Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Taboos and superstitions
When the man held responsible for opening long-bolted vaults at the Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple died recently, many whispered it was divine retribution. But places of worship across the country have strange superstitions Shobha John | TNN
The Times of India, July 24, 2011
India is a land of contradictions. While cutting-edge technology drives us forward, religious superstitions which befuddle the mind take us in the opposite direction. Even the sudden death of advocate T P Sundararajan, whose legal intervention led to stock-taking in Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple, was said to be “divine retribution”. Was it? Who can tell?
Superstitions abound all over India. Who are we to tempt the gods, ask believers. Take Renuka Temple in Kullu where goddess Renuka Devi is worshipped. Villagers are so fearful of inviting the wrath of her husband, Rishi Jamdagni, that they dare not look at her idol. Even the priest enters only after covering his face with a white cloth during Navratra and Fagli when the temple door is opened. Women throw their offerings from afar.
Shobha Ram, the priest, explains: “Everybody is aware of Jamdagni’s rage. He once got so angry with his wife that he ordered his son Parshuram to kill her.” Bir Singh Rana, a devotee, says he has never peeped into the temple. “Jamdagni’s curse can remain for more than 12 years. A woman lost her eyesight when she looked at the idol.” Believe it or not.
Fearing the rage of the diety
The Times of India, July 24, 2011
Ananthakrishnan G
There is fear that if the beliefs of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple aren’t honoured, the deity will be annoyed. From untimely deaths to warnings of natural disasters, the air is rife with rumours about the “retribution the evil-eyed have “brought upon themselves” in the past. The sudden death of T P Sundararajan, the man who got the temple vaults open, has only fuelled them. “This is just the beginning. Wait and watch, says one of his neighbours ominously.
“That's not right,” insist a temple priest, who is annoyed with the present administration of the shrine. “He was an ardent devotee and died a peaceful death.” But, locals still remember the difficulties faced by three persons who had entered the cellars of the temple in the past. “They didn’t survive for long, says a local man. But the families of two of them dismiss the rumours. “I don’t see any connection,” says Jalaja, the widow of former temple executive officer Col K Gopinathan Nair. He was entrusted with the job of gold plating parts of the main altar during the time of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the previous king. Some gold was taken out of the cellar for the job. “It used to be weighed in the presence of the king and other officials,” she reminisces. Both deaths occurred over a span of 18 months, says the other family.
As for stories of sound of ocean waves in the temple, historian M G Sasibhushan says it’s believed that there were underground escape tunnels from the temple to the sea and from the palace.
Treasures
Vault B
Jeemon Jacob , The vault B conundrum “India Today” 24/7/2017
The Padmanabhaswamy temple in Thiruvananthapuram, arguably the world's richest Hindu shrine, is back in the headlines, following the Supreme Court's queries on the possibility of opening the last of the temple's vaults, believed to contain priceless treasures. Chief Justice J.S. Khehar's observations about Vault B on July 4 provoked a shrill debate on whether tinkering with 'God's wealth' was within the judiciary's ambit. Aditya Varma, who represents the erstwhile Travancore royal family, one of the SC-appointed temple custodians now, objected vehemently, insisting that faith and tradition decreed that Vault B remain untouched. "We will act according to the advice of the chief priest," Varma said on July 8.
The treasures, devotees believe, are contained in 12 iron vases placed inside the twin chambered vault that extends beneath the sanctum sanctorum. Like the ex-royals, the temple's chief priest, Pushpanjali Swamiyar, too, is against opening the vault. He believes doing so would invite the god's wrath.
But in 2014, former comptroller and auditor general Vinod Rai, appointed special auditor to scrutinise the temple's assets, had reported that Vault B had, in fact, been opened seven times-"twice in 1991 and five times in 2002". Rai also said that there were no credible accounting practices in place at the temple. This, and a related report by senior lawyer Gopal Subramaniam, were acutely embarrassing for the Travancore royals (the family affidavit to the courts had said that they had never opened Vault B).
The debate is already taking on political colours. Kerala BJP chief Kummanam Rajasekharan says the devotees must be consulted before the vault is opened "so that religious sentiments are not hurt". The Pinarayi Vijayan-led Left Democratic Front government, however, insists that an inventory is the only way of securing the temple's wealth.
An inventory of Vault A's contents in 2011 yielded treasures worth Rs 1.25 lakh crore, the reason why Kerala is agog with the issue. What wonders lie in Padmanabhaswamy temple's last vault?
Judicial judgments
2020: SC awards Travancore royals managerial right
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court restored the right of “Managership or the Shebaitship” of Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple at Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala to the royal family of Travancore but the administration of the temple will be managed by a committee headed by a district judge.
A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra ruled in favour of the royal family over right to manage and administer the affairs of one of the richest temples of the world. The family had challenged the order of the Kerala High Court which had held that the royal family could not claim to be in control or management of the temple as successor to the last ruler. The family, however, would not have absolute say in the administration as it agreed before the court to delegate its power to the administrative committee.
The family, however, cannot claim the property of the temple as it made an “unequivocal stand” before the apex court that “the temple is a public temple and no claim can probably be made by the petitioner or anyone to owning the temple or its treasures”. It told the court that it was only seeking the right as a trustee of the temple to manage and administer.
Accepting the suggestion of the family for setting up of an administrative committee, the court said its composition would not be loaded either in favour or against the trustee. The committee will be headed by the district judge of Thiruvananthapuram and also consist of chief ‘Thantri’ of the temple and three others nominated by the trustee, the Kerala government and the culture ministry.
The Bench, however, refrained from directing unlocking of ‘Kallara (vault) B’ which is said to be containing a large amount of treasures in terms of gold and other precious items. It left it for the administrative committee to take a call on the issue. The court had earlier directed preparation of an inventory of ornaments and precious stones in Kallara A to F but later clarified that Kallara B would not be opened without express order of the apex court. The bench also directed appointment of an advisory committee, comprising a retired HC judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the Kerala HC as the chairperson, one eminent person to be nominated by the trustee; and a reputed chartered accountant to be nominated by the chairperson in consultation with the trustee. The committee will advise the trustee and ensure regular annual audit of the finances of the temple. The court said all members of both the committees will be Hindus.
Granting managerial rights to the royal family, the bench said, “Shebaitship is like any other heritable property which would devolve in accordance with custom or usage, and that the rule of custom must prevail in all cases, even after the death of the erstwhile Ruler of Travancore in 1991, the Shebaitship of the Temple being unconnected with the official status of the person who signed the Covenant, must devolve by the applicable laws of succession and custom”.
It said the “Constitution of India as well as the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act did not, in any way, upset or abridge the status enjoyed by the Ruler of Travancore as Shebait of the temple and also did not, in any manner, adversely impact the right of administration vested in the Ruler of Travancore”.
The court directed the royal family to file an appropriate affidavit of undertaking within four weeks agreeing to the verdict and said it will be binding on the family members and its successors. It said both the committees will have to be constituted and become functional within four weeks after the affidavit is filed.
Granting managerial rights to the royal family, the bench said, “Shebaitship is like any other heritable property which would devolve in accordance with custom or usage, and that the rule of custom must prevail in all cases, even after the death of the erstwhile Ruler of Travancore in 1991, the Shebaitship of the Temple being unconnected with the official status of the person who signed the Covenant, must devolve by the applicable laws of succession and custom”.
It said that the Constitution of India as well as that of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act did not, in any way, upset or abridge the status enjoyed by the Ruler of Travancore as Shebait of the Temple and also did not, in any manner, adversely impact the right of administration vested in the Ruler of Travancore. The court directed the royal family to file an appropriate affidavit of undertaking within four weeks agreeing to the verdict and said that the undertaking will be binding on the family members and its successors. It said that both the Committees shall be constituted and become functional within four weeks after the affidavit is filed.
