The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s12.1

c19.s12.1

1\. Anil Seal, *The Emergence of Indian Nationalism* (Cambridge, 1968), 351. 2\. Interestingly, the organizaiton of the British Indian administration seems to have been very well geared to accommodate dissension through its “dual alignment” of authorities at each rung of the hierarchy. See R. E. Frykenberg, *Guntur District* (Oxford, 1965), 237f. 3\. See J. C. Heesterman, “Political Modernization in India,” in *Traditional Attitudes and Modern Styles in Political Leadership* ed. J. E. Legge (Sidney, 1973), 29–56, esp. 48. 4\. On this problem, see chapter 8, section 4, and chapter 10, sections 1, 7, and 8. 5\. See G. M. Carstairs, *The Twice-Born* (London, 1957), 143. 6\. See Irfan Habib, *The Agrarian System of Mughal India* (Aligarh, 1963); J. F. Richards, *Mughal Administration in Golconda* (Oxford, 1975). 7\. W. Foster, ed., *The English Factories in India* (Oxford, 1906–27), 5: 204. 8\. “Ample evidence from the archival remains demonstrates that the organization of the empire was both impressive and effective. The total impression conveyed by these documentary sources is that of a great machine, built and organized for continuous expansion and gradually intensifying control from the centre.” (Richards, *Mughal Administration*, 311).