The ra ̄ja looks after the spiritual needs of the kingdom by exercising his special
priestly functions, without which fertility and security will be endangered. (Derrett
1976: 57)
[F]ar from being simply a matter of secular power and force, the role of the king
is ritually central to the life of the kingdom... Kings are enjoined, in the textual
traditions, to give gifts if they wish to wish to enjoy sovereignty [here the work of
Gonda 1965, 1966 is cited]; and to give is seen as an inherent part of the royal
code-for-conduct, ra ̄jadharma. (Raheja 1988b: 514–15)A second problem with conceiving ofdharmaas “religion” is that Hindus (like
most other people) repeatedly contradict each other, and themselves, in relation
to core values (see also Burghart 1978). There is a particular ambiguity sur-
rounding the relations between patrons and priests because they are involved in
an endless flow of inauspiciousness and this can be represented in contradictory
ways. The widely reported uniformity in the structure of caste relations can
hardly be said to derive from adherence to a set of values in relation to priestly
purity when, as we have seen, many Hindus regard all priests as contaminated
by their ritual duties.
The uniformity of caste structure derives rather from a common sociological
predicament which is resolved through the institutions of kingship. This is why
it is perfectly possible to call oneself a Hindu and reject caste practices, but it is
generally only possible to do so when one is living outsides the confines of a
monarchical system – whether as a renouncer in the “traditional” world, or as
a member of a more fluid, modern society.
Notes
1 A much more detailed exposition of the argument that follows can be found in
Quigley (1993).
2 Deliège (1999 [1995]) provides a comprehensive exploration of writings on
untouchability.
3 Levy (1990) provides an encyclopedic survey of ritual practitioners in one of the
most complex examples of caste organization on the Indian sub-continent. See
Quigley (1997) for an extended review of this work.
4 “In theory, the Brahmins had the most exalted status and were set up as the
unattainable model of society in many respects. This is because, by hereditary
occupation, they presided over the most important form of available power: that
of the sacrificial ritual which was the source of temporal and spiritual well-being”
(Lipner 1994: 89).
5 For further references and a more detailed examination of this, see Quigley (1993,
ch. 4).
6 Yalman (1989) is particularly insightful on the connection between caste and
royalty.
7 For ethnographic illustrations of Bra ̄hman.as making distinctions among each other
in this way, see especially Levy (1990), Parry (1980), and Fuller (1984).
506 declan quigley