The Padmanabhaswamy temple, Thiruvananthapuram, has again brought to focus an interesting aspect of judicial history in this country, with the discovery of the treasures stacked in safety vaults. On the Supreme Court's orders, three underground vaults were opened and the treasures noticed but there is some dispute over the fourth room, with the temple authorities refusing to open it and allow documentation, relying upon “devaprasna,” an interesting tradition in Kerala.
In this context, the ancient history of the judiciary, as enjoined in the Dharma Sastras (law books), is of immense value. Until the colonial rulers transplanted the Indian systems of judicial administration with their own, adopted to modern times with necessary laws from the old, it was the Dharma Sastras that were followed based on sound principles of law. They gave enough freedom for local and time-based laws to operate. This shows that laws were modified, as society grew in time and space ( desa and kala ).
The Dharma Sastras admit four types of evidence admissible in courts for deciding disputes: written documentary evidence ( lekhya pramanas ), property under enjoyment for a considerable time ( bhukti ), eyewitness account ( saakshi ) and divine evidence ( daivikam ).
All Dharma Sastras agree that the foremost importance must be given to the written documentary evidence and all other evidence must be considered only when the written evidence fails. India has literally several thousand such written records for over 2,000 years, from the 2nd century BC to the present times which are mainly inscriptions on stone, metal, and palm leaves and meant to be produced in times of disputes. We have examples of many inscriptions where the judges have insisted on production of written document and passed judgments. We have an excellent example from a Pandyan court, where in an 8th century judgment a written document was asked for. The thousands of inscriptions all over India are legal documents of proprietorship and other accepted modes of transactions.
I need not dwell on saakshi and bhukti (in one's enjoyment) as they depend on the strength of evidence. As for divine evidence, it originated from the tribal state of society in which people believed in divine revelation called deivikam , like asking a suspect to hold a red hot iron rod or dip his hand in boiling oil. There were separate functionaries to procure the required material with which such unnatural tests were to be conducted.
No doubt, this is a cruel method in modern times. But this was admitted as the last resort and cannot be resorted to when any one of the other methods was available. And this can be done by the judiciary and not by any other agency like astrologers. That deivikam was rejected in South India, even before 12th century is proved by an important judgment mentioned in Chola literature.
In the life of the Saiva saint Sundarar, Lord Siva as an old man is said to have claimed that Sundarar was his slave who had no right to take any decision without the overlord's permission. The Village Court challenged the old man to produce any of the three types of evidence: a written document, eyewitness or personal enjoyment, mentioned in the text as aavanam (written document) aatch i (personal enjoyment) or saakshi ( eyewitness). This clearly shows that divine revelation was not given any credence. This is given in Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam in detail in a delightful chapter.
The relevance of this to the Padmanabhaswamy temple case is striking. The “devaprasna” which the temple authorities relied on does not fall under any of the types of evidence approved by the Dharma Sastras, and more so when it was carried out by astrologers who have no place in ancient judicial procedure. Kerala has placed too much reliance on astrology in recent times and that is perhaps the reason why this situation has arisen. Secondly, it is seen from the history of Padmanabhaswamy temple that there has always been a tradition of preparing written registers, giving details of the holdings and also receipt of gifts, etc., clearly showing that there has been absolute reliance on written documentation till very recent times. A thorough inventory was invariably made in all temples all over the South, including the Padmanabhaswamy temple.
So it is not correct to say that our tradition does not allow documentation. And, finally, whether it is the ancient system or the present central law, it insists on documentation (digitised documentation ensures more accuracy) mainly to prevent theft, and in the event of loss, to reclaim the property from whichever part of the world. The Supreme Court judges have admirably and gently reminded the authorities concerned to reject astrology which has no place here, and to meticulously document and preserve the temple treasures for posterity.
The expert committee, appointed by the court, could include scholars, historians and numismatists to advise the panel as it seems not fully equipped to handle and advise the authorities on this unique situation.
(The writer is a former Director of Archaeology, Tamil Nadu. His email is urnagaswamy@gmail.com)
