The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c16.30

c16.30

Even though these rights obviously imply the rendering of certain services or other prestations, there is no direct relationship between the right or share on the one hand and, on the other, the nature or amount of the counterprestation.³⁷ Or one might say that right and duty are not clearly separated and balanced but are inextricably interwoven in the sense that one has a "right" to serve (including, of course, the perquisites of the service)—in contradistinction to either a contractual relationship specifically balancing service and payment or a comprehensive bond between unequal partners. The background of this conception of rights is not contract, even less purity, but honor or "propriety." For our purpose, the point to retain is that these differential rights are viewed as independent properties defining the particular "propriety" of their various holders. The ultimate integration of these rights and of their holders is based, not on the bonds of hierarchical exchange and interdependence, but on the fact that the differentially distributed rights and shares rest on the same good, the soil's productivity.³⁸