I. The Caste System and the Hierar-chy:Dumont and his Indian Study As one of the most important anthropologists in 20th century, Louis Dumont, on one hand, suc-cessfully introduced anthropological theory and methodology to Indian Studies,on the other hand, he contributed a lot to anthropology through his In-dian studies. He applied structuralism and ideology in his fieldwork and ethnography,and refocused at-tention on comparative studies based on local con-cepts, categories and values. In his Homo Hierar-chicus,he applied his mentor Marcel Mauss’ idea of totality,and emphasized that : “it is only in rela-tion to the totality thus reconstructed that the ideol-ogy takes on its true sociological significance.”This book is also remarked on as one of the best studies for understanding other societies based on this society’s social theory. Another book by him, Essays on Individualism,is praised as presenting an anthropological way of rethinking the locality of western civilization and its ideology,instead of re-garding it as universal. Based on the comparative study of“western” and “eastern” civilizations, he proposes: “our problem is: how can we build a bridge between our modern ideology that separates values and ‘fact’ and other ideologies that embed values in their world view?”His most famous and important concept is“hierarchy”,which he believes is the key to under-standing the Indian caste system and Indian socie-ty. He emphasizes that hierarchy cannot be ex-plained by the western idea of class or social strati-fication. He defines hierarchy as a concept derived from traditional Hindu theory,as “the principle by which the elements of a whole are ranked in rela-tion to the whole.” Hierarchy,with the caste sys-tem as its social form, is underlined by the Hindu opposition between pure and impure. Dumont high-lights this opposition as a “Synthetic a priori”op-position which follow such a principle:“the whole is founded on the necessary and hierarchical coex-istence of the two opposites.”This principle leads us into “a purely structural universe: it is the whole which governs the parts, and this whole is very rigorously conceived as based on an opposi-tion.” Then, the binary structure becomes that which encompasses the contrary. As Dumont says:“the elements belong to the set, and are, in this sense, consubstantial or identical with it. At the same time,the elements are distinct from the set or stand in opposition to it.”This is what Dumont means by the expression “the encompassing of the contrary”. Hierarchy and the idea of “pure” are embed-ded into every aspect of the Indian’s life world,i. e.“That is the essential‘function’ of hierarchy: it expresses the unity of such a society whist connect-ing it to what appears to it to be universal,namely a conception of the cosmic order. If one likes,hier-archy integrates the society by reference to its val-ues.”Therefore, hierarchy in India is “rendered perfectly univocal in principle”. In other words, based on the principle of hierarchy, prestige and authority are separated from the real power,which forms the ideal type of India in Max Webber’s sense. And Dumont says,“Our first task is to grasp this intellectual system,this ideology.”II: Principles of Brahman and Ksatra in the Brahmanas:the Secularized Kingship The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India is restricted to the conception of kingship as distinct from its actualities,or is an anthropological analysis on the Hindu conception of kinship as a social the-ory by examining the Hindu classics. Being abundantly documented from the Brah-manas onwards, the principles of Brahman and Ksatra express the hierarchical relationship be-tween king and priest. Dumont believes that “the Brahman being the source, or rather the womb, from which the Ksatrasprings, is superior; the brahman could exist without the ksatra, not con-versely.”In other words,the principle of Brahman represents the universal order, i. e. dharma; while the principle of Ksatra represents a practical indi-vidual interest,i. e. artha. Brahman and Ksatra are first presented as “the two forces” in Brahmanas, but they “go together, and are to be united”. Kshatriyas and Brahmans cannot prosper separate-ly,only in close association. There are two myths about Vis'vāmitra which well illustrat the relationship between Brahman and Ksatra. The first is about Kashatriya Vis'vāmitra. When he tries to appropriate themagic cow of the Brahman Vasistha,he is driven to acknowledge that brute force is powerless against the magico -reli-gious force which defends the right of the Brah-man ,and he finally decides to transform himself in-to a Brahman through austerity. The second is the legend of Satyavrata. Vasistha,the king’s chaplain, does not prevent the prince Satyavrata from being unjustly banished for twelve years,and during that time he acts as a kind of regent. No rain falls. In the end,Visvamitra places Satyavrata on the throne again in spite of the gods and of Vasistha. Both myths express the relationship between Brahman and Ksatra which is mutual but asymmetricalde-pendence. This principle forms the basic relation-ship between Hindu’s religious authority and secu-lar kingship. While presenting Hindu kingship as an excep-tional one in a comparison bearing on kingship, Dumont also analyses different types of kingship. The most common one is a magico -religious as well as a political function. The alternative ones are: the king exerts the religious functions which are generally his,and exerts,at the same time,po-litical power;or as in the Indian case,the king de-pends on the priests for priests for the religious functions. Dumont points out the common topic in the different kinds of kingship:dealing with the re-lationship between religious function and political power. In India,the king cannot be his own sacri-fice. Instead he puts a priest in front of himself, thereby,losing the hierarchical preeminence in fa-vor of the priests, and retaining for himself power only. This is how the Hindu kingship becomes sec-ular,and is what makes it unique. III. Conventional Kingship and Politics: the Realization of the Secularized Kingship Dumont also reminds us, that while the Ksa-tra,or the king,has been dispossessed of religious functions proper, or of the official religious func-tions,at the core of the idea of kingship,are the el-ementary notions of a magico-religious nature not usurped by the Brahman. In this sense,this is the necessary basis of what may be called conventional kingship as opposed to magico-religious kingship. Different from, but paralleling with, the west-ern theories of contract,the shaping of conventional kingship is actually related to the thought of indi-vidualists,i. e. ,of renouncers. As a result,in Indi-a,a domain forms which can be understood as“ra-tional politics”. There are two concepts which are essential to understanding the Hindu political do-main:danda and artha. Danda,in the proper sense is the stick, which means chastisement or punish-ment. Artha, whose meaning is close to “aiming at”,may be translated as “interest”. Dumont also compares the conception of dharma and artha. Dharma is the universal norm, hence disinterest, while artha is interest without regard to the univer-sal norm. By analyzing Arthashastra, Dumont suggests that taking danda and artha together would result in something like:“the exercise of force for the pur-suit of interest and the maintenance of order”. And he also reminds us that even the notion of“interest of force” recalls western speculations. However, it should not be forgotten that the context is funda-mentally different. Arthashastra defines the king-dom as being made up of seven limbs or natural el-ements: the master, the companions, the country, the stronghold or fortified town,the treasury,the ar-my,and the ally. Dumont points out that the order of seven elements is meaningful,and must be inter-preted as having a hierarchical value. This is the key to understanding the realization of secular Hin-du kingship. IV. Conclusion Although The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India is not a long paper,it still established the complex process of the secularization of Hindu kingship in a global and comparative perspective. In his conclusion,Dumont emphasized two main e-vents or stages. The first is the secularization of kingship laid down in the Brahman -ksatra rela-tionship. The second appeared under two forms:on the one hand in the idea of contractual kingship,on the other hand,in the theory of artha. Even though the similarities with the West are striking,Hindu kingship is still different because it did not develop an absolutely autonomous political sphere in relation to religion. By understanding In-dia with its own theory,Dumont also suggests that we try and curb the scholar’s term to India’s real-ity. As he says,“the search for meaning reveals de-velopment,the search for changes does not produce history.”In the end,Dumont further predicts the future of the anthropological theory and methodology:“the time has perhaps come when the mirror an-thropologists direct at other societies should be turned back by them on ourselves,when we should try and formulate our own institutions in compara-tive language, i. e. , a language modified by what we have learnt of different societies, however in-complete. It might well be the royal road for the ad-vancement of sociological understanding.”