Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of illustrations
- List of maps
- List of tables
- Preface
- Glossary of terms
- Map 1 Madras Presidency, 1900
- Map 2 Pudukkottai State
- The Tondaiman line of Pudukkottai
- PART 1 INTRODUCTION
- PART 2 HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY
- PART 3 A LITTLE KINGDOM IN THE OLD REGIME
- PART 4 SOCIAL RELATIONS OF A LITTLE KINGDOM
- PART 5 COLONIAL MEDIATIONS: CONTRADICTIONS UNDER THE RAJ
- PART 6 CONCLUSION
- 14 Ethnohistory and the Indian state
- Appendix: Land and privilege: inams in Pudukkottai
- References
- List of records and abbreviations
- List of archives and record offices
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES
14 - Ethnohistory and the Indian state
from PART 6 - CONCLUSION
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of illustrations
- List of maps
- List of tables
- Preface
- Glossary of terms
- Map 1 Madras Presidency, 1900
- Map 2 Pudukkottai State
- The Tondaiman line of Pudukkottai
- PART 1 INTRODUCTION
- PART 2 HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY
- PART 3 A LITTLE KINGDOM IN THE OLD REGIME
- PART 4 SOCIAL RELATIONS OF A LITTLE KINGDOM
- PART 5 COLONIAL MEDIATIONS: CONTRADICTIONS UNDER THE RAJ
- PART 6 CONCLUSION
- 14 Ethnohistory and the Indian state
- Appendix: Land and privilege: inams in Pudukkottai
- References
- List of records and abbreviations
- List of archives and record offices
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES
Summary
A great many works have prepared the way for this book. Several have provided particularly important models for what has been written here. Perhaps Clifford Geertz (1980) states more clearly than any one else the problem of studying the Indic state – although in its particularly minute as well as byzantine Balinese form – from the perspectives of much comparative sociology and Western political theory. Geertz writes that Bali, where the state was articulated by the doctrine of the exemplary center, was a “theatre state,” where the drama was ritual, and ritual was power:
It was a theatre-state in which the kings and princes were impresarios, the priests, the directors, the peasantry, the supporting cast, stage crew, and audience. The stupendous cremations, teeth-filings, temple dedications, the pilgrimages and blood sacrifices, mobilizing hundreds, even thousands of people and great quantities of wealth, were not means to political ends, they were ends themselves, they were what the state was for. Court ceremonialism was the driving force of state politics. Mass ritual was not a device to shore up the state; the state was a device for the enactment of mass ritual. To govern was not so much to choose as to perform. Ceremony was not form but substance. Power served pomp, not pomp power.
(Geertz 1980, 13)- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Hollow CrownEthnohistory of an Indian Kingdom, pp. 401 - 406Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1988