Interdependence Between the Temporal Power and Sacred Domains
To point out the relationship between these two domains, we argue that if temporal power needed ‘legitimisation’ from ‘spiritual’ authority so did the human agents of spiritual authority for sustenance from temporal power (see Chattopadhyaya 1995:195-232).
The legitimisation of political power was determined with the collaboration of the kings and the priests. Bhakti paved the path for political legitimisation in two ways: introduction of the divine theory of kingship (see Mallik 2005:199-200) and the overlord-feudatory relationship between the ‘sacred domains’ and the ‘temporal power’. This process is illustrated by the stages through which the cult of Jagannath emerged as the central cult in Orissa and the ritual surrender of temporal power to the divinity by king Anangabhimadeva (Sahu 1984). The patronage of Gangas7 (Singha 2005:213-214) took the shape of making land grants and other gifts to Lord Jagannath, construction of the temples of Jagannath at different places of the empire, and accepting Vaishnavism as their personal faith; accepting Lord Jagannath as the sovereign of the empire was the climax of the trend (Kulke 1976:5).The King-Brahmin alliance reached in its climax during the rule of the Gajapatis8 (Singha 2005:213-214). Since the Brahmin priests9 were the custodians of Lord Jagannath and they monopolised the ‘spiritual domain’, and the kings derived their legitimacy with the help of priests, interdependency or an alliance developed between them. Kapilendradeva10 dedicated the Orissan Empire in favour of Lord Jagannath and accepted the sevak (servitor) status. This gave the priests a significant political voice and played a crucial role in succession rules of the empire. It is evident from the selection of Purusottamdev11 as the successor of Kapilendradeva (1434-1467), since he was not the rightful heir.
The claims of Kapilendradeva’s other sons were overruled by the tradition created and legitimised by the priests to acquire more power and prestige than that of the king. As the legend goes, Lord Jagannath wanted Purushottamdeva (1467-1497) to be the successor. Thus, Purushottamdeva accepted a lower position than that of the priests. He had to agree to the institution of Chherapahnra12.During the period of Islamic rule (1568-1751) (Sarkar 2004:409), the temple was attacked by various Islamic rulers. The series of invasions were led by Illias Shah, the Sultan of Bengal in 1340 AD, by Feroze Shah Tughlaq in 1360 AD, by Allauddin Hussain, the Sultan of Bengal in 1509 AD, by Kalapahar in 1568 AD, and subsequently by Mughal rulers in the 16th and 17th century (Sarkar 2004:409-410). Apart from the objective of plundering the wealth of the temple, the intention of destroying the political and ritual legitimacy that the institution carries was the main reason behind such continuous invasions (Ray 1981:187). The Marathas ruled Orissa from 1751 to 1803 (Ray 1960:5). They took special interest in the administration of the Jagannath temple and made necessary facilities for the pilgrims. They patronised the rituals, customs of the temple, and also sanctioned funds for its maintenance. The Raja of Khurda supervised the administration of the temple on behalf of the Marathas. Raghuji Bhonsle’s donation ‘Satais Hazari Mahal’13 for the smooth financial maintenance denominates the political as well as the ritual importance of the temple.
9.2