For Hindu Americans, including teens, temples are sacred spaces that connect them to their culture, history, and identity. But who really controls these holy places? 

This article explores whether Brahmins dominate India’s major temples, showcases temples managed by non-Brahmins, and identifies sites where only non-Brahmins serve as priests. It also explores temple management before India’s independence in 1947 and highlights non-Brahmin contributions to temple rituals. Using examples from across India, curious Hindu American teens understand how Caste, Varna, and Jaati influenced temple management and administration, and what’s evolving today.

Defining Caste, Varna, and Jaati: The Hindu Perspective and Western Misconceptions

In Hinduism, Varna and Jaati are distinct concepts often lumped together as “Caste” in Western narratives, leading to misunderstandings. Varna is a scriptural framework from ancient texts like the Rig Veda and Bhagavad Gita, dividing society into four functional roles based on qualities and duties: Brahmins (priests, scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors, rulers), Vaishyas (merchants, farmers), and Shudras (laborers, service providers). The Bhagavad Gita (4.13) emphasizes that Varna is about one’s actions and qualities, not birth, though over time, it became hereditary in practice.

Jaati refers to thousands of localized, birth-based social groups tied to specific occupations, regions, or traditions. Jaati is more granular and practical, shaping everyday social interactions in India. For example, a Kshatriya  Varna might include many Jaatis, and which jaati became part of Kshatriya varna, for example, has variations across the geography of India at any point in time (Srinivas, M.N., 1984, Caste in Modern India and Other Essays). 

Caste is a Western term, introduced by Portuguese colonizers (“casta” meaning lineage), that oversimplifies Varna and Jaati into a rigid, hierarchical system. Western misconceptions often portray Caste as a monolithic, oppressive structure unique to Hinduism, ignoring its historical fluidity, regional diversity, and parallels in other societies (like class or guild systems). This lens also exaggerates Brahmin dominance, overlooking non-Brahmin roles in Hindu traditions (Dirks, Nicholas B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India).

According to this summary of S N Balagangadhar’s work on conceptualizing caste: 

• The “caste system” is a colonial construct, misrepresenting the fluid, context-specific jati and varna systems.

• Arguments about caste are unresolvable because they rely on Western frameworks alien to Indian social realities.

• Neither confirming nor refuting the nature is possible without rethinking the categories used to describe it.

• Indian society’s complexity and lack of centralized authority defy simplistic narratives about caste.

In this article, we’ll use Caste as a broad term for social classification with all its complexities, Varna for the scriptural four-fold division, and Jaati for specific community identities, ensuring clarity and cultural accuracy.

Do Brahmins Run Everything in Temples?

Brahmins, part of the priestly Varna, are often seen as the “priest varna” because they historically studied sacred texts like the Vedas and led rituals, especially in temples following Agamic traditions (rule-based worship requiring Sanskrit and complex ceremonies). Brahmin Jaatis, like Tamil Iyers or Kannada Smarthas, were trained for generations in these roles. But do they control all temples? Not quite—it depends on whether we’re talking about priesthood, management, or ownership.

Temples Run by Non-Brahmins

Many major temples are managed by non-Brahmin Jaatis through trusts or government boards, proving that temple leadership isn’t exclusively Brahmin. Here are examples across India:

• southern part of India: The Tirumala Venkateswara Temple in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, is managed by the TTD trust, which includes non-Brahmin Jaatis from Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra Varnas. While Brahmin Jaatis perform rituals, non-Brahmins manage operations, and some are trained as priests. The Arunachaleshwarar Temple in Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, is run by the state government, including non-Brahmin Jaatis**. The Kudroli Gokarnath Temple in Mangalore, Karnataka, is managed by the Billava Jaati (a Shudra Varna group) and has had Dalit Jaati women priests since 2011.

• North part  of India: The Vaishno Devi Temple in Jammu & Kashmir is managed by a government board with non-Brahmin Jaatis from various Varnas. Brahmin priests lead rituals, but non-Brahmins handle security and administration.

• East region of India: The Jagannath Temple in Puri involves the Gajapati king (a Kshatriya Varna, non-Brahmin Jaati) in its management committee. Non-Brahmin Jaatis priests like Daitapatis lead rituals.

• Western region of  India: The Somnath Temple in Gujarat, a sacred Shiva shrine, is run by a trust with non-Brahmin Jaati leaders from Vaishya and other Varnas, making key decisions despite Brahmin priests performing rituals.

• Northeast part of India: The Kamakhya Temple in Guwahati, Assam, is managed by a trust with non-Brahmin Jaatis, including tribal and local communities. Non-Brahmin priests from these Jaatis perform rituals tied to local traditions alongside Brahmins.

These examples show that non-Brahmin Jaatis can lead as priests or managers in India’s holiest temples, challenging the Western misconception that only Brahmins control Hindu worship.

Temples Where Only Non-Brahmins Are Priests

Hindu scriptures like the Vedas, Upanishads, and Bhagavad Gita don’t mandate that only Brahmin Jaatis can be priests. The Bhagavad Gita (4.13, 18.41-44) ties Varna to duties and qualities, suggesting anyone with devotion and skill can perform priestly roles. Bhakti traditions, emphasizing devotion over birth, further support this, allowing non-Brahmin Jaatis to connect with the divine through rituals. Below are temples where only non-Brahmin Jaatis serve as priests, due to tradition or modern inclusion:

• Southern part of India: The Tiruchendur Murugan Temple in Tamil Nadu, dedicated to Lord Murugan, has priests from the Mudaliar Jaati (Shudra Varna), excluding Brahmins from ritual roles. The Ugra Kaliamman Temple in Trichy, Tamil Nadu, is led by Vellalar Jaati priests (also Shudra Varna), a tradition spanning generations.

• Northern part of India: The Mahavir Mandir in Patna, Bihar, a 300-year-old Hanuman temple, has a Dalit Jaati head priest, Suryavanshi Falahari Das, since 1993. Other priests are from non-Brahmin Jaatis, with Brahmins in minor roles.

• Eastern region of India: The Jagannath Temple in Puri relies on Daitapati and Sevayat Jaatis (non-Brahmin, often Shudra Varna) for major rituals like the Rath Yatra, with Brahmins excluded from lead roles.

• Western region of  India: The Tuljapur Bhavani Temple in Maharashtra, a goddess shrine, has Maratha Jaati and other non-Brahmin priests (Kshatriya and Shudra Varnas), with no Brahmins in primary ritual roles.

• Northeastern part of India: The Kamakhya Temple in Guwahati, Assam, involves non-Brahmin Jaati priests from local tribal and Assamese communities for rituals tied to regional traditions, working alongside Brahmins.

These temples demonstrate that non-Brahmin Jaatis can lead worship, debunking the Western myth that Hinduism restricts the priesthood to Brahmins.

Temple Management in India Before 1947

Before India’s independence in 1947, temples were far more than places of worship—they were vibrant community hubs central to social, cultural, and economic life. Their management was a complex interplay of royal patronage, local community involvement, and diverse Jaati contributions, challenging the notion that Brahmin Jaatis held exclusive control. This section explores how temples were governed, funded, and maintained in pre-independent India, highlighting the roles of various Varnas and Jaatis.

Royal Patronage and Kshatriya Authority

In pre-1947 India, temples were often under the direct oversight of kings, chieftains, or local rulers, primarily from the Kshatriya Varna. These rulers acted as patrons, endowing temples with land, wealth, and resources to ensure their upkeep and cultural significance. For example:

• Chola and Vijayanagara Empires (South India): Chola kings (9th–13th centuries) built grand temples like the Brihadeeswarar Temple in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, and appointed diverse groups, including Brahmin Jaatis for rituals and non-Brahmin Jaatis (such as Vellalars from the Shudra Varna) for administration and land management. The Vijayanagara Empire (14th–16th centuries) similarly patronized temples like the Virupaksha Temple in Hampi, where Kshatriya rulers oversaw operations while delegating ritual duties to Brahmins and administrative tasks to other Jaatis (Stein, Burton, Vijayanagara, 1989).

• Gajapati Kings (East India): In Odisha, the Gajapati kings, of Kshatriya Varna, managed the Jagannath Temple in Puri, one of India’s holiest shrines. They appointed non-Brahmin Jaatis like Daitapatis (Shudra Varna) for key rituals, while Brahmin Jaatis handled Vedic ceremonies, showing a shared division of labor.

• Maratha and Rajput Rulers (West and North India): Maratha rulers in Maharashtra, like the Bhosale dynasty, patronized temples such as the Tuljapur Bhavani Temple, where Maratha Jaati priests (non-Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Shudra Varna) led rituals. In Rajasthan, Rajput kings (Kshatriya Varna) supported temples like the Eklingji Temple, overseeing their management while relying on local communities for operations.

Kings often established endowments called devadana (land grants for temples), ensuring financial stability. These endowments were managed by councils that included non-Brahmin Jaatis, such as local landowners or merchants from Vaishya Varna, alongside Brahmin scholars.

Community Involvement and Non-Brahmin Roles

Temples were community-driven institutions, with local Jaatis across Varnas contributing to their functioning. Non-Brahmin Jaatis, particularly from Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra Varnas, played significant roles in administration, maintenance, and even rituals:

• Administrative Roles: In South India, village assemblies (sabhas) or trusts managed smaller temples, often led by non-Brahmin Jaatis like Vellalars or Reddys (Shudra or Vaishya Varna). These groups handled temple finances, festivals, and community welfare programs, such as feeding the poor or supporting education (Appadurai, Arjun, Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule: A South Indian Case, 1981).

• Ritual Contributions: In many regional and village temples, non-Brahmin Jaatis served as priests for local deities. For example, in Tamil Nadu’s village shrines dedicated to folk deities like Mariamman, priests were often from Shudra Jaatis, chosen for their community ties rather than Vedic training. In Assam, the Kamakhya Temple relied on non-Brahmin tribal Jaatis for rituals tied to local traditions.

• Economic Support: Vaishya Jaatis, such as Chettiars in South India, provided financial backing for temple festivals and renovations. Artisans and laborers from Shudra Jaatis contributed skills like stonework, music, and dance, essential for temple upkeep and cultural events.

Brahmin Jaatis and Ritual Expertise

Brahmin Jaatis were integral to temple life due to their training in Vedic and Agamic traditions, which required mastery of Sanskrit texts and complex rituals. In major temples following Agamic rules, such as the Meenakshi Temple in Madurai or the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala, Brahmin Jaatis like Iyers or Namboodiris led worship. However, their role was often limited to the sanctum sanctorum, while broader management rested with rulers or community councils. Even in Vedic temples, Brahmins collaborated with non-Brahmin Jaatis, who handled logistics, security, and offerings.

Impact of Colonial Rule

The arrival of British colonial rule (18th–19th centuries) began to alter temple management. The British East India Company and later the Crown sought to control temple revenues, treating them as economic assets. In some cases, they appointed Brahmin Jaatis as intermediaries to manage temples, reinforcing the colonial narrative of Brahmin dominance. However, this was not universal—local rulers and communities continued to wield influence. For example, the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple in Tirupati remained under the control of local leaders and trusts, with non-Brahmin Jaatis involved in its administration.

Fluidity and Diversity

Temple management before 1947 was decentralized and region-specific, reflecting India’s diverse social fabric. While Brahmin Jaatis were key for rituals requiring Vedic or Agamic expertise, non-Brahmin Jaatis from Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra Varnas held authority in funding, administration, and local worship. Temples were not “owned” by any single Jaati but were collective assets, supported by kings, communities, and trusts. This fluidity challenges Western misconceptions of a rigid “caste system” dominated by Brahmins, as noted by scholars like Nicholas Dirks (Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, 2001).

Conclusion: A Tapestry of Devotion Beyond Caste

For Hindu American teens seeking to understand their cultural roots, India’s temples reveal a dynamic interplay of Varna, Jaati, and devotion that defies simplistic narratives of Brahmin dominance. From ancient royal patronage to modern trusts, temple management has long been a shared endeavor, with non-Brahmin Jaatis from Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra Varnas playing vital roles as priests, administrators, and patrons. Temples like Tirumala Venkateswara, Jagannath, and Kamakhya showcase this diversity, where local traditions and Bhakti devotion often transcend birth-based restrictions. By exploring these sacred spaces, you connect not just to rituals but to a vibrant, evolving heritage where the divine belongs to all who serve with faith and dedication.