Tambiah lays down an analytical framework to study modern ethnic conflict and collective violence. He argues that in today’s context, “ethnicity” has become the primary form of identity and the basis of calls for political action, overriding the concepts of “social class” and the “nation state” as a cause of mobilization. Although ethnic identity is determined by a multitude of factors such as language, religion, local culture, or ancestry, ethnic labels can be instrumentally constructed and manipulated based on context. Tambiah’s analysis goes deeper than simply categorizing conflicts between rival ethnicities as mere “riots” and explores the multifaceted factors that impact the way these conflicts play out. Psychological factors are particularly salient as in all riots, crowds usually serve as conduits for irrational collective violence, urging individuals to behave differently than they would in ordinary situations.

The two case studies my group was assigned were of 1915 colonial Ceylon and contemporary Nepal. The Ceylon case study focused on the tensions between Sinhala Buddhists and Muslim minorities while the Nepal case study explored the conflicts between high-caste “parbatiya” people and the indigenous ethnic minorities that dwelled in the plains including the Janajatis, the Dalits, and the Madhesis. Both case studies show that ethnic mobilization is often the result of power disparities that result in unequal social and economic opportunities. These power disparities were institutionalized by colonial structures and manipulated by political elites. Another salient feature in ethnic conflict is the role of “territory”. In Gellner’s analysis of caste, ethnicity, and inequality in Nepal, territory plays a very important role as demands for representation and autonomy were tied to specific geographic locations (the hills and the plains).

Another salient feature that I noticed in my country case studies is how ethnic rivalry can exist even within minorities that are grouped together in the center-periphery model. For instance, in the case of Nepal, the Dalits were the most excluded group, but their issues were often overlooked because of the demands from the Janajatis and the Madhesis. This shows that there’s further categorization based on power inequalities even within ethnic minorities.