Thiruporur: A peculiar incident at the Thiruporur Kandaswamy Temple has ignited debate over temple traditions and ownership of items accidentally dropped into the hundi (offertory box). Devotee Dhinesh from Vinayagapuram lost his iPhone to the temple’s donation box on December 20, raising concerns about rigid administrative procedures and the interpretation of temple customs.
The Incident
Dhinesh, visiting the temple with his family, accidentally dropped his iPhone into the hundi while offering money. The device, which was in his shirt pocket, slipped in during the process. Panicked, Dhinesh sought assistance from temple authorities, pleading for the return of his phone. However, he was informed that the hundi could not be opened mid-cycle and that its contents, regardless of how they end up inside, are considered the property of the temple deity.
Temple authorities maintained that the hundi, typically opened every two months for counting, requires a rigorous protocol to access its contents. As a result, Dhinesh was told to wait until the next scheduled opening. Despite his appeals, the temple officials stood firm on the principle that everything inside the hundi, whether intentionally offered or accidentally dropped, belongs to the deity.
Official Response
When the hundi was finally opened on December 20, Dhinesh’s iPhone was retrieved, along with cash, coins, and other items. However, the authorities remained steadfast in their position. The temple’s executive officer, Kumaravel, stated, “It is a tradition to consider anything that finds its way into the hundi, knowingly or accidentally, as property of the deity. The phone is now under the custody of the temple management.” He added, “We cannot be sure if the phone was dropped intentionally as an offering and later regretted.”
The temple offered to return Dhinesh’s SIM card but insisted that the phone itself remained temple property. Dhinesh was advised to approach higher authorities to appeal his case.
HR&CE’s Stand
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department, which oversees temple administration in Tamil Nadu, is now deliberating the matter. Minister PK Sekhar Babu commented, “Traditionally, anything dropped into a temple’s hundi is considered the property of the deity. However, we will explore legal avenues to determine if exceptions can be made in this case.”
A meeting of officials is being considered to address the procedural and legal complexities surrounding such cases, particularly as they involve valuable items or items dropped accidentally.
Public Reaction
The incident has sparked widespread debate on social media, with many questioning the rigid stance of the HR&CE department. One netizen sarcastically asked whether the department would take responsibility for paying off a credit card debt if a card were accidentally dropped into a hundi. Another mocked the situation, wondering if a bomb were dropped, would the temple authorities claim ownership and wait until the next scheduled opening to act.
A popular Tamil film, Palayathamman, was also referenced, where a child accidentally dropped into a temple’s hundi is humorously deemed temple property, reflecting public sentiment over the matter.
This is not the first time valuables have been accidentally dropped into temple hundis. Devotees have reported losing rings, watches, and other items, leading to similar administrative responses. On platforms like Quora, hypothetical questions such as “What happens if a baby is dropped in Tirumala Hundi?” have sparked humorous and exaggerated discussions, emphasising the rigid adherence to temple protocols.
One user joked, “If a baby were dropped, the hundi would be opened immediately, the child rescued, and the parent sent to ‘Krishna Janmasthana.’ Thankfully, the cash and jewelry would cushion the baby’s fall.”
While temple traditions have their roots in religious customs, incidents like these highlight the need for a more flexible and practical approach in handling accidental contributions. Legal experts suggest that clear guidelines are necessary to differentiate between intentional offerings and unintentional losses.
The HR&CE department’s decision in this case could set a precedent for how such situations are handled in the future, balancing tradition with modern-day practicalities. Meanwhile, Dhinesh continues to await a resolution, hopeful that his plea for the return of his iPhone will find a sympathetic ear among higher authorities.
