The term “Bangalee-pahari conflict” is used as a contextual term for the English “ethnic conflict.” The rhetoric of ethnic conflict or ethnic violence views ethnic identity as an immutable feature of human nature. Or, in other words, these terms create the assumption that violence along ethnic lines is “primordial” or inherent to ethnic or cultural differences. This is seriously problematic because such assumptions normalise violence. In reality, both pahari/Indigenous people and the settler Bangalees are victims of state experimentation.
Violence against women is normalised in our societies to such an extent that it is almost invisible, like the air we breathe.
The term “Bangalee-pahari conflict” is used as a contextual term for the English “ethnic conflict.” The rhetoric of ethnic conflict or ethnic violence views ethnic identity as an immutable feature of human nature. Or, in other words, these terms create the assumption that violence along ethnic lines is “primordial” or inherent to ethnic or cultural differences. This is seriously problematic because such assumptions normalise violence. In reality, both pahari/Indigenous people and the settler Bangalees are victims of state experimentation.
Violence against women is normalised in our societies to such an extent that it is almost invisible, like the air we breathe.
