The
priesthood in the temple at Palani was traditionally in the Pulippani heredity.
Pulippani was the disciple of the saint Pohar who established the temple. The
descendants of Pulippani maintained the temple from times immemorial. But
during the reign of Thirumalai Naicker
from Madurai (1623-1659 AD), ‘Ramappa Iyen’ , a Brahmin was the Chief of
his army. One day, when he happened to
visit the temple for worship, he came to know that the priests of the temple
were not Brahmins but Shudras. He was not prepared to accept the ‘Theertha
Prasad’ from the non-Brahmin priest. He therefore, made immediate arrangements
for the appointment of five Brahmins as priests. The shocked administrators of
the temple told him that the temple became famous because of the services
rendered by the Pulippani and his successors and ‘questioned’ him how
they can be set aside. Ramappa Iyen had immediately adopted the technique of
submission. He caught hold of both the hands of the Pulippani –Priest
and told that that the Brahmin priests
would give him ¼ of the income earned as
Swarnapushpa. The Pulippani-Priest had asked him what the fate of the other
Pandarams of the temple would be. Ramappa Iyen had, then, arranged for a share
of income from Thirumanjanam, Sandal, Garland, Vilva Archana ,safeguarding the
temple (Arai Kaaval), etc., Besides, some other traditional rights had been
conceded to them. The copper-plate document in this regard had been executed by the said Ramappa Iyen on the 16th of the month Thai in the Srimuha year which had
been recorded in the document as the year 1399 of Salivahana era and 4578 of
the Kaliyug era.
These facts are found to have been recorded in
the Madura Gazetteer also in Page No.306 in the Chapter XV
under the caption Palni.
The
names of the persons who were appointed as priests are also furnished therein. They are:
(1)Saraswathy
Iyen of Kodumudi, (2)Thambavaiyan of Marudur,(3)Suppaiyan of Nattarappankoil,
(4) Muthaiyan of Karur and (5) Ahilandayyan of Kadambarkoil.Of them, Saraswathy Iyen was appointed as priest and
the remaining four were appointed Nambimars to assist the priest.
What does it prove?
This is a clear and concrete proof of the fact
that the Brahmins had snatched away the customary rights of the Shudra priests
only because of the prejudice born out of the Chaturvarna.
This is a
clear proof of the fact that this day-light robbery had taken place only
because the General happened to be a Brahmin.
[Any other General would not have hesitated to accept the Theertha
Prasad from the Shudra priests and the traditional rights of the Shudras would
not have been taken away.
This is a
clear proof of the fact that the Brahmins did not have the customary rights to
officiate as priests in the Palani temple.
This is a
clear proof of the fact that they cannot show the Doctrine of Custom to justify
their continued encroachment of the rights of the Shudras.
The vital question.
Would
the Shudras be committing an anti-national act, as may be alleged by the
Indo-Aryans, if there is an organized movement to restore the traditional
rights of the Shudras snatched away from them?
Will the
worthies who shout from the roof –tops over the Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya take up this case instead which has solid,
reliable and justifiable evidences? But, this case does not benefit the
Bhu-Suras (the Gods on the Earth – Oh, what a pride!)
No comments:
Post a Comment