Painted gopurams...

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani and Bhagavathas :

 

While the various concerns raised so far on the

multi-coloured painting of gopurams are genuine and

timely, there is a danger here. The meaning of heritage

and the concept of 'leaving alone' any historical or

archeological monuments are predominantly a product of

recent (and mostly a western) approach. If we treat the

temples as monuments - these principles may well take the

precedence. On the other hand, if temples are treated as

'dynamic' - that is an embodiment of society's

collectively owned good, to be re-shaped and modified to

reflect the needs and values of a society at a given time,

then changes take place constantly.

 

I am not justifying the painting of gopurams in

multi-colours but to point that there is a danger of our

comments being superficial and hypocritical. For

instance, though gaudy, these multi-colour paints may be

the cheapest water resistant coat that will help

ultimately to prolong the life of these gopurams. I am

sure all are aware of a remarkable (and accidental)

discovery about 9 years ago in Poori Jagannath temple.

The numerous carvings and statues on the original gopuram

lay hidden for centuries under a coat of lime several

inches thick - perhaps to protect the temple from

mutilation by invading armies in 11th century.

 

INTACH (in Chennai) along with a few active local peoples

was trying to do something to protect some of the

precious historical paintings in some fo the temples. We

need to do something but it is an uphill struggle.

(Anyone walking in the Panguni Utthiram mandapam in

Thayar sannidhi in Srirangam can see traces of erstwhile

beautiful paintings on the walls and ceiling).

 

Adiyen Srivaishnava dasan

PB Anand

----------------------

P.B. Anand

p.b.anand

[Guest guest]

Dear Anand,

 

You wrote:

> The meaning of heritage

> and the concept of 'leaving alone' any historical or

> archeological monuments are predominantly a product of

> recent (and mostly a western) approach.

 

Your point is very well taken, and I am certainly

not suggesting that we leave our temples alone as

static monuments of a bygone era. One of the best

things about temples in India is that they are still

*alive*, teeming with devotees, flower-sellers, etc.,

all of whom leave their mark on the place ("kambamE kaavEri").

In contrast, when I visited the magnificent churches of

Florence, Paris, and Rome, I found them to be more

museums than active places of worship. People would go

primarily to admire the artistry, and what few devout

there were (mostly senior citizens) would go to mass

at an appointed time and then leave. (St. Peter's in Rome

is of course an exception).

 

At the same time, we should be careful in making wholesale

changes to a structure, without regard to history and

artistic value. Judging from the responses on our List,

it seems that brightly painted gopurams have a history in

Tamil Nadu, and that many people today like them. If this

truly is the case, or if they have some other unmentioned merit,

I'm not one to oppose them. But I do think that we should think

very cautiously before succumbing to the temporary whims of

an ever-changing society, which in the process can destroy

the age-old atmosphere of some of our holy sites.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Hi Mani,

 

Of course I know the spirit in which your earlier

comments on coloured gopurams were made. As I mentioned,

in my note, I feel these are timely and relevant. I only

wanted to caution that there is the danger of jumping to

conclusions. Gopurams are more visible and so we all

perceive and react. The more important point concerns

temple administration and accountability and the need for

maintaining principles according to agamas without

introducing changes to suit one's whims. The people who

are painting the gopurams can turn back and say that

 

'It is all too easy for you to sit comfortably and make

those comments. What right have you to give your views ?

Unga thatha va inda gopuram kattinar? '

 

Also, most of the temples are now administered by the

government and their control is part of political

process. (I was reading the bio-data of several of the

members of parliament of 12th Lok sabha and many of them

list their temple chairmanship under the heading 'posts

held'). In political science discussions (what little I

am aware of)it is discussed as a symbol of ascendency of

lower castes to hold such power over what

originally were considered to be brahminical

institutions. For instance, in Kanchi garuda sevai, when

goshti consisted of doyens such as PBA swamy, the sadari

used to be given to them first before being given to the

temple administrator. I was told that nowadays the temple

administrator and district police superintendent (or IG

if he attends it) gets these honours before anyone else.

 

Multi-coloured painting may thus be a symbolic view of

such ascendency - people who controlled mari amman

temples yesterday do control parthasarathy and other

temples today. In a way we ourselves (not brahmins but

those who take interest in our sampradayam) are to blame.

Temples have to be taken over by the government because -

lets face it - we did not administer them any better. The

feud over the namam of temple elephant going up to

Supreme Court is just an example. Also failure to

understand the need for creating wider base of stake

holders, sharing responsibilities with them, treating it

as a trusteeship of a social good rather than the

ownership of a private good etc., have created many

problems. If we want to know how well (or how absurdly) a

group of srivaishnavas administer themselves - just wait

at the main entrance of Tirumalai for the sattumurai :

fights break out, people sneak in without standing in the

queue, recommendations are brought in, once inside the

sanctum sanctorum, people become an embodiment of

selfishness - no one cares about blocking others' view so

long as they can get a good view of the Lord.

 

Dasan

P.B. Anand

p.b.anand