As noted by Blom Hansen and Stepputat:The state not only strives to be a state for its citizen-subjects, it also strives to be a state for itself and is expected by populations, politicians, and bureaucrats to employ 'proper' languages of stateness in its practices and symbolic gestures (2001: 6). This is not a question of government being popular among its people but of producing and reproducing the specific authority of the state, based on its hegemonic location at the centre of society, through symbols and rituals. In terms of creating ethnographic sites from where states can be studied as locally grounded practices and imaginations, Blom Hansen and Stepputat point out that:One obvious, if very underdeveloped type of study is that of bureaucracy itself: its routines, its personnel and their internal cultures, gestures and codes, its mode of actual production of authority and effects by drafting of documents, uses of linguistic genres, and so on: in brief, an anthropology of the policy process that looks at it as ritual and as production of meaning rather than production of effective policies per se (Blom Hansen and Stepputat 2001: 17).