The article based on longterm anthropological fieldwork in the area does not only look at Bamra as a rather successful dynasty in Odishan politics but compares it with a neighbouring former princely state of Bonai. While the former is now a general seat, the latter is a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes (STs) effectively depriving the royal family of its passive voting rights. It is argued that positive discrimination significantly shaped their electoral fortunes. It led in one case to a dynasty of princely politicians, though they are increasingly competing with rising Other Backward Classes (OBCs) forming their own, though still relatively shallow dynasties. However, a few kilometers away, arguably through the shifting support of former royals in Bonai for several MLAs, no other, potentially competing political dynasty has emerged, while relatively lower STs are also claiming political representation in a competitive field, in which royal influence is still relevant.
de SouzaP. (2006). Political nomadism and the party system in India. In de SouzaP. & SridharanE. (Eds.), India’s political parties (pp. 384–401). Delhi: SAGE Publications.
7.
FrenchP. (2011, January17). The princely state of India. Analyse parliament, and a disturbing fact emerges: India is going back to monarchy. Outlook. Retrieved from https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-princely-state-of-india/269931
8.
GaonkarD. P. (2007). On cultures of democracy. Public Culture, 19(1), 1–22.
9.
GhoshS. (1978). Orissa in turmoil: A study in political developments. Calcutta: Sankha.
10.
HansenT. B. (2004). Politics as permanent performance: The production of authority in the locality. In ZavosJ., WyattA., & HewittV. (Eds.), The politics of cultural mobilization in India (pp. 19–36). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
11.
JaffrelotC. (2003). India’s silent revolution: The rise of the lower castes in North India. London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers.
12.
JaffrelotC. (2011, June). What princely democracy? The case of the Scindias. Seminar 622. Retrieved from http://www.india-seminar.com/2011/622/622_kanchan_&_wamiq.htm
13.
JenseniusF. R. (2016). A sign of backwardness? Where dynastic leaders are elected in India. In ChandraK. (Ed.), Democratic dynasties: State, party and family in contemporary Indian politics (pp. 83–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KulkeH. (1979). Jagannātha-Kult und Gajapati-Königtum: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte religiöser Legitimation hinduistischer Herrscher [Jagannath cult and Gajapati kingship. A Contribution to the History of religious legitimation of Hindu rulers (Title translated by author)]. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
15.
MadsenS. T. (2011). Ajit Singh s/o Charan Singh. In MadsenS. T., NielsenK. B., & SkodaU. (Eds.), Trysts with democracy: Political practice in South Asia (pp. 73–102). London: Anthem Press.
16.
MayerA. (1991). Rulership and divinity: The case of the modern Hindu prince and beyond. Modern South Asian Studies, 25(4), 765–790.
17.
MicheluttiL. (2007). The vernacularization of democracy: Political participation and popular politics in North India. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13(3), 639–656.
18.
PriceP. (1989). Kingly models in Indian political behaviour: Culture as a medium of history. Asian Survey, 29(6), 559–572.
19.
PriceP., & SrinivasD. (2016). Patrimonial and programmatic talking about democracy in a South Indian village. In RuudA. E. & HeierstadG. (Eds.), India’s democracies: Diversity, co-optation, resistance (pp. 79–100). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
20.
RichterW. L. (1971). Princes in Indian politics. Economic and Political Weekly, 6(9), 535–542.
21.
RichterW. L. (1978). Traditional rulers in post-traditional societies: The princes of India and Pakistan. In JeffreyR. (Ed.), People, princes and paramount power (pp. 329–354). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
22.
RichterW. L. (2014). The persistence of princely India. Exemplar: The Journal of South Asian Studies, 2(2), 1–12.
23.
RudolphL. I., & RudolphS. H. (2016). The ‘old regime’ confronts democracy. In ChandraK. (Ed.), Democratic dynasties: State, party and family in contemporary Indian politics (pp. 56–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
SahlinsM. (1999). Two or three things that I know about culture. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(3), 399–421.
25.
SahlinsM. (2013). What kinship is—And is not. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
SkodaU. (2008). Coming Out’ of the Palace: The Bamra Royal Family and the Performance of Power during the Elections 2004. In GuzyL. & SkodaU. (Eds.), Power plays: Politics, rituals and performances in South Asia (pp. 179–204). Berlin: Weissensee Verlag.
27.
SkodaU. (2011). A princely politician in an indigenized democracy: A raja and his electoral situation in rural Orissa 2004. In MadsenT S.NielsenK. B. & SkodaU. (Eds.), Trysts with democracy: Political practice in South Asia (p. 103). London: Anthem Press.
28.
TanabeA. (2007). Toward vernacular democracy: Moral society and post-postcolonial transformation in Rural Orissa/India. American Ethnologist, 34(3), 558–574.
29.
TaylorC. (2007). Cultures of democracy and citizen efficacy. Public Culture, 19(1), 117–150.
30.
WeberM. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Economy and Society]. Tübingen: Mohr.
