[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) › c19.s11.4 # The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s11.4 The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s11.4 - **Language:** English ### [c19.s11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c19.s11.4) 4. One may compare E. R. Leach's observation on the use of the jural idom of local group endogamy for legitimizing membership: "Anyone who was acceptable as a Pul Eliya landowner and was also acceptable in the capacity of brother-in-law to an existent Pul Eliya landowner would, in practice, be treated as of our \*variga\*" (\*Pul Eliya\*, \[Cambridge, 1961\], 303). Compare also the \*mutha\*, or "clan" territory, as described by F. G. Bailey, actually a group of lineages living in the same territory and expressing this fact as conventional agnation (\*Tribe, Caste, and Nation\* \[Manchester, 1960\], 47ff.). See Dumont's remarks in \*Contributions to Indian Sociology\* 7 (1964): 72. - [Previous: c19.s11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c19.s11.3) - [Next: c19.s11.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c19.s11.5) - [Up: c19.s11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c19.s11) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c19.s11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c19.s11.4) · Pramāṇa