When one reads both the narratives of the Tenkalai and Vadakalai sects in the way I have tried to recapitulate them in the last two Parts (7 and 8) — with focus on bland, simple and matter-of-fact content sifted away as much as possible from otherwise rather distracting hagiographical excess and effusion — it is perhaps possible to discern what each side is trying really to do.
Each sect is only trying its best to convey its conviction that the history of the Kanchi Sri Devarajaswamy Temple is best told in terms of its own perspective telescoped clearly, as it were, by the biography of either Sri Azhagiya Manavaala Jiyar’s (AMJ) or that of Sri Lakshmikumaara Thaathachaarya’s (TKT) ….as the case may be.
Thus, the so-called sectarian conflict reduces itself — in raw, essential terms — to merely a battle of narratives which is made to appear however as though it were a great battle for truth and justice. But then neither Tenkalai or Vadakalai — certainly not those who are either in control of or else serve in the four most important Sri Vaishnavite capital-temples of Sri Rangam, Tirumala, Kanchipuram and Melkote even today — will ever want to see it all in that sort of way!
The two sectarian narratives share some commonalities and they suffer from some dissonances too. Let us first focus on their commonalities:
- Both are only human narratives. They are not by any stretch of imagination accurate chronicles or records of history which can be substantiated beyond doubt or disputation. Why? Because it would be truly difficult for such narratives to meet the rigorous standards of scrutiny or impartial methods of verification which we know are today applied by modern historians and social anthropologists to establish truth. These narratives have been built around — and built upon — “evidence” that can be characterized as being only minimally “scientific” in the modern sense of the term. In other words, there is indeed archaeological and epigraphical evidence found in temples across the Tamil regions which, of course, do serve as sound, verifiable sources of corroboration and even confirmation of the events reported by the two narratives. But then such sources are so few and far between and hence insufficient. They probably offer means of credibly supporting only a few specific parts and aspects of what the two larger narratives each seek to present or represent as their version of history… “the big picture“, so to say. A modern mind today of the 21st century CE, happening to read such representations can only conclude that much of it is based upon accounts which are in the nature of legend, apocrypha, episodes, hearsay, oral testimonies submitted at various points in time across historical timelines that have been either lengthened or shortened at will to suit the convenience of the narrators. And they are also known to have been sullied by a certain amount of bias, and unfortunately at times, exaggeration and even rank distortion that have crept into them….
- Both narratives are all about extremely local events only. They happened over a much larger canvass of history — in a span of time that stretched hundreds of years between the 14th to 17th century CE in the Deccan regions and in the Tamil country side. The general political climate during that period was tumultuous and chaotic. Kingdoms emerged suddenly and disappeared equally suddenly after some time. Tyrants ruled with impunity. Foreign marauders invaded with ferocity. Wars were fought frequently. Famines, pestilence, natural disasters like floods etc. — and the mass suffering they caused in their wake amongst common peoples — were not infrequent. People migrations from one region to another were happening all the time. In such socially disruptive times and with local events happening on a time-horizon expanded right across almost half a millennium, hindsight tells us that it would have been very difficult if not impossible to weave or construct historical narratives about them with any great degree of precision, cogency, objectivity or acute fidelity to truth. Therefore, both the Tenkalai and Vadakalai historical narratives can be accepted today only with more than a generous pinch of salt.
If one understands well the implications of the above commonality between the narratives of the two sects, then it would never come as a surprise to anyone today why neither the Tenkalai nor Vadakalai cases of legal dispute, that have gone in for adjudication in the last 200 years to the Courts of post-Independent India, have hardly succeeded at all in obtaining clear verdicts, one way or the other, to the decisive advantage of either party. The Court, far from granting relief to either sect, has so far only delivered “lose-lose” verdicts whose inherent ad-hoc-ism, circularity and ambivalence only perpetuates rather than arrests a vicious cycle of appeal and counter-appeal suits.
Because a large part of the legal briefs and arguments prepared and submitted to the Courts on behalf of their Tenkalai or Vadakalai clients by even the most astute of legal counsels engaged, were often based only on “narratives, narratives and more narratives“ — all served up in a bizarre cocktail of pseudo-religious and pseudo-secular summations and representations about arcane doctrines, temple-customs and legends…. rather than verifiable and unmistakable “facts, facts and more facts” — the honorable judges whose remit it is to preside over and adhere to well-but-narrowly defined secular processes and parameters of civil litigation in the jurisprudence of present-day India, could hardly understand or truly grasp the exact nature or character of the sectarian divide between the two warring sects.
Unable thus to unravel the thick, swirling fog of minutiae and granular material about “sampradaaya–ic” practices and customs … and about either this tradition or that observed across 800+ years in a temple …. which was being submitted to their lordships as so-called evidence and averments, the judges (much like Judge Vaidyanath of the Madras High Court) only ended up being utterly disorientated, exasperated and clueless about the nature of this age-old ecumenical dysfunction between Tenkalai and Vadakalai priesthood!
The judges thus gave verdicts according to what they felt was in keeping with principles of natural justice, equity and reasonability. But then little could they comprehend that sectarianism and ritualism neither recognise nor respect such concepts of modern jurisprudence. The disputes between Tenkalai and Vadakalai thus stubbornly continued tover hundreds of years and the cases kept coming back, again and again, to stalk courtrooms; and to this day even, they never cease to befuddle and bedevil the wise and magisterial minds of both the Bar and Bench.
Now, let us turn attention to the glaring dissonances that are apparent between the styles of the two narratives:
(to be continued)
Sudarshan Madabushi