Post 13 (Husky):
Amazing clarity of thought and sense of direction.
1. Purely from psychological standpoint, do you think attachment to a Jati one is born in, can in some way contribute to sub-national pride and undermine larger nationalism? Like if one is proud of 'A' which is subset of 'B', will he not be, in many ways, less proud on 'B' itself, and conflict in some ways with 'B minus A'?
2. Very well explained the role and inter-relationships of Jati, in passing along the trade by ancestory. This can be seen all over the world throughout the history, especially in Europe. Both the urban and rural economies have followed this.
In modern world 'Training' and 'Education' drives the trade one will take up, rather than the ancestory. Clearly there is a growing decoupling happening between Jati and occupations. Economic interests will draw the common-occupationists into some new kind of order, not dependant upon one's ancestory. Therefore purely from economic forces, Jati will lose much relevance, but will contine as a social organization for some more time - especially since we can still see a strong attachment and preference towards same-Jati marriages.
On other social fronts - like the housing - Jati is again becoming irrelevant. Traditionally, both in urban and rural areas, same Jatis used to live in one designated area. Area itself was knows by that Jati. In North India, you will find muhallas named as 'Kayasth-toli', 'Ghosi-yana', 'Kumhar-muhalla' and so on. Same trade people used to live in one locality. A european may consider it seggregation, but it really was not. It was a simple and meaningful economic arrangement. In modern soceity, this arrangement has lost meaning and Jati is no more a consideration for residencial locality. Now, even though the names of localities continue to be what these were, but they have lost the meaning. Simple economic impact on social changes. (However, there can be seen seggregation of Hindus and Muslims in residencial localities, and I feel is increasing rather than decreasing. Sardar Patel's opinions on this are very relevant. He had favoured giving to the incoming Hindu/Sikh refugees the houses left behind by muslims who migranted to Pakistan, in order to reverse the trend of 'muslim muhallas' in north Indian cities. Nehru opposed this plan vehementally, and did not allow to be implemented.)
Amazing clarity of thought and sense of direction.
1. Purely from psychological standpoint, do you think attachment to a Jati one is born in, can in some way contribute to sub-national pride and undermine larger nationalism? Like if one is proud of 'A' which is subset of 'B', will he not be, in many ways, less proud on 'B' itself, and conflict in some ways with 'B minus A'?
2. Very well explained the role and inter-relationships of Jati, in passing along the trade by ancestory. This can be seen all over the world throughout the history, especially in Europe. Both the urban and rural economies have followed this.
In modern world 'Training' and 'Education' drives the trade one will take up, rather than the ancestory. Clearly there is a growing decoupling happening between Jati and occupations. Economic interests will draw the common-occupationists into some new kind of order, not dependant upon one's ancestory. Therefore purely from economic forces, Jati will lose much relevance, but will contine as a social organization for some more time - especially since we can still see a strong attachment and preference towards same-Jati marriages.
On other social fronts - like the housing - Jati is again becoming irrelevant. Traditionally, both in urban and rural areas, same Jatis used to live in one designated area. Area itself was knows by that Jati. In North India, you will find muhallas named as 'Kayasth-toli', 'Ghosi-yana', 'Kumhar-muhalla' and so on. Same trade people used to live in one locality. A european may consider it seggregation, but it really was not. It was a simple and meaningful economic arrangement. In modern soceity, this arrangement has lost meaning and Jati is no more a consideration for residencial locality. Now, even though the names of localities continue to be what these were, but they have lost the meaning. Simple economic impact on social changes. (However, there can be seen seggregation of Hindus and Muslims in residencial localities, and I feel is increasing rather than decreasing. Sardar Patel's opinions on this are very relevant. He had favoured giving to the incoming Hindu/Sikh refugees the houses left behind by muslims who migranted to Pakistan, in order to reverse the trend of 'muslim muhallas' in north Indian cities. Nehru opposed this plan vehementally, and did not allow to be implemented.)