1. For traditional caste histories, see Chinnaiya Chettiar (1941-42), Chockalinga Ayyah (1919), Lakshmanan Chettiar (1953), Ramanathan Chettiar (1953), Sharma (1970), and Subramaniyan Ayyar (1895). In the absence of independent documentary evidence, these histories are best understood as ideological tracts or Malinowskian charters for behavior. For review of available documentation, see Rudner (1985). For further discussion of the Nakarattar varalaru , see Chapter 10. [BACK]

2. According to the varalaru , the original seven families first arrived in Chettinad in the town of Nattarasankottai along with two other groups of non-Nakarattar Chettis. The three Chetti groups then moved to the town of Ilayathakudi. The non-Nakarattars left Chettinad entirely. Six of the seven families established themselves in their own village, separate from Ilayathakudi, and the remaining Ilayathakudi family split into three

groups, of which one remained in Ilayathakudi and the other two settled in Iraniyur and Pillaiyarpatti, respectively. [BACK]

3. Ramanathan Chettiar (1953) also provides more detailed information on the individual religious gifts. [BACK]

4. On religious endowment and control of religious trusts, see Appadurai (1981), Breckenridge (1976), and Mudaliar (1974). For description of a specific Nakarattar endowment in the context of a detailed analysis of nineteenth-century religious endowment generally, see Breckenridge's (1976) account of the Nagappa Chettiar kattalai in Meenakshi Temple in Madurai. [BACK]

5. For village temples, trusteeship was frequently vested in the dominant family of the dominant lineage of the village. For the nine Nakarattar clan temples ( nakarakkovils ), karyakkarars were recruited on a hereditary basis, rotating in a regular fashion between selected small groups of prominent families in the clan from throughout Chettinad. In both cases, the ancestors of these families had demonstrated their generosity ( vallanmai ) and trustworthiness ( nanayam ) by contributing to the founding or renovation of the temple. For major public temples, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board appointed individuals to nonhereditary positions on the boards of trustees. In general, however, one qualification for appointment was an act of endowment by oneself or one's ancestors. [BACK]

6. Ownership of a temple depended, among other things, on the legal definition of its congregation, another complex legal problem (see Appadurai 1981). Depending on the temple under litigation, Nakarattar plaintiffs or defendants might be joint families, local lineage segments, clans, or the caste as a whole. For an account of litigation between two Nakarattar factions for control of a temple in Colombo, as well as accounts of other Nakarattar litigation in colonial Ceylon, see Weersooria (1973). [BACK]

7. According to the administrative report to the Board of Trustees of Ilayathakudi Temple (Ilayathakudi Devasthanam 1939), the temple karyakkarars (trustees) had originally presented their argument to the Madras High Court in 1912 as part of a suit to confirm their position as hereditary trustees (Madras High Court, Appeal No. 72 of 1923, "Scheme for administration of Ilayathakudi Temple"). The 1939 report indicates that the proposed scheme was accepted in 1926 (i.e., following the Religious Endowments Act of 1925; see Mudaliar 1974). Under provisions of the accepted scheme, the temple's board of trustees was to consist of five members: two from the four traditional karyakkarar families, and three to be appointed by the court. [BACK]

8.  The Ilayathakudi Temple Report (Ilayathakudi Devasthanam 1939) may even omit reference to inam holdings outside the temple's immediate vicinity. My impression is that temple devastanam lands included zamindari or inam lands in Tanjavur; however, this impression requires confir-

mation. If I am correct about these omissions as well as omissions of non- inam investments, the selectivity of information contained in the report is somewhat puzzling and raises questions about the purpose of the report. I note, however, that, unlike the temple's account books, the administrative report was prepared in both Tamil and English and was still freely distributed to temple visitors forty years after its publication. In addition, before the report presents its description of selective temple expenditures, it describes the history of Nakarattar involvement with the temple and the court decisions that recognized the temple as privately owned by the Nakarattar community. For these reasons, it seems likely that the report was designed primarily for an external audience, to demonstrate how responsibly Nakarattars were meeting their obligations as owners. [BACK]

9. This is not to say that Nakarattars understood or subscribed to Western, biological theories of genetic heritability. Rather, they followed their own version of Hindu beliefs about membership in different kinds of descent groups. This Nakarattar understanding of descent was similar to relevant tenets of Hindu textual traditions exemplified in the Dharmasutras, the early Dharmasastras, and Kautilya's Arthasastra. The texts maintain that every person is born into a particular caste ( jati ), clan ( kula ), and family ( parivara ). Membership in these groups is determined in part by genetic transmission of the male "seed" from the Vedic ancestor of an individual's lineage ( gotra ) and in part by the pure or impure combination of this seed with the female "field" in which it quickens and grows. Specific combinations of these parental contributions produce offspring with a characteristic blend of elemental substances ( gunas ) and concomitant moral codes for behavior ( dharma ). Shared parentage produces shared substances, shared moral codes, and comembership in common descent groups. The consequences of mixed marriages (i.e., marriages between members of descent groups possessing different blends of gunas ) for generating a multitude of descent groups are the topic of considerable speculation. For Indological and ethnographic interpretations of the relevant texts, see Davis (1976). Inden and Nicholas (1977). Kane (1941 v. I, II), Marriott (1976), Marriott and Inden (1974). Rocher (1981), and Tambiah (1973a). For a detailed cultural account of a folk Tamil version of these beliefs, see Daniel (1984). [BACK]

10. The Nakarattar conjugal family, the pulli , employed principles of marriage as well as descent in recruiting its members. That is, husbands and wives became members of a pulli at the time of their marriage, in contrast to legitimate children, who were born or adopted into the pulli . I distinguish the Nakarattar joint family, the valavu , from various forms of joint households for which it sometimes formed a basis. Valavus are accurately regarded as minimal lineage segments subject to the application of Mitakshara laws regarding inheritance. For more detailed discussion of the relationship between Hindu concepts of joint family and sociological considerations in the definition of joint households, see Tambiah (1973a: 75). [BACK]

11. The extent to which ideas about inherited moral codes were fostered or even created in some novel fashion by interaction with the colonial government is difficult to gauge. Recent studies (Carroll 1978; Cohn 1960, 1983) seem almost to suggest they were a product of the colonial period. Against such a possibility, it must be remembered that the Nakarattar jati and its descent groups were in place by the seventeenth century (see Chapter 7). [BACK]

12. The processes that generated growth in the number of Nakarattar residential villages have apparently been reversed in recent times as the number of villages that Nakarattars acknowledge as under their control has diminished. Nakarattars attribute this reversal to a Nakarattar migration to larger towns that depleted the population of the smaller villages. [BACK]

13. The seasonal festivals of village temples included tirttan kutittal or marantu kutattal (drinking sanctified water in the seventh month of pregnancy), putumai (child's first birthday), suppiti (boy's coming-of-age ceremony), tiruvatirai (girl's coming-of-age ceremony), kalyanam (marriage), shastiaptapurti kalyanam (man's sixtieth birthday and marriage renewal ceremony). For a description of these ceremonies, see Thurston (1909). [BACK]

14. See Harper (1959) for a discussion of similar beliefs about ghosts ( peys ), spirits ( avis ), family deities ( kula teyvams ), and village deities ( grama teyvams ). [BACK]

15. See Dumont (1959) and Whitehead (1921) for, respectively, structural and descriptive accounts of the standard non-Brahmanic village pantheon of South India. [BACK]

16. Mines (1984) describes processes of deification and cult formation among Kaikkolars that are quite similar to those exhibited by Nakarattars. In addition, he describes what might be considered a two-tier system of temples: one set concerned with matters of kinship, the other concerned with matters beyond the realm of kinship (e.g., trade and the state). Like Kaikkolars, Nakarattars also participated in supra-kinship temples. But these did not correspond to either the village or the clan temples described in the text. Nor, for that matter, did they correspond to any intermediate form of quasi-kinship temple. Rather, they formed a third tier of temple organization. Notice that it is not clear from Mines' account whether Kaikkolar temple-based cults of descent were segmented into two tiers. [BACK]

17. Most devastanam inam lands had been given to the Nakarattar clan temples in past centuries. The gifts are often recorded in stone inscriptions carved on the temple walls. They are also recorded in the Inam Register of the colonial government. For a large but incomplete listing of Nakarattar money endowments during the late colonial period, see Ramanathan Chettiar (1953). [BACK]

18. In general, care should be taken not to overemphasize the solidarity of kuttikkira pankalis . One of the fiercest political fights for control of the

North Ramnad District Board in 1937 occurred between the son-in-law (an affinal relation) and a member of a collateral pankali of the powerful Nakarattar leader Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar. In this instance, the son-in-law, C. V. Ct. (Venkatachalam) Chettiar ran on the ticket of the Justice party as an ally of Annamalai. But the Raja's pankali , Nakappa Chettiar, ran on the Congress party ticket. One should not conclude from this alliance, however, that the converse relationship is therefore all-important. Both are open-ended relationships with options to renew or terminate. In this case, the S. Rm C. V. Ct. alliance was not permanent. A few years later, C. V. Ct. attempted to thwart Annamalai's plans to initiate Annamalai University by advising Kalimuthu Thiagarajan on tactics for gaining governmental support of a Thiagarajan University in Madurai. Ultimately, Annamalai won. Thiagarajan University was never founded (Lakshman Chettiar interview, June 22, 1981; see also Arooran 1980). For more about this story, see Chapters 7 and 10. [BACK]