The change in political landscape, customs and rituals has not altered the perception of the temple as a sacred place just as it was viewed during the Vijayanagara period. In the final chapter of the book Appadurai analyses the changes in the way the temple was administered and conflict for its control and views it in the as an example of larger changes that took place in South Asian sociopolitical history due to the colonial rule.
The Kings derived their legitimacy from the temple. The deity was seen as paradigmatic sovereign and the Kings portrayed themselves as the devotees and protectors of the temple by providing royal gifts to the temple and in return had honors bestowed upon them by the temples. They played a major role in solving the conflicts which arose over the administration of the temple. Their active participation in the running of the temple gave them the opportunity to justify their rule by invoking their close relationship with the local deity. This has parallels even today as can be seen with regards to the absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia who justify their authoritarian rule by portraying themselves as the custodians of the holy Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina. History shows us that it is quite common for rulers to attribute their authority as a divine right entrusted upon them by gods to strengthen their rule and that of their dynasty. The deity itself was seen as a divine sovereign to whom the worshippers were required to show their generosity and in return they were generously rewarded. The local day to day handlings of the temples were usually entrusted to local sectarian leaders by the King.
The establishment of British rule led to the breakdown of the well established symbiotic relationship shared by the local ruler and the deity as the British did not derive their authority from the temple. The British established separate judicial and executive branches and thus the old system of the rulers as arbiters of conflict was now no longer in vogue. The British wanted to take part in the administrative affairs of the temple as they were involved in tax collections but they were wary of taking part in conflict resolution and hence it was left for the Judiciary to decide. The Tenkalai sect was able to ward off challenge from the Vadakalai sect for the control of the temple during the British rule. But after independence the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department was able to gain a firm control over the temple overcoming the resistance put by the local Tenkalai community.
The conflict can be traced to the fact that the temple encouraged the establishment of identities in a manner which makes it impossible for conflicts to not arise. However, the temples also ensured that compromises could take place by sub-ordination of worshipers to common ritual system. The British radically changed the way that the conflict resolution of handled and this in turn led to more conflict and confusion. The tensions exist even today among the different people due to the identity issues arising from the past especially given the fact that the Tenkalai practices were far more egalitarian in comparison to the more orthodox practices adhered to by the members of the Vadakalai sect.
Appadurai mentions that the almost exclusive focus on caste by anthropologist in the past makes it very difficult to examine the complex relation shared between religion on one hand and economy and politics on the other hand. The power relations which played an extremely important role especially before the British era cannot be just attributed to the caste system as it was done by the British anthropologist. Appadurai advocates a shift from the priest centered notions which relied on purity and pollution to a more general sociological study of the worshipers. Appadurai calls for a critical examination of the change in the socio-religious sphere in South India due to the British colonial rule.