[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985) › c16.28 # The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c16.28 The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c16.28 - **Language:** English ### [c16.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c16.28) So far, we have spoken of caste as a single, coherent system. But it is striking that, where we have only a single word, caste, India has at least two terms: the well-known set of four \*varṇas\* and the numerous \*jātis\*. The question then is how the \*jātis\* are related to the \*varṇas\*. The answer is obvious: through mixed unions. But here is the catch. Such unions represent the abomination of \*varṇasaṃkara\*, the confusion of the \*varṇa\* order, which is based on strict separation of the \*varṇas\*. The interesting point is that the \*jātis\* came about through exchange in its weightiest form, namely, marriage. The \*jātis\* stand for asymmetrical exchange relationships, and that is exactly what is rejected by the \*varṇa\* theory. Here we come up against the same problem as before. The \*varṇa\* order and the \*jāti\* order are each other’s opposites. Hierarchical interdependence upheld by “worshipful” and disinterested exchange may mask the pivotal problem, but it will not solve it. - [Previous: c16.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c16.27) - [Next: c16.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c16.29) - [Up: c16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c16) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c16.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c16.28) · Pramāṇa