12-29-2006, 07:03 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-utepian+Dec 30 2006, 12:05 AM-->QUOTE(utepian @ Dec 30 2006, 12:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->First define what upper caste is because from what I know that means the FC's.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True - and that I think is the mistake. <b>Per me, any Tom/Dick/Harry assumes a higher position or position of power in the rural mileu based on what I already called a pseudo-social-hierarchy still based on caste.</b> For example, in this village the Landlords were OBCs really, but are above in the pecking order with Dalits but act like say Bhumihars in Bihar.
[right][snapback]62559[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with this definition is: in the Khairlanji instance, all the villagers (Dalits, Powars and Kalars) appear to be small to marginal farmers. (I am merely inferring this from the news reports, did not actually see it in the reports). No one is really a major landlord. So, one or more communities came into a position of power, not because of any economic superiority, but by their numerical majority.
Again, this is an inference: from the point of view of the powars and the kalars, the dalits are not really dalits, they are mahars, simply members of one more community in the village. Another thing, there may be a pecking order in the village, but to interpret the pecking order as an issue of caste (in the scriptural sense of varna) doesn't make sense. It is simply not an accurate reflection of reality.
True - and that I think is the mistake. <b>Per me, any Tom/Dick/Harry assumes a higher position or position of power in the rural mileu based on what I already called a pseudo-social-hierarchy still based on caste.</b> For example, in this village the Landlords were OBCs really, but are above in the pecking order with Dalits but act like say Bhumihars in Bihar.
[right][snapback]62559[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with this definition is: in the Khairlanji instance, all the villagers (Dalits, Powars and Kalars) appear to be small to marginal farmers. (I am merely inferring this from the news reports, did not actually see it in the reports). No one is really a major landlord. So, one or more communities came into a position of power, not because of any economic superiority, but by their numerical majority.
Again, this is an inference: from the point of view of the powars and the kalars, the dalits are not really dalits, they are mahars, simply members of one more community in the village. Another thing, there may be a pecking order in the village, but to interpret the pecking order as an issue of caste (in the scriptural sense of varna) doesn't make sense. It is simply not an accurate reflection of reality.