity?

A plausible answer is that the shrine originally belonged to the tribe, that after intruders
ousted them and took over the temple, they started making offerings from the adjoining
hill where they took refuge. The Electricity Department took over the hill and drove them
out from there too. Its employees continued the Makara Vilakku ritual either to placate
the tribe or to satisfy their own religious sentiments.

It is doubtful if the Thazhamon family has a better, more credible Sabarimala story than
those of the Cheerappanchira family and the Malayarayans. If it has, it must come out
with it.

Meanwhile let us ponder over the observations of two learned men on the Dharma Sastha
of Sabarimala.

Former Kerala University Dr. A. Ayyappan, who was a well known social anthropologist,
said the Sastha image was that of Samantabhadra Bodhisatva, the Buddha who protects
the faithful, especially those preaching the Dharma.

Kesari A. Balakrishna Pillai said people of Kerala had given the name Sastha to
Avalokiteswara Bodhisatva.

Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang, who visited India in the seventh century, wrote that he had
worshipped the statue of Avalokiteswara at a vihara in the Western Ghats. Pilgrims
visited the hill shrine after fasting for a week or two, he added.

(Facebook Note dated May 18, 2011)