Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!topaz!harvard!paturi
From: paturi@harvard.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Some Ideas from India: Laws of Manu: Duties of Sudras
Message-ID: <663@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 14:21:39 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.663
Posted: Wed Jan 29 14:21:39 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 06:13:17 EST
References: <589@harvard.UUCP> <3909@think.ARPA> <653@harvard.UUCP> <46@sbcs.UUCP>
Organization: Aiken Comp Lab, Harvard
Lines: 27
Summary: A clarification

In article <46@sbcs.UUCP>, debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) writes:

> > Can any Indian deny the psychological security that he/she
> > enjoys by accepting some of the rules of his/her own caste?
> > 
> > 	-Ramamohan Paturi
> > 	paturi@harvard.HARVARD.EDU.ARPA
> 
> Yes.  Several.

	It would be nice if this "several" is large and growing.


> [ Also, I notice in the sentence quoted above an implicit assumption
>   that Indian <==> Hindu ... I find that disturbing. ]

	I guess Saumya Debray got it wrong. The implicit assumption is that all
	Indians irresepctive of their religion are bound by the rules 
	derived from their group which is based on all such factors like 
	religion, ethnicity, language, caste (only for Hindus), geography, etc. 
	(In that particular sentence, I used the word caste in a broader sense.)
	I recognize that some groups (for example, Moslems) have a larger 
	degree of homogeneity.


	-Ramamohan
	paturi@harvard