Two temples in the Karur and Villupuram districts of Tamil Nadu were sealed in a span of two days, on June 7 and 8, after caste Hindus prevented Dalits from entering the places of worship. The chain of events that preceded these incidents may seem all too familiar. We have seen them unfold over and over again, during the several instances of Dalits entering temples with the help of the state government in the past few months. Ahead of each of these events, district collectors, police chiefs, and revenue divisional officers conducted ‘peace meetings’, bringing representatives from Dalit and dominant castes together to ‘talk things out’. The caste Hindus often ‘relented’ after a series of such meetings, only to show up at the temple on the day of the event and stage protests, sometimes violently. The pattern shows that the officials then either seal the temple or help Dalits enter with police protection, after which they abandon them to face the backlash on their own.
TNM spoke to people who have attempted temple entries about the aftermaths of these much-publicised events, which some claim have served as little more than photo-ops for the state’s government officials. Meanwhile, Dalit rights activists allege that these ‘peace meetings’ are a decoy for the government to avoid a clampdown on the dominant and intermediary castes barring Dalits from entering temples, in a bid to either gain or retain their electoral favour. To understand the situation, let’s break down what has been happening, case by case.
On June 7, a Dalit man who was trying to offer prayers at the Sri Kaliamman Temple in Veeranampatti village of Karur was dragged out of the premises by Manickam, a man from the Urali Gounder community, classified as Backward Class in Tamil Nadu. A humiliated Sakthivel informed the district administration of the violence he faced, pointing out that Dalits were being denied entry to the temple. The officials’ first response, to no one’s surprise, was to attempt a peace talk. But the Urali Gounders responded by shutting down the temple and gathering in front of it in protest.
A peace meeting happened later in the day, when the Urali Gounders asserted that they never allowed Paraiyars inside the temple in the past and would like to continue the tradition. After the officials pointed out that denying Dalits access to the temple is against the Constitution of India, the parties eventually arrived at a decision to keep the temple closed until the next peace committee meeting. In the meantime, it was decided that both communities would be allowed to offer their prayers outside the temple.
But the very next day, on the evening of June 8, the Urali Gounders reneged on their commitment by conducting a temple cart procession without informing district officials. When Dalits tried to enter the temple in consequence, Urali Gounders picketed on the road to protest their entry. The temple was later sealed by the RDO.
Naturally, the incident warranted suo motu action against those barring Dalits from entering the temple. Section 3(za)(C) of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act clearly states that someone who obstructs or prevents an SC person from “entering any place of worship which is open to the public or other persons professing the same religion … shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to five years and with fine.”
However the officials’ first choice, once again, was to schedule another peace meeting. On the evening of June 8, TNM had contacted Karur Superintendent of Police (SP) Sundaravathanan, who told us that legal action would be taken soon. On the same day, cases were registered against two people under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST Act for dragging Sakthivel out of the temple. Another 18 people were booked under the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992 and sections of the IPC for waylaying the RDO’s car. No arrests have been made yet.
Similar events were unfolding at the same time more than 200 km away, where the Dharmaraja Draupadi Amman temple at the Melpathi village in Villupuram was sealed by the district administration on June 7. Several rounds of ‘peace talks’ between the Dalit community in Koliyanur village and the Vanniyar community about allowing Dalits’ entry into the temple had failed to yield any results.
Vanniyars here have been claiming that the Draupadi Amman temple is a ‘clan temple’, which means its affairs are only to be managed by people of the Vanniyar caste. They therefore do not want to allow Dalits to enter. As Villupuram Member of Parliament (MP) and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) general secretary D Ravikumar pointedly notes in a statement addressing the district administration, it is an offence under Article 15 to prevent anyone from entering a public place. Article 17 criminalises the practice of caste discrimination, while the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act 1947 ensures the right to worship to all Hindus in all temples.
It is to be noted, however, that the temple has been under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department for the past 45 years. But a senior official from the HR&CE department tells TNM that even if it wasn’t, the HR&CE Act is de facto applicable to all temples, so no one has the right to say they will not allow people from another community to enter the temple. “The practice is that when we receive a complaint from a community that they are being denied entry to a temple, officials from revenue, police, and HR&CE conduct a peace meeting to defuse the tension before facilitating the temple entry,” he says.
Oftentimes, caste Hindus approach courts with the claim that they own the temple. “At this point, officials from HR&CE will verify the documentation to study the veracity of their claims,” he says.
Another senior official from the HR&CE notes that a temple cannot be called private unless it is built on private land, and the temple affairs are carried out solely by one particular family or a group of families without any external contributions. “To prove this, they need to get approval from the Joint Commissioner of the department. As per Section 63(A) of the HR&CE act, the Joint Commissioner can decide whether the temple is private or not. If the Joint Commissioner says it is private, they can approach a sessions or lower court with an official declaration to this effect,” he explains.
The official adds that a temple is deemed public if it is located on government land and the administration receives money and other contributions from people, which automatically makes the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act 1947 applicable in this case. Section 7 of this Act explicitly states that any person who prevents [a Hindu] from “exercising any right conferred by this Act”, or “molests or obstructs [a Hindu] in the exercise of any such right shall be punishable”. They shall be punished with fine that may extend to Rs 100 in the case of a first offence, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment that may extend to six months, or with fine that may extend to Rs 500, or with both.
Two months before the temple was shut down on June 7, Vanniyar caste men had assaulted and used casteist slurs against a group of Dalits who were trying to offer prayers at the temple. Kathiravan, who was among the few Dalit persons who attempted entry that day, says around 20 Vanniyar men had initially surrounded them. “They claimed they wanted to discuss something with us. One of them then spoke into a microphone, publicly referring to us by our caste name and asking us how we dared to enter the temple. With this, more than 100 men gathered at the spot, and we were badly beaten up,” he recalls.
Kathiravan’s father Kandhan and mother Karpagam were also injured in the attack, and were rushed to the Government Villupuram Medical College Hospital in Mundiyampakkam. Several Dalits from the Melpathi village came together to picket the Vikravandi-Kumbakonam road on that night.
Kathiravan says the police filed a First Information Report (FIR) on April 8, and 18 Vanniyars were booked under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. But no one has been arrested yet.
The Vanniyars filed a sexual harassment complaint against Kathiravan in retaliation, based on which the police have now registered a case against him.
Villupuram Collector C Palani tells TNM that the arrests have been delayed because the administration’s primary objective was to establish peace. The officials have so far conducted seven peace meetings with Vanniyars and Dalits, two among them chaired by the district collector. But none of the meetings yielded any positive results.
Besides, “at least half of the Vanniyar representatives present at these meetings comprised those who have been booked for assaulting us,” says Kathiravan’s father Kandhan. He further points out that only the first meeting was attended by both communities together. “The remaining were separate for Dalits and Vanniyars.”
Kathir, the founder-director of non-governmental organisation Evidence, questions the relevance of such back-to-back meetings when the government and district administration do not even bother to arrest the perpetrators in the first place. “Is the Collector implying that Dalits need to tolerate the violence meted against them while waiting for the caste Hindus to come up with new terms of their own? Was it not the Collector’s duty to rush to the spot when such a crime is taking place?” the activist asks.
He also points out that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government is not averse to intervening when intermediate castes are oppressed at the hands of people with more caste privilege, citing the introduction of all-caste archakas to stop the Brahmin monopoly in temple affairs as an example. “But when these intermediate castes oppress Dalits, the government does not even do the bare minimum to ensure justice.”
On May 17, a powerful minister of the DMK, K Ponmudy, met Dalits from the Melpathi village at the Villupuram collectorate and assured them that appropriate action will be taken against those who hinder their right to enter temples. Ponmudy, who is the Minister for Higher Education, directed the district administration to take appropriate action, following which the officials attempted further peace talks. The Vanniyars retaliated by staging a dharna in front of the temple, threatening to surrender their Aadhaar, ration, and voter ID cards. Three women reportedly attempted to immolate themselves.
The administration's reluctance to file cases and arrest caste perpetrators becomes even more apparent if we are to examine what happened in the Thenmudiyanur village of Tiruvannamalai, where hundreds of Dalits challenged an 80-year-old boycott and entered the Muthumariamman temple on January 30.
People from Udayar, Agamudaiyar, Reddy, Naidu, Chettiyar, and Vanniyar caste groups picketed the temple on the day of the entry, despite having ‘consented’ to the event during a peace committee meeting held by RDO Mandhagini on January 25. The officials then scrambled to have another peace meeting to convince them to withdraw the protest, and the Dalits eventually entered the temple with administrative protection. It is to be noted, Udayar, Agamudaiyar, Reddy, Naidu, and Chettiyar castes are categorised as Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu, while Vanniyars come under Most Backward Classes.
What followed in the days to come was a vicious backlash that took many forms, from economic and social boycotts to violence and vandalism. A petty shop owned by Indra (44), who was among the 12 Dalits who participated in the RDO’s peace committee meeting, was burned to ashes on the Edathanoor Junction road, just 1 km away from Thenmudiyanur. “It has been more than four months now and the police say they have been unable to find the culprit. But we know who did this heinous crime,” Indra’s brother Murugan tells TNM.
Indra had earlier told TNM that when she initially approached the Thandarampattu police with a complaint about her shop, they were very reluctant to register her case. They later filed an FIR under IPC Section 435 (mischief committed by fire or any explosive substance) against unidentified persons, but charges under SC/ST Act were not included.
Murugan says that the caste Hindus also stopped Dalit men and women from working on their lands, besides refusing to lend water for their farmlands. “But the police and government took no action against them,” he says.
No cases have been registered against caste Hindus for this alleged social and economic boycott of Dalits, and Tiruvannamalai SP K Karthikeyan has refuted all of these allegations.
Meanwhile, HR&CE officials had shut down the temple on the same day, apparently to avoid any untoward incidents. But so far, no one from the Udayar, Agamudaiyar, Reddy, Naidu, Chettiyar, and Vanniyar castes who protested the Dalit entry have demanded the reopening of the temple. “The HR&CE did not seal the temple. They simply closed it and kept the keys. I do not know why nobody from the caste Hindu communities are protesting against the temple’s prolonged closure,” a 41-year-old Dalit man from Thenmudiyanur, Murugan, tells TNM.
Watch: After temple entries, Dalits face violence, ostracism as TN govt fails to protect them
The Ayyanar temple at Eraiyur in Pudukottai district — which was opened for Dalits on December 27 last year — also seems to have been virtually abandoned by dominant caste people. Kanakaraj, a Dalit man from the neighbouring village of Vengavayal, says the Thalaiyari (the village head from the dominant Mutharaiyar caste) visits the temple twice a day and offers oblations to the deity. “But I strongly doubt they will conduct the annual temple festival held in the Tamil month of Aadi,” he says.
The dominant castes had already made their indignation apparent with their sparse attendance at the temple’s ‘Samathuva Pongal’ (equality Pongal) celebrations, three of which were organised by the district administration in a bid to establish “unity” among all castes.
One woman, Singammal, was arrested under the SC/ST Act for verbally abusing Dalits who entered the temple.
When asked if they believe temple entries are a necessary step towards caste eradication, Dalit residents of these villages have differences in opinion. A Vengavayal resident had earlier asked TNM why they should enter a place where they were not welcome. “We don’t need such religion or people,” he said.
But for Kathiravan, who was assaulted at Villupuram, entering the Dharmaraja Draupadi Amman temple has been a life-long dream. He says this was his third attempt to gain entry into the temple. The first was in Class 4, and he was dragged out then as well.
Traditionally, Dalits give donations to organise temple functions, says Kathiravan’s father Kandhan. Kathiravan says that they had collected donations amounting to a total of Rs 1 lakh for this year’s festival as well. “We donated the money only to get assaulted.”
According to Evidence Kathir, the restrictions on temple entry in Villupuram is secondary to the fact that three Dalit persons were assaulted by Vanniyars. “This is a clear case of atrocities against Dalits, but the police have not even arrested anyone. What is stopping the police from arresting the perpetrators under the SC/ST Act?” he asks. Besides, the Vanniyars are doing this despite the fact that Dalits even give donations to the temple, he says.
“On the one hand, the government claims pride that people of all castes can be archakas now. But on the other hand, it acts like a mute spectator when Dalit persons’ attempts to enter temples are stopped by intermediate and dominant castes. Why is the government only acting upon the interests of dominant castes?” Kathir asks, wondering if the DMK government was trying to appease the Vanniyars ahead of the general elections next year. But it has to be argued that both the Dravidian parties — including the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam — have been complicit over the decades in the creation of this seemingly broken system, which has been designed to tip the scale only in favour of those with caste privilege.