[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) › c4.s8.2 # The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c4.s8.2 The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c4.s8.2 - **Language:** English ### [c4.s8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c4.s8.2) This idea seems to have gradually developed and hardened during the nineteenth century, together with the growing elaboration of the state. The high water mark was reached in the beginning of this century with the ever-more refined census operations that were specifically directed at recording caste, in the sense of self-contained units. In the same period, the clinching argument for the monolithic tradition of the caste institution was provided by the authority of Max Weber, who ingenuously viewed caste as unbreakably wedded to the karman theodicy.²² Though it is certainly possible to find traditional statements linking caste and karman, this was not a fundamental doctrine. Moreover, on closer consideration it becomes clear that such a doctrine would be untenable even theoretically. - [Previous: c4.s8.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c4.s8.1) - [Next: c4.s8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c4.s8.3) - [Up: c4.s8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c4.s8) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c4.s8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.heesterman-1985.c4.s8.2) · Pramāṇa