Rani Suryamani Patamahadei and the Management of Jagannatha Temple

SURYAMANI PATAMAHADEI AND JAGANNATHA TEMPLE

I

Suryamani Patamahadei was a remarkable figure of 19th

century Orissa for her control and management of the temple

of Jagannatha. She came to focus in the 1980s and 1990s at

a crucial phase of the history of Jagannatha temple. Her

activities in the temple town of Puri for over five decades

passed through a complex situation when the colonial masters

attempted to establish control over the temple affairs and

when there was priestly opposition and general indiscipline.

She could weather all the calamities and proved her

efficiency before the great opponents. Her life and

activities have been presented in a booklet which was

written by Biswanath Rajaguru in 1926 and in many articles

of Utkala Dipika. One can also find out her singificant role

in her petitions to the colonial masters in the 19th

century. On the basis of these references an humble attempt

has been made here to review her activities in the temple of

Jagannatha in the 19th century A.D.

II

Suryamani was born in 1818 in the Sonepur Raj family.

She was the daughter of Raja Daityari Singh.(Asha,November

6,1926) In her childhood she was very intelligent and was

called Odia Kalika.(Ibid.) She had known hunting and was expert

in using bows and arrows. Maharaja Ramachandra Deb of Puri

became glad when he saw when he saw the beautiful Suryamani

and wanted to marry her with his son Birakishore Deb.

According to the account of Biswanath Rajaguru while coming

to Puri from Sonepur the royal family emcamped at a place in

the night. In the middle of the night all woke up and saw

Suryamani with a sword and there was a pool of blood inside

the camp. A terrible crocodile from the river came near the

camp and then Suryamani was not asleep saw it. She

immediately killed the crocodile with her pistol and cut it

into pieces by her sword.(Ibid.) Her father was annoyed at

this inauspicious occasion created by the daughter,but

commended her heroism and intelligence. Thus from her

childhood she showed her fearlessness.

Soon after her marriage at the age of 12 Raja

Ramachandra Deb was blessed with a good time. The pilgrim

tax was abolished.The Paik revolt died down. The colonial

authorities entrusted the entire management of the temple to

the care of Ramachandra Deb. The Satais hazari Mahal-a high

revenue yielding zone under the Purushottama Kshetra also

came under his control. It was believed by the people and

the royal household that this auspicious moment was due to

Rajalakshmi Suryamani.(Ibid.) In 1854 Ramachandra Deb died and

his son Birakishore Deb came to the throne and became the

superintendent of the Jagannatha temple. This exalted the

position of Suryamani in Puri. Birakishore was very weak and

sick and so for many years she took great care of her

husband. But the Raja could not recover from his illness and

so she adopted a son of the Raja of Badakhemindi. In 1859

Birakishore died and this started a very crucial phase in

her life. At first she was very hopeless,but soon she

heroically faced the situation. The colonial authority

decided at first some measures for the management of the

temple after the death of the Raja. It proposed the name of

Padmanabha Rai,the son of Gopinath Rai(uterine brother of

the deceased Raja`s grandfather Mukunda Deb.(Jagannath Temple

Correspondence of the Board of Revenue,Acc No.226) It also proposed

the names of two ther persons-Gopinath Vidyadhar,the

Zamindar of Killah Rorung,the lineal descendant of the

Bakshi of the Raja of Khurda and Radhashyam Narendra,the

Zamindar of Kendrapara in case the first Padmalab was proved

ineffective.(Ibid.) The letter of the Officiating Collector

of Purito the Commissioner of Orissa at Cuttack of 13th

December 1859 did not accept the proposal of appointing the

Superintendent of Puri temple as suggested before. (Jagannath

Temple Correspondence,Acc-268) In the long run Suryamani was

successful and the minor Divyasimha,her adopted son became

the Superintendent of Puri temple under her guardianship. It

was a crucial phase of the administration pof the temple.

There was unrest among the Sevakas and indiscipline was

everywhere in the temple. (Asha,November 6,1926) In 1866 the

so-called Nanka or the Great Famine appeared. Everywhere

there was wanton death,agony and despair. In that critical

phase Suryamani had shown her extra-ordinary qualities and

could successfully control the situation. She could even

order the family members to fast and the cooked Mahaprasad

was distributed on her behalf in the Chhatras. (Ibid.) The

colonial masters noticed this sacrifice of the Rani and

respected her for her generosity.

Divyasimha Deb took over the administration of the

temple from the Rani in 1875. (Mukherji 1977:336) The Rani

became free from the temple affairs. But Divyasimha totally

neglected the administration of the temple. He did not pull

on well with the priests of the temple.(Ibid.) In February

1878 he was charged with the murder of a Sadhu named Siba

Das. Consequently he was transferred to Andaman as a

lifelong convict in 1878.(Ibid:342) The situation did not

perturb the Rani who came forward to protect the interest of

the royal family and also to manage the temple affairs. She

became the custodian of the Jagannatha temple and of the

family property on behalf of Divyasimha Deb`s minor son

Jagannath Jenamani. In July 1879 she gave an application to

the District Judge,Cuttack on behalf of Jagannath Jenamani

for a certificate under Act XI of 1858 as the father of the

minor was undergoing life sentence at the Andamans.(Ibid:361)

It was granted by the District Magistrate. The management of

the temple could not be effectively done by the Rani during

this period. In 1879 there was confusion on the occasion of

the Ratha Yatra. It was also repeated in 1880.(Utkala Dipika,17th

July,1880) The Yatra could not be properly conducted in

1880. The deities returned to the temple after 19/20 days of

Bahuda Yatra. (Ibid.,7th August,1880) Due to the absence of the

deities in the temple-Anna Mahaprasad could not be served to

the pilgrims. The Rani`s orders were not properly carried

out by her servants for Ratha construction. The colonial

masters became very unhappy at this sad state of affairs in

the temple and wanted its direct control.

III

Suryamani came to proper focus in Orissa during this

phase for her opposition to the British attempt to establish

control over the administration of the temple. The British

attempt for the management of the affairs of the Jagannath

temple began from the end of 1879 when the Secretary,Board

of Revenue asked the Commissioner of Orissa to send the

draft of a bill to provide for the future management of the

temple.(Mukherji 1977:362) The Commissioner presented the

draft of the bill which was called the Puri temple Act of

1880. (Ibid:363-365) According to the draft the

superintendence of the temple and its interior economy,the

conduct and management of its affairs and endowments and the

control over its priests and servants shall vest in a

Committee of management whereof of the Raja of Puri for the

time being shall be the hereditary president.(Jagannath Temple

Correspondence,Acc.427) in June 1880 Lord Lytton resigned and

Lord Ripon became the viceroy. The Government of India which

at first suggested legislation for better management of the

Jagannatha temple changed its mind. (Mukherji 1977:367) It

suggested the institution of a suit under section 539 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. (Ibid.) It raised a storm of protest

in Orissa and ultimately the Government climbed down. In his

letter dated 11th July 1881 No.962 the Secretary to the

Government of India suggested to the Government of Bengal

that suit might be instituted for the purpose of appointing

trustees to administer the endowment of Jagannatha.(Ibid:368)

The proposed management of the affairs of the temple by a

Committee of Trustees depriving the Raja of Puri from

exercising power as Superintendent wounded the sentiments of

the Hindus. Rani Suryamani at this stage became active and

wanted to safeguard the interest of the Puri Raj family. In

order to prevent the British attempt to establish control

over the temple of Jagannatha without the support of the

Raja of Puri she first consecrated Jagannath Jenamani as

Mukunda Deb in May 1882.(Utkala Dipika,13th may 1882) This step

of the Rani has been interpreted by Prabhat Mukherji in the

following manner;

We may express sympathy for the father Divyasimha

Deb,a convict

in Andamans. He grew wayward due to the neglect of

Rani Suryamani,

his adoptive mother. His relations with the dowager

Rani were strained.

Suryamani Patamahadei was afraid that Divyasimha Deb

might be

released one day and she would lose power as the

custodian of the

Jagannath temple.(Mukherji:382)

Even Utkala Dipika was critical of this step of the Rani

and stated that it was done at the instigation of the

selfish priests and servants of the temple.(Utkala

Dipika,13th May 1882) This analysis is absolutely wrong

because the Rani was more eager to protect the honour of

the Puri Raj family. She wanted to safeguard the basi

right of the Puri Raj family. (Mohanty 1970/1977:304/235-

36:Dash 1985:481) The Rani was not even prepared to

believe that Divyasimha would one day be released as she

had grave doubt about the intention of the colonial

authority. (Dash:485) Thereafter Suryamani proceeded with

her plans to restore the prestige of the Thakur Raj family

of Puri. In 1882 and 1883 she had presented petitions to

the authority stating clearly his aims. There were four

petiitons from the side of the general public of Puri.

These were;

1. Petition of Mahant Mohan Das,Math Emar and other

Mahantas,dandees,Sanyases and Brahmacharis on July 19th

1882.(Jagannath Temple Correspondence,Acc.No.453)

2. Petition of Govinda Bhitarchhu and other servants of

the temple.(jagannath Temple Correspondence,Acc.No.451)

3. Petition of Gopinath Mishra and other Pandits of

Purushottama Kshetra and of sixteen Shasanas(Brahmin

villages) in Puri.(jagannath Temple

Correspondence,Acc.No.454)

4. Petition of the servants of God Jagannatha of

Purushottama Kshetra on 5th August 1882.(Jagannath Temple

Correspondence,Acc.No.460)

All these petitions represented the same facts as

presented by the Rani. (Dash:482) In all these petitions

the intelligence and the foresight of the Rani could have

been detected. In one of her petitions the Rani presented

potent arguments in support of claims which can be stated

here.(Jagannath Temple Correspondence,Acc.No.452)

1. All the affairs of the temple of Jagannatha have been

proposed to be conducted by a Committee to be

appointed by the Government. It is incumbent on me to

lay the following objections to the above proposal.

A. The temple of Jagannath and his enthronement in

it and the services connected thereof,are not

of a very recent date. As detailed account of the

holy temple cannot conveniently be mentioned I

beg to describe it briefly as follows-According

to the old Manalapan Maharaja Indradyumna

constructed the temple in Satya Yuga and having

placed God Jagannatha in it,conducted the Sebas

and Pujas(services and ceremonies). Many

Maharajas performed the duties in Treta and

Dvapara Yugas until 1119 Sakabda in Kali Yuga

when the temple became dilapidated. The then

Maharaja Anangabhima Deb reconstructed it and the

Raj family conducted its management successively

till 1374 Saka when Maharaja Kapilendra Deb of

the Solar dynasty took up its management and his

family continued to manage the temple affairs

upto 1456 Saka when Maharaja Govinda Vidyadhar of

the Kshatriya race and other Maharajas performed

the duties in succession upto 1483 Saka.

Thereafter the country fell into a anarchy for 19

years from 1484 to 1502 Saka owing to Mughal

invasion and oppression of Kalapahar. The temple

affairs during these 19 years had been conducted

by the Parichhas appointed by the former

Maharajas. Our ancestors Maharaja Ramachandra

Deb,Narasimha Deb and other Maharajas conducted

its management in succession from 1503 to 1703

Saka when they ruled the country independently.

At this time in the middle of 1703 Saka the

Marathas(Marahttas) ruled the country and from

that time Maharaja Bira Kishore Deb,Divyasimha

Deb and Mukunda Deb managed the affairs upto 1736

Saka upto the 18th anka. At this period the

present government took up the administration of

the province and from that time from 1736 Saka

Maharajas Mukunda Deb,Ramachandra Deb and his son

Birakishore Deb conducted the temple affairs and

subsequently her son Maharaja Divyasimha Deb for

some time;who,to his utter misfortune,was

transported for life. She had taken up its

management on behalf of her grandson the minor

Maharaja. Under the circumstance the god

Jagannatha being their family god and the Pujas

and Sebas being reserved to their family

alone,why should its management be made over to a

committee. On the grounds alleged above the

British Government was pleased to vest in our

family the superintendship of the holy temple.

B. She was conducting the Sebas and Pujas of the

family god Jagannatha just in the same way as

they were perormed hitherto by the former

dynasties(out of their own property) which ruled

independently in Orissa;specially none of the

Hindus of Bharatvarsha has raised any objection

towards their management. None could understand

why under the circumstances the temple management

was to be taken away from her family. It was for

the Government to decide whether it was not a

matter to be regretted when the British

Government was going to adopt a measure which not

only interferes with the Hindu religion but

lowers her family dignity and as well as put an

obstacle in the way of conducting the Sebas and

Pujas of the family god Jagannatha.

C. It would be clear on a reference to the Hindu

community at large,how painful and obstructive to

the cause of Hindu religion would be the

interference of the British Government with the

management of the time honoured Sebas and Pujas

of Jagannatha. Specially the opinion of all the

Pundits and Bairagees of Bharatvarsha should be

taken before any action of interference was taken

on the matter. If the Government did not consult

and decide in that way it was apparent that all

would be in a position to object to its

proceedings.

D. After the hereditary Raj(Khurda) having come into

the hands of Government, the Government was

pleased to set apart mahals called

Sataishazaree(assigned by their ancestors for their

own family property for performance of the temple

affairs) and Rs.2332 in cash to meet the Sebas

and Pujas of god Jagannatha. Afterwards in lieu

of that Government made over Tapang and other

mahals in Killah Khurdah which have been now

confirmed as lakhraj. But at the time when

Government ascertained the quantity of

Bhogasoffered to Jagannaththe prices of things

were very low. They have now(at the time of the

petition) been more than doubled and the

Government does not pay anything more on that

account and the quantity of Bhogas offered,has

not been,and can not be reduced,for the Khei

Mahaprasad(wages of temple

servants,pandas,pujaris and others in the shape

of that holy food as was settled heretofore)

cannot be reduced and it is improper that the

quantity of holy food should be lessened. Hence

an extra sum is spent every year from the pocket

of the Raj family in order to meet the Sebas and

Pujas of God Jagannath.

E. In consideration of her family dignity and

work,the Government was pleased to vest in their

families the superintendentship of the holy

shrine by Section 2 Act-X of 1840. But the said

section having now(at the time of the petition)

been repealed,Government has,in a way,given

severe orders against the royal family. It has

been the established rule of the Government that

whenever any step is taken against any person on

any matter,he is called on to submit in his

defence and after his so doing,necessary orders

are passed. But the fact of Government acting in

contravention of that rule,i.e.,without taking

any defence whatever from the raj family can be

attributed to nothing,but to their ill-luck.

Under such circumstances it is not clear why the

above section was repealed by Section-539 Act-XIV

of 1882. Although her son was unfortunately

transported for life,he is living and his own son

remains. On his being trasported it is no fault

of his heir to be deprived of the ancestral

property in as much as a son should not be

punished for the offences commited by his father

or the latter for that of the former. Whoever

commits an offence,he alone is punishable.

Specially since the transportation of her son,she

is managing the temple affairs on behalf of his

minor son and also conducted the management for

more than 12 years during the minority of her

son. She is sorry she cannot understand for what

fault the management of the holy shrine be taken

away from her family and entrusted to a

committee.

The Government was not influenced by this petition

and went on with the scheme for the management of the

temple. On 14th December 1882 the District

Judge,Cuttack,granted the application of the Rani to

administer the estate of her grandson who was named

Mukunda Deb.(Mukherji 1977:374-375)

F.C.Grant,Collector of Puri in a letter to the

Commissioner stated-"I do not understand how Jagannath

Jenamani with propriety be styled Raja Mukunda Deb

during the life time of his father."(Ibid:375) The

Commissioner referred the matter to the Govermment. He

informed the Government of Bengal that the title of

Raja used by the son during the life time of the

exiled father would not be justified acording to

official usage.(iIbid.) he told the Collector to allow

the substitution of the name of Jagannath Jenamani in

place of Raja Mukunda Deb.(Ibid.) Rani Suryamani had

thought that in the petitions of 1882 the change of

the name from Jagannath Jenamani to Raja Mukunda Deb

had been properly explained to the authority.(Dash

1985:482) Despite that she presented two petitions to

the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in April 1883.

(Mohanty 1970/1977:317-18/245) The Lieutenant Governor

of Bengal was not convinced by the explanations of the

petitions. The main point was the justification of the

title of Raja Mukunda Deb for the minor Jagannath

Jenamani when the convict Divyasimha,his father was

alive.(Dash 1985:483) They wanted from the

Commissioner on the clarification of this point and

insisted that the Rani`s application should be

presented in this light.(Ibid.) The Collector of Puri

also wanted to know the justification of the title of

Raja Mukunda Deb for Jagannath Jenamani from the side

of Rani. (Mohanty 1970/77:308/238) Suryamani explaned

this context in her two petitions issued on 12th July

and 30th July of 1883.(Jagannath Temple Corespondence,Acc.

No.476) In the first petition she stated;

I. The ancient Madalapanji,the histories of Orisa

by Sutton,Hunter,P.M.Acharya and Siba Chancre

Some,the copy books of the old documents in the

Registration Office and the Settlement papers

fully bear testimony to the fact that the title

of Raja was hereditary in their family.

II. There has been a practice from time immemorial

that in every fourth generation the name of the

Raja should recur. This will be borne out by

the geneology of the family,the old Madalapanji

and the almanac of the country. Accordingly her

grandson being fourth in generation has assumed

the name of Mukunda Deb.

III. According to the dictates of the Shastras some

of the rites and sebas of Sri Jagannath Deb

should be performed by the Raja himself or in

his absence by his representative called

Mudiratha nominated by the Raja. if the gadi be

vacant it will be difficult to appoint the next

Mudiratha. Consequently the religious usage of

the nation will have to be interfered with. She

was therefore compelled to raise her grandson t

the gaddi under the name and title of Raja

Mukunda Deb according to the custom of her

family. The Shastras,Narada`s Pancharatra,Suta

Samhita,Bamadeva Samhita quoted in Niladri

Mahodaya are authorities on the sbject. These

facts may also be proved from the testimony of

respectable Mahantas,Sebaks and Rajas. In

raising her grandson to the gaddi she has not

disobeyed the order of Government. This has

been done simply to maintain her family usage

and to observe the dictates of the Shastras.

This petition also did not explain properly the

question of the title of Raja Mukunda Deb when his

father was alive. hence she presented another petition

on 30th July 1883 explaining the question more

logically.(Dash 1985:483-84) She stated;

Should the convicted Raja Divyasimha Deb be

released and allowed to return to his home,he

would be,according to the custom of the

country,disqualified to perform the ceremonies of

Jagannatha for having associated with and taken

the food cooked by Mlechhas,i.e.,persons other

than Hindus and it was on this and some other

considerations already stated in my memorial to

Government that I was compelled to install my

minor grandson under the patrionymical cognomen

Raja Mukunda Deb. As a precedent I take the

liberty to bring to your notice that one of my

ancestors Raja Ramachandra Deb who ascended the

throne in 1649 Sakabda(1727 A.D.) having been

compelled to associate with a daughter of the

then Mohammedan Nabab,was not allowed to perform

the services of Jagannatha or to enter the temple

and as he expresed his desire to worship the idol

the "Patitapaban Deb"(a representative of

Jagannath) was set up at Singhadwar in order that

he might be able to see and worship it from the

outside. The Raja having thus disqualified to

perform the religious and the social ceremonies

of the family,the officals of his palace brought

down his daughter`s son from Athgarh and

installed him on the gaddi as Raja Bira Kishore

Deb.

Respectable and educated pandits of Puri like Sankar

Damodar Tirthasvami,Pandit Sadasiva Mishra,Pandit Raghunath

Mishra,Nilakantha Mishra,Damodar Rathasharma,Bhikari Mishra

Sharma,Tribedi Dindayal Brahmachari and Pandit Balabhadra

Praharaja also supported the explanation of the Rani in

their note in Sanskrit. The Rani used a part of the

Madalapanji for the description of the case of Ramachandra

Deb. The arguments in the second petition were more cogent

and it is believed by G.N.Dash that this petition was

written under the direction of Madhusudan Das.(Dash:483-84)

The statement of Madalapanji about patitapaban relief in

the Simhadwar during the time of Ramachandra Deb II was

definitely invented by the party of the Rani because

Patitapaban was worshipped at the Simhadwar much before

the period of Ramachandra Deb II which has been stated by

Dibakara Das in his Jagannatha Charitamruta composed in the

middle of the 17th century A.D.(Dash:478) This could have

been possible because the colonial masters had no occasion

to see and read the so-called Madalapanji,although they had

every eagerness to know about it. The portion of

Madalapanji as presented in the petition of the Rani not

only convinced the colonial authority,but also provided a

ground of legitimation for the title Raja Mukunda Deb for

Jagannatha Jenamani during the life-time of his father

Divyasimha Deb. Although Utkala Dipika did not approve the

step of the colonial authority for the management of the

temple of Jagannatha in a secret manner it did not accept

the assumption of the title Raja Mukunda Deb.(Utkala

Dipika,October 7,May 13, 1882,November 24,1883) Similarly

Utkala Dipika was silent about the role of Madhusudan Das in

this matter particularly in the presentation of the new

petition by the Rani on 30th July 1883. In March 1884,Lord

Ripon,the Voceroy,conferred the title of Raja as personal

distinction on jagannath Jenamani.(Mukherji:382) Rani

Suryamani was willing to present to the Government a Nuzzur

of Rs.1500 in gold mohurs.

IV

The problem of the Rani did not end with the grant of

the title Raja Mukunda deb by the colonial authority. It

took a new form for the administration of the temple. It

was the famous Jagannath temple case of 1886-87. A suit was

instituted in the Court of District Judge,Cutack. The

Government of India had originally proposed and later

authorized the institution of such suit. (Dash 1978:366) It

had also received the approval of the Government of Bengal.

The purpose behind such a suit was to take away the

hereditary rights of superintendence and the management of

the Jagannatha temple from the Raj family and to vest them

in a committee.(Dash 1978:367) The appointment of a

Receiver till the committee was formed was prayed for and

granted. Considering it as a great danger for the royal

family the Rani on the advice of Madhusudan Das filed a

writ petition in the Calcutta High Court against the

appointment of a Receiver.(Ibid.) Raghunandan Ramanuja

Das,the mahant of Emar Math was appointed Honourary

Receiver by the Civil Court. Nandia Chand Datta was

appointed Assistant Receiver on a salary of Rs.150.

(Mukherji:393) There was great protest from the side of the

pres in Orissa on the question of the management of

Jagannatha temple with the help of a Committee. The Utkala

Sabha also protested against this attempt of the colonial

masters. In this respect one Golakhdhanda on 8th December

1886 wrote an interesting leter to the editor showing both

the sides of the matter which has been quoted here for

understanding the sentiment of the time. It states;

"It is a matter of great regret that the Orissa

Association was to protest against the intended policy

of the Government as regards the affairs of the

Jagannatha temple. No doubt can be entertained that

its intention is good. It cannot be otherwise. To

secure the greatest possible happiness to its people

is the avowed object of the ruling powers. It does

not however necesaily follow that they are not likely

to be misinformed and misled. Charity has not

altogether banished fault finding spirits from the

world. Rumour is a dame that always sees objects

through a magnifying glass of great power. Hands are

even ready to distort everything that comes to

them,either from their sinister motives or from their

evil nature. What is to be most deplored is, not that

the millenium is not come when angels only are to be

met with everywhere,but that these evil genii should

exercise so great influence over British Government as

to make it forget its own nature and principles. This

is,however,no matter of wonder. Government consists of

human beings and Satan was sucessful in his trick upon

Adam and Eve. This must not be taken to mean that

there is all perfection in Puri temple. It is under

the management of a human being. Human nature is human

nature every where. It is well known that the throne

would have been a bed of ease. There would have been

no legislature,no police and courts of justice. had it

been perfect,there would have been no necessity for

dissolving Parliaments,no amending for amending

laws,no provision that Judges in England should

continue during their good behaviour,no remark from

R.Emerson that there is in Oxford"gross

favouritism ,made chairs and many fellowships are made

beds of ease". It is from one to another human agency

that Government is likely to transfer the management

of the temple afairs.

The fallibility of human nature furnishes inded

no ground to let off deliquents with impunity. For the

sake of public interest justice should be done to

them. But this justice is prescribed by the British

coronation oath to be tempered with mercy. Charity

again comes in and puts forward her claim to make

allowances for special circumstances. These noble

principles are a sealed book to those who tried to

mislead our benign government. Their jaundiced eye

does not see that the mangement of the temple affairs has been

for many years in the hands of a woman who is not a Mrs. Bilasini

Karformar who has never seen male faces except those of her

father,husband and son,who was never been beyond the four walls of

the Zannana,who does not hold any University diploma and who is not

versed in the Science of Government. They forget that the

temple is a large establishment with various

ceremonies to be performed by numerous hands;that it

is visited during the Yatras by thousands and

thousandiffere as much in habit ,custom,manners and

temper. The faults if any,in the management are not

such as to call for the intended remedy. In support of

my asertion I beg to refer to the resolutions passed

in the recent meting of the Orisa Association where

the flowers of Orissa met for the express purpose of

discussing the question.

No one can deny that it will be gross injustice

to apply no remedy to the defects,if there be any,in

the management. It will,on the other hand,be equally

so to deprive the Puri Raj family of a privilege which

it has been enjoying long since and which was

protected from the religious fury of the Mohammedans

who preached with Koran in one hand and sword in

another,and from the fingers of the Marathas whose

cupidity knew no bound. The British have taken their

stand upon mismanagement forgetting that this is an

evil to be met with wherever there is human agency.

Hundreds and thousands of human beings are either

crushed to dust by railway accidents or

unceremoniously buried in the depths of the Sea. Such

calamities are in most cases being ascribed to the

screw being somehwhere loose. But in no case

Governments are invoked to apply such remedy as in

present instance. For the sake of public interest,laws

are made,rules are laid down and the proprietors are

directed to take proper care and precaution. They have

as much to deal with the public as the Puri Raja. No

more legal right can be claimed in their favour than

in front of the latter. Legal right is a creature of

the sovereign will. It can as easily transfer the

management of railways and steamers as that of the

Puri temple. There is an appeal,not to law,but to

morality against the sovereign who always tries to

make his dictates as far as possible harmonious with

that of morality. There seems to be as much moral

right to appeal to morality on behalf of the Puri Raja

as that of any other body. While others have seen to

be furnished with rules for guidance and to go off

with punishments other than forfeiture of property,it

appears to be cruel and morally unjust to deprive the

Puri Raj family of a long enjoyed privilege on the

ground of mismanagement if there be any,in the hands

of an old Oriya Hindu woman.

There is no better way than to appeal to the

noble feelings of the sovereign. It cannot place the

temple affairs in the hands of angels. The greater

probability is that incompetent hands of far inferior

nature will be appointed to the trust. No one can

assure that there wil be no necessity for

rules,enquiries,dismissals and punishments. The

chances are that there will be much ado about

nothing,and a number of Darogahs,inspectors and others

with titles from the fairy land will sponge and batten

upon Jagannatha who will be inch by inch made to learn

how to keep fasts.

It is imagined that the temple affairs will be

placed in the hands of a committee. I am not inclined

to criticise the conduct of the existing one. I beg to

appeal only to a principle of the British

constitution,the principle which displays the

unquestionable wisdom and sagacity of the English

nation. Stephen says on his commentaries on Blackstone

that the executive power in England has been wisely

placed in one hand for the sake of unanimity,strength

and despatch. Although so high a character can by no

means be calmed for the functions of Puri Raja,they

are undoubtedly of an analogous nature. There is no

doubt that he has not to make laws,or manage a

municipality. Had it been so he could be properly

replaced by a body of persons. On the contrary he has

the charge of an establishment which is a mere

household on a largescale,the duties being only to see

that peace and order are preserved among the temple

servants and that the nitis are regularly performed.

There are great misgivings whether household business

can be properly carried on by a number of persons

working at a time. The English proverb says that too

many cooks spoil the broth. The Committee cannot but

resign the whole trust to one hand reserving itself

the superintendence only. The same supervision can be

well exercised by Government without recourse to the

intended course. The sovereign is vested with the

guardianship over its subjects. Does not this relatio

exist between our Government and Puri Raja? is he not

a minor? Has he forfeited his claim to parental

protection? have counsels been thrown away upon him?

Is it justified for a parent to go to the Courts,to

Justice in order to take away its own gifts from his

own child? It is merely to hold a candle to Sun to

speak of legal duties to British Government well known

for wisdom,virtues and tenderness for its subjects.

Jagannatha and Puri Raja are popularly believed by the

Hindus to be inseparably connected. Let it not be

ascertained how far that their separation will afect

the worship of Jagannatha. For this purpose let no

page of the Shastras be left unturned and let no

feelings be left unconsulted either in the Court or in

the Cottage. The proclamation of the Empress and the

non-interferring policy of the British constitution in

matters spiritual encourage the hope that our

religious feelings will be tenderly attended to and

that our eternal happiness in the world to come will

not be sacrificed for mere temporary

convenience."(Utkala Dipika,18th December,1886)

This report of Golakhdhanda definitely indicated that

the Puri temple case was a burning issue in the last phase

of the 19th century Orissa. Utkala Dipika,the leading voice of

19th century Orisa in several articles pointed out the

unjust policy of the Government about the management of the

temple. It presented the suferings of the Rani in the

conduct of the Sebas and Pujas in the temple. Jagannatha

Sanatana Dharmarakshini Sabha of Puri had several meetings

which supported the stand of the Rani.(Utkala Dipika,5th

February,1887) The writ petition of the Rani was heard in

the Calcutta High court in the first week of march 1887.

The Court gave judgment towards the end of March.

(Mukherji: 396-398) By that order the appointment of a

Receiver was set aside. The Statesman of April 5 1887 in

this context stated-"There is the strongest reason to

believe that the Maharane of Khurda who is the guardian of

the minor prince-is not open to any blame for her

management of the shrine,for administration has been marked

throughout by great unselfishness,self sacrifice and

devotion". (Mukherji:399) Sir Stewart Bayley became the

Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in April 1887. He wanted a

compromise in the Jagannatha temple case. He sent for

Madhusudan Das,the agent of the Rani and Metcalfe,the

Commissioner of Orissa.(Ibid.) It was decided that the case

should be amicably settled. By the compromise Rani was to

have the loan of the services of a Government officer to

manage the affais of the temple till the Raja was of age.

The superintendence of the temple of Jagannatha was

continued with Raja Mukunda Deb. he being a minor,Rani

Suryamani,his legal guardian,got the power of

superintendence of the temple during the minority of Raja

Mukunda Deb. Rani selected as her nomineefor the post of

manager,Harekrishna Das,Sheristadar of the Judge`s Court

at Cuttack.

The compromise was a victory for the Rani. She

retained her hold,on behalf of the minor Raja,on the

administration of the jagannatha temple. The move for the

appointment of a managing committee was abandoned by the

Government. A manager of her choice was appointed. The

manager was liable to dismissal if he would go against her

wishes. During the long minority of Mukunda Deb there was

not much complaint regarding the temple administration. The

relation of the temple superintendent with the sebaks which

deteriorated during the time of Divyasimha Deb began to

improve under the Rani. In 1897 Mukunda Deb came of age and

Rani Suryamani lost her control. She lived long till 1926.

Rani Suryamani was undoubtedly a woman of keen

intelligence and strong personality. Though a purdah lady

she revived the prestige of the Puri Raj family in the 19th

century. She practicaly forced the Government of India to

confer the title of Raja on Mukunda Deb during the life

time of his father. She united all sections of people to

rally round the cause of the Raja of Puri. (Mukherji:413)

She effectively roused the feling that religion was in

danger due to the Government interference in the affairs of

the temple. She was an extra-ordinary figure of 19th

century Orissa.

REFERENCES

1. Asha,Oriya Weekly from Brahmapur,1926.2. Dash,Gaganendranath(1978). "Jagannath and Oriya

Nationalism",in The Cult of Jagannath and the RegionalTradition of Orissa,ed. Eschmann,Kulke and Tripathy,NewDelhi,pp.359-374.

3. Dash,Gaganendranath(1985)"PatitapabanJagannatha"(Oriya),Jhankara,Oriya MonthlyMagazine,September,Cuttack, p.475-487

4. Jagannath Temple Corespondence(as preserved in the Boardof Revenue Section of Orissa StateArchives,Bhubaneswar),Acc.No.266,268,427,451,453,454,452,476.

5. Mohanty Surendra(1970/1977). Satabdira Surya,Cuttack.6. Mukherji Prabhat(1977). History of Jagannath Temple in the

19th Century,Calcuta.7. Utkala Dipika,Oriya

Weekly,Cuttack,1880,1882,1883,1886,1887.