The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c14.s1.19

c14.s1.19

It would seem that the complementarity of the two orders also underlies the opposition of monarchy and "republic" in ancient India.²⁴ But not only in ancient India, for the same opposition between the aristocratic and democratic orders seems to underlie present-day communities. We may cite Dumont's exemplary study of a Kallar community as an example. The Kallar sum up their unity in a conventional numerical formula: four chiefs (*tevar*), eight provinces (*nādu*), twenty-four secondary villages (*upagrāma*). One of the four chiefs, sometimes styled rāja, is the highest in rank. The other three (or four, since some informants enumerate five chiefly lineages), considered as "ministers," characteristically derive their prestige in descending order from connubial relations with the first lineage. But at the same time, all members of the community are styled *tevar*, chief. As Dumont aptly observes: "la notion de chef en tant que transcendante au groupe n'existe pas".²⁵ Under these circumstances, the decline of the first chiefly lineage into near obscurity is perfectly understandable even without the intervention of external factors. At any rate, it would seem that the case of the Kallar illustrates the interplay of the hierarchic or "aristocratic" and the egalitarian or "democratic" principles.