Withdrawal Policy of the State

In the early decades of the Nineteenth Century, the temple-state relationship came under increasingly vocal attack by groups in England on the grounds that it amounted to support by a Christian Government of non-Christian and sometimes offensive religious practices.^[1]

In 1833, the Madras Government came to know that the home government had decided that there must be some change in policy. Soon, a period of controversy and negotiation began with varying degrees of intensity and it continued over the rest of the century.

Public attention in England tended to focus on the government’s “support” and “patronage” of the Hindu religion as evidenced by the presence of government officers at Hindu festivals and by donations and allowances to temples. However, large sums, intimately affecting the state’s own finances, were involved. In Madras Presidency, temple lands included some of the best agricultural land. The state had a major interest. Over the continued upkeep and productivity of such land. There were also political implications. Trustee appointments and money allowances enabled local officers to monitor local politics and influence local notables. The Madras Government realized that the complete termination of its connection with Hindu temples could not be possible but would affect the existing structure of its control in the Madras Presidency.