There is nothing wrong with competition between the various dharmic narratives, per se. In fact it is a healthy sign. The problem arises when the Indian forms of competition are jettisoned in favor of abrahamic forms of competition which invariably revolve around the familiar lines of ethnicity, language, and "religion".
The West, ME, and other abrahamized regions also have multiple conflicting and competing narratives, yet they will reinforce each other when needed; one ideology will cede territory to the other and vice versa. They expect same the type of competition from the Indian narratives.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Caste and Territoriality by SN Balagangadhara
I would now like to speculate that one of the results of the Indian âcaste systemâ has been the creation of ethnies cutting across linguistic and territorial differences. A Brahmin is one, irrespective of where he lived or what language he spoke. âTerritorial behaviourâ, it could be said, was minimized by trans-forming the nature of interethnic relations. It is as though the aggression between such groups re-sembles not an intra-species aggression, but an inter-species one, i.e., aggression between different âcaste groupsâ took the form of aggression between members of different species.
A Brahmin and a sudra could share the same territory in the same way a dog and a cow can; a basic tolerance (or, if you prefer, indifference) coupled with overt aggressive behaviour every now and then. A very familiar example to all of us in India is the existence of shops and restaurants, all in the same street, catering to different âcaste groupsâ living in the same territory. The extraordinary signifi-cance of this will become apparent to those of you who know Europe a bit: Turkish cafes and shops in areas hardly populated by the indigenous people, Indian restaurants and shops in areas where only Indians live, etc. I am aware of the presence of all kinds of eating houses in the big shopping streets of Europe. This post-war phenomenon, which is due to the rise of the opulent middle classes in Europe, does not provide a counter-example to what I am saying. The ghetto formation along ethnic lines is a typical phenomenon of European culture and not, I submit, of Asian culture. It is difficult even in our modern day cities to come across a phenomenon so typical of, say, America: Puerto Ri-cans, Mexicans, or Hispanics generally, Blacks, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc., all have their own ghettos, territories and turf. I submit that the only thing that resembles such territories in our cultures are the cantonments â a British creation. The separate living quarters of the different âcaste groupsâ are only superficially similar to the kind of territoriality of ethnies that we are talking about.
I do not like to be misunderstood for what I have said so far and what I will be saying soon. I am nei-ther attacking nor defending the ill-understood âcaste systemâ in India. All I am saying is that, <b>in our cultures, ethnies require(d) neither linguistic nor territorial boundaries to be one. </b>Therefore, the idea that Van Den Berghe proposes could turn out to be profoundly alien to our intuitive world models. It is possible that we conceive ethnies differently, socio-biology or no socio-biology.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The West, ME, and other abrahamized regions also have multiple conflicting and competing narratives, yet they will reinforce each other when needed; one ideology will cede territory to the other and vice versa. They expect same the type of competition from the Indian narratives.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Caste and Territoriality by SN Balagangadhara
I would now like to speculate that one of the results of the Indian âcaste systemâ has been the creation of ethnies cutting across linguistic and territorial differences. A Brahmin is one, irrespective of where he lived or what language he spoke. âTerritorial behaviourâ, it could be said, was minimized by trans-forming the nature of interethnic relations. It is as though the aggression between such groups re-sembles not an intra-species aggression, but an inter-species one, i.e., aggression between different âcaste groupsâ took the form of aggression between members of different species.
A Brahmin and a sudra could share the same territory in the same way a dog and a cow can; a basic tolerance (or, if you prefer, indifference) coupled with overt aggressive behaviour every now and then. A very familiar example to all of us in India is the existence of shops and restaurants, all in the same street, catering to different âcaste groupsâ living in the same territory. The extraordinary signifi-cance of this will become apparent to those of you who know Europe a bit: Turkish cafes and shops in areas hardly populated by the indigenous people, Indian restaurants and shops in areas where only Indians live, etc. I am aware of the presence of all kinds of eating houses in the big shopping streets of Europe. This post-war phenomenon, which is due to the rise of the opulent middle classes in Europe, does not provide a counter-example to what I am saying. The ghetto formation along ethnic lines is a typical phenomenon of European culture and not, I submit, of Asian culture. It is difficult even in our modern day cities to come across a phenomenon so typical of, say, America: Puerto Ri-cans, Mexicans, or Hispanics generally, Blacks, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc., all have their own ghettos, territories and turf. I submit that the only thing that resembles such territories in our cultures are the cantonments â a British creation. The separate living quarters of the different âcaste groupsâ are only superficially similar to the kind of territoriality of ethnies that we are talking about.
I do not like to be misunderstood for what I have said so far and what I will be saying soon. I am nei-ther attacking nor defending the ill-understood âcaste systemâ in India. All I am saying is that, <b>in our cultures, ethnies require(d) neither linguistic nor territorial boundaries to be one. </b>Therefore, the idea that Van Den Berghe proposes could turn out to be profoundly alien to our intuitive world models. It is possible that we conceive ethnies differently, socio-biology or no socio-biology.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->