^{© 2000-2007 Alin Dosoftei. All rights reserved.}

The Romani people, as a result of the new diasporic context, crystallized in the 11^th-12^th centuries in Anatolia, reorganizing their identity, with a focus on the basics, fundamentals, as expressed by the meaning of the ethnic names: Rom (“married person”)/Chhavo (“unmarried person”), Kalo (“black”), Manush (“human being”). Thus it appeared the Romani social organization, way of life (Romanipen, Romaniya, probably also other names, depending on the dialects), with a set of purity rules that supported the coherence of those fundamentals’ expression among people with different ways of life.

In the 13th century, most of them (probably because of the Mongol invasions) emigrated in the Balkan Peninsula. Arrived in Europe, they remained in the area of the Balkans, comprising until nowadays the biggest part of the World's Romani population, while also comprising a sizable part of the local population. Some branches went further into Central and Western Europe in the 15th century. As it was not possible to maintain the communication between all the Romani branches across Europe, local groups evolved separately. Hence the unevenness in choosing a main ethnic name from those used initially by the ancestors: Manush ("human being" in Romani) by those from the area of the contemporary France, Kale ("blacks") by different groups from the Iberian Peninsula, from Northen Wales, from Finland (spelled there Kaale), Rom ("married person")/Chhavo (“unmarried person”) by those form Southeastern Europe, Hungary, Slovakia and Western Turkey. Also in Hungarian-speaking areas of the Carpathian Basin a group has the name Romungre ("Hungarian Roma"), while those from the Great Britain name themselves Romnichal (probably from "son of a Romni"). Those who arrived in the area of contemporary Germany have the name Sinti (probably a word of European origin).

Furthermore, those living in Southeastern Europe, as they specialized in different economic niches and as the increasing number determined different social positions for different groups, they saw the reappearance of the Desi specific caste system. The meaningful framework of the Romani way of life became only the group of Roma someone was born into, group with specific organization and traditions. The names of the castes are European, proving that they did not exist when Roma arrived in Europe.

There can be distinguished two patterns of caste names: those from the Balkans south of Danube and those from the former states of Wallachia and Moldavia (now parts of Romania). Usually, in the latter case, the names are words of professions borrowed from the Romanian language: Arjintari (“silver-craftsmen”), Kǎldǎrari ("cauldron-craftsmen"), Florari (“Flower-sellers”), Churari ("sieve-craftsmen"), Lǎutari ("singers"), Lingurari ("spoon-craftsmen") and many others. In the Balkans, south of Danube, the origins of the caste names are more varied. For example, the name of the Arli (in former Yugoslavia) or Erli/Yerli in Bulgaria comes from Turkish yerli, meaning "native", opposite to the name of other group, the Gurbeti, from Turkish gurbetçi - "foreigner", "wanderer", pointing out the differences between the Roma settled long before in a specific area and the newcomers. Or the Fichiri (from Turkish fikirli – “intelligent”), the Dallipide (the descendants of Dallipis), the Ashkali (“charcoal-makers” in Albanian).

Those living in the rest of Europe did not undergo this separation in castes probably because they were few and remained a small part of the local population.

On the other hand, in the area of contemporary Romania (which comprised by the half of the 19^th century about half of the entire Romani population), as a result of the ordeal of the slavery system (14^th - 19^th centuries), saw important disparities between the castes , it developed a continuum of many other approaches, ranging from old and well established castes enforcing a community organization, to Romani communities who could maintain more or less an internal coherence, then to crushed communities where Roma lived as individuals and then to Roma living outside any community among non-Roma. There, the nomenclature is originally from the Romanian language, although it has no connection with the Romanian people (most of them, in fact, have no idea about the Romani divisions, usually they see all Romani groups falling into the category Gypsy, or the modern politically-correct Rom). It just points out the place where this new-old pattern reappeared. The correspondent of jati (caste) is nyamo (from Romanian neam - relative, nation, breed) or natsiya (from Romanian naţie - nation, human community) and of the gotra (clan) is vitsa (from Romanian viţǎ - vine, descent, stock). Those who speak only Romanian use the Romanian words neam and clan. Together with the caste names, although originally from Romanian, these words have no connection with the way the non-Roma perceive them. They only express the manner the group see itself as a part of the broad society.

The system was extended to other Romani groups that subsequently were included in the area of the contemporary Romania. For example, the group of Xoraxane Roma, who lived in parts of the Ottoman Empire, later integrated in the modern state of Romania: they had to switch from nominal Islam to nominal Christianity to be accepted by the non-Roma, while they adopted the name Spoitori (“tinsmiths”, in Romanian) for self-identification among the local Romani castes. The other way of Romani migration (from Romania abroad, after the abolition of slavery) increased the number of castes in the Balkans, involved more or less in a caste system Romani branches from the rest of Europe, also expanded it to territories where Roma didn't live before (Americas, Australia...).

As, until now, most of the ethnographic studies about Roma were done trying to fit the Western perception of a social life, the internal Romani divisions are quite unknown by the others. Sometimes they were taken into account as tribes, cultural variations and other denominations that do not cater for the fact that the reason for their existence is that they perceive themselves just as a part of the society. Tribes are people that consider themselves as a complete, whole society. Sometimes, the Romani castes are compared to the guilds from pre-modern societies. However it should be noted that such guilds were associations of persons practicing the same profession, focused on the organizing the production of the handicrafts and their sale. The Romani organization in castes is much more comprehensive, it organizes the social life of a group of people who have (or had at the moment of their crystallization) a certain particularity as a part of the local society. It has a broad cultural meaning, it is not restricted only to economic issues. Romani castes like the Fichiri (“intelligents”), Machvaya (those who crystallized in the town of Machva), the Arliya (the “natives”) would have no meaningful place in a guild system. The cultural emphasis appears evident when the initial conditions that created the caste disappear, but the structure of caste remains, adapted to the new situation. On the contrary, the initial conditions may remain valid, but the emergence of cultural differences may bring changes. For example, the Machvaya, separated probably from the Kalderash, they evolved into a new caste, with some cultural differences. Similar features have the other Desi castes, they are not tantamount to a guild.

The Romani groups, while living for centuries side by side in the same local society, they maintain a strict distinction between themselves, with socialization and marriage occurring mostly inside the group. The same as other Desi jatis, they respect some means for enforcing the cohesion, like eating together with people from the same caste, drinking without touching the rim of the vessel, shunning those who do not respect the rules.

The naming of the Romani groups with the English name "caste” must come also with an explanation for many non-Desi who consider it tantamount only to the varn classification (as stated in the popularization books about Hinduism). The Vedic classification in four varnas developed later into thousands of jatis, which are the meaningful item of the contemporary caste system. The continuity between the varnas of the Vedas and the jatis was maintained by the Brahmins when assigning a varn to every new jati. The Romani caste system (the same as some castes in South India) does not even have the varn classification, since the popular evolution of the jatis was not supervized by a brahminical authority. Here it must be said also that it depends on the way there are envisaged the relations between the new groups that appear after splittings, for example, if there are still possible marriages between them, in order to clarify if they are different jatis or sub-groups of the same jati. In such cases there may appear many degrees and nuances of differences.

The reappearance and the evolution of the jati system among Roma as a minority outside the Indian Subcontinent determined also some other specific features. The caste names, using words from the official languages of the specific area show the manner the Romani groups consider themselves as a part of the society. But the relation usually remains "freezed" at this theoretical level, it does not go further into formal recognition. Here it is worthy to remember also that the broad society does not have a Desi core that would permit the understanding of this cultural feature.

The result is that, although the Romani castes are an informal reality, it did not happen the formal passage from Roma as all members of one group to Roma as members of smaller groups/jatis. Hence the fact that most Romani jatis don't recognize each other and they tend to dispute that other castes besides the personal one are indeed Roma. Those from the personal caste are considered "chache Roma" (true Roma), "amare Roma" (our Roma), "sinyake Roma" (Roma of the table, i.e. those with whom it is appropriate to eat together). The others are not considered following the true Romani traditions. The code of conduct of a caste member (Romanipen, Romaniya), as the name suggests, is centered on the idea that the group is following the true Romani traditions, but in the same time it settles the life only of a specific caste. It aims to keep both the purity rules concerning the fundamental Romani identity and those concerning the social specialization of the respective caste. In practice, the two sets of purity rules combine, and their joint observance or lack of observance is understood as the state of baxt (auspicious state) or bibaxt (inauspicious). The fact that until now the castes, scattered among non-Roma, managed to live without a formal relation reduced the acuteness of this problem. The modern necessity of political representation as a united ethnic group in the public space brings seriously to the forefront the question of who are the real Roma/Romanies.

The relations are not even among all castes, some manage to be friendly, some are neutral or even conflictive. Also the fact that many of them are scattered in different countries and continents determine that the relations between specific castes may differ from one area to another. Some groups succeeded in recognizing each other as Roma even after splittings, like the four castes that are cited in many writings about Roma: Kăldăerari (Kalderash), Churari, Lovari, Machvaya. It is worthy to note that in this case they preserve also close links, the cross-marriages are much easier to happen and they may live together and share the responsibilities of the same local community. In fact it is the same unevenness and variation as among other Desi castes, only here there is no formalization of the inter-caste relations.

Also similarly as other Desi jatis, gotras and families, the Romani ones are concerned with preserving and enhancing the prestige derived from the observance of the ritual purity, the succes in the broad society etc. Here too, the prestige and status of a jati or gotra may differ from a region to another.

Inside a jati, the social life is ruled by the notion of phralipen (brotherhood). It is appropriate and expected to name the others of the same age as phral (brother) or phen (sister) and the elders kak (uncle) or bibi (aunt). As some lost the use of Romani, they employ the similar concept with the other languages they use. Like the Kale from Spain, using the words available in Spanish: hermano (brother), hermana (sister) or tio (uncle), tia (aunt).

There is a code of conduct (Romanipen, Romaniya) that prescribes the appropriate social behaviour of the individuals. Its aim is to preserve the expression of the identity, to keep the baxt (the auspicious state). The code is enforced by the public opinion of the community which shuns the persons that disregard the social life inside it. Everyone must be careful not to fall into public shame ("lajav"). When necessary to judge a dispute, to clarify the application of a rule or other uncertainties, a group of respected and trustworthy ("pativale") Roma of the community assemble to debate and give a verdict.

The religion

There is a stereotype among non-Roma saying that we are atheists or just not interested in religion. The Christians invented a popular story about an initial church that we had, but, as it was made of food, we allegedly ate it and that is why today we have no church. The Muslims in Balkans express also a similar attitude when naming us Allahsız insanlar ("people without God", in Turkish).

Cultural misunderstanding combined with the urge to convert others to the personal views created an invisibility of the Romanipen, the Romani ways of life, from the others’ point of view.

When arriving in new territories, our ancestors showed interest in the previously unknown religions, about how they deal with the holiness. In Armenia, there were acquired the first words specific to the Christianity and later, in Anatolia and Balkans, words about Islam. On the other hand, the local people, as they didn't see any overt display of personal religion, they assumed that we do not have such thing. It seems that this less habitual situation from their point of view determined not to galvanize the usual missionary zeal of Christianity and Islam. Instead they just requested a formal acceptance of their own religion or presumed it seeing the interest of our ancestors.

As the time passed, it appeared also a popular knowledge of these religions among Roma. The responsibility for the differences between this knowledge and the idea that Roma are converted to those religions was, as usually, put on our shoulders, instead recognizing the mistake of the past and understanding that it is unjust and inhuman to urge others to accept or to imagine that others accept the personal views.

The main source of this misunderstanding was and still remains nowadays the public shaping of the concept of religion in general by the self-image of the Abrahamic religions. The public image of other religions is conceived by asking the fundamental Abrahamic questions, like who is the founder, which are the sacred texts, which is the number of gods, which is the dogma, which are the boundaries and so on. The reality is that the Dharmic religions are not fitting at all in this questionnaire. Their worldview develops around the Dharm (the underlying order in the Universe and in the Self), encompassing different areas than what is understood as religion in the Abrahamic world. Hence many aspects tend not to be considered as religion by the latter. For example, the Abrahamic classification into monotheism, polytheism and atheism becomes irrelevant, as there is not such an issue in the Dharmic religions. Consequently, when following the logic of this classification, there result self-contradicting statements that present them as monotheistic/polytheistic/atheistic/agnostic in the same time. Or the vision about the World: from the Abrahamic point of view the World is imperfect and it is necessary to follow a certain path and rules to vanquish this imperfection. From the Dharmic point of view, the World is normal as it is, it has a certain Dharm and it depends on the individuals if they can pass beyond their personal worldviews to see the reality as it is.

Another important difference comes considering the attitude towards the personal beliefs. The Abrahamic religions recognize as valid only their own understanding of religion, build precise boundaries to delimit it and discourage the knowledge of other religions. The time is understood as linear and the fulfillment of the religion will be sometime in the future, when there will be possible the complete observance of the religious prescriptions and the World will be perfect. The aim of the Dharmic religions is to help every individual to remember the Sanatan Dharm, the natural laws of the Universe. This makes possible to dispel the ignorance of the fact that the world as seen by the Ego is not the ultimate reality. It is accepted that there are possible many ways to guide a person towards such enlightenment, while the knowledge and the respect for other religions is something normal. Somebody’s religious life is considered as something unrepeatable that cannot be duplicated by following a sacred text or other person’s experience. These only help the individual in recognizing the reality. The stress is not on following a definition/dogma, the relations among Dharmic religions being much more relaxed as compared to the Abrahamic ones. Thus, the concept of conversion in or out is meaningless (in the Subcontinent, at least until the Muslim conquest).

Facing such differences, there were necessary some sui generis adjustments of image to make the Dharmic religions fit in the Abrahamic view. As the differences between them do not consist in Abrahamic type of boundaries, there were created some. Thus some were qualified as independent religions that appeared before (Buddhism, Jainism) or after (Sikhism) the encounter between the two groups of religions. The rest was amalgamated and received a neutral name, Hinduism (i.e. the religion of the Indians), a religion too often described by negating the Abrahamic tenets: it does not have a founder, it does not have an obvious dogma or a special sacred text and so on. The result may be interpreted in two opposite ways, either by disputing the existence of the boundaries because they do not cater for the relations among Dharmic religions, or by pointing to further atomization. In reality there are both differences and similarities, but they should be presented as they are, from a Dharmic point of view, in order to be accurate and auspicious.

This is a problem not yet fully addressed, that dates since the Muslim conquest of the Subcontinent. The Romani diaspora, emigrated as a result of the same historical event, arriving in Abrahamic areas, had to confront a similar situation. Our ancestors in the Subcontinent were Dharmic people, as the fundamental religious vocabulary shows. For example, in Romani, rashay (priest) comes from ṛṣi, in Sanskrit, or Devel (God) comes from Sanskrit devā. The Roma respect the purity rules followed by the Hindu high castes, codified in Manusmrti (“The Laws of Manu”), for example those from V.85, 132, 135 regarding the ritual distinction between the upper and lower parts of the human body. There may be distinguished elements of Shaivism in the use of ash for the tilak or in the transformation of the word trishul, the trident of Shiv, into describing the Christian cross (trushul).

The change of meaning from trishul to trushul is significant for what happened with the first Romani generations living in diaspora. Facing the new context of cultural and religious differences, briefly described above, they underwent an increased awareness and a serious reassessment of the identity, materialized in the emergence of the Romani worlview. The understanding and highlighting of what is essential, basic in the personal culture occurred also in the religious field. The gods having either a virtuous or a rebel status (as described in the 16^th chapter of Bhagavad Gita: devi sampad – deva quality and asuri sampad – asura quality) were considered under the concept of Devel, respectively Beng.

Devel (or colloquially Del) is the virtuous spiritual identity and every virtuous god is seen as partaking its existence. It is the same concept that appeared among other Dharmic people under different names, like Ishvar, Bhagvan, Uparvala etc, an important concept in daily life, but neglected in modern writings that popularize the Dharmic religions, because it makes no sense from the Abrahamic point of view. The Japanese notion of Kami-sama express also something similar. With the help of this concept, there was possible to assimilate any benign deity of the religions encountered by the Roma, considered as partaking the essence of Devel, like the God of Christianity or Allah of Islam.

The same for Beng, the epitome of the divinity trespassing the Dharm. Here too, at a popular level, Satan of Christianity and Sheytan of Islam were identified as Beng. And in this case also there appeared misunderstandings, because the problem of evil does not share the same terms. Beng is not considered in Abrahamic terms, as an absolute evil that must be annihilated, rather being a trickster. Its deeds are perceived as, unintentionally, having positive effects, by challenging people to find out new things. Together with the rashay (priest), Beng appears in paramicha (Romani stories) as posing apparently insurmountable problems that an intelligent Rom has to solve. At the end of the story, Beng or the rashay are defeated, because the World is not imperfect from the Romani point of view, every particular problem ultimately has a certain solution, it is useless, unimportant and uninteresting to come forward with a personal perfect vision of the World to overcome its problems. This image of Beng, as somebody playing with the rules, created in Romanian the adjective bengos describing something or somebody striking, out of the line and very interesting in the same time, which stands by itself rather than counting on a tradition. It is notable that among Romani-speaking Roma who converted in the last years to neo-Protestant religions it is used the pair Devel/Satana, probably describing better their religious view.

Outside the Subcontinent, encountering other religions, Roma followed the usual Dharmic pattern of propensity to understand and assimilate new ways to deal with the holiness. This led to the assumption by the local people that we are converted to those religions, while from the Romani point of view, the concept of conversion is not very important. If a religion is focused on choosing only one path and somebody is interested in how it works that path, then the people from such a religion tend to consider that person as a follower of that distinct religion. What if a person is interested only in the value of the path, but not in its exclusiveness, understanding that there are many other paths that deserve equal respect (since the exclusiveness proclaimed by some religious authorities exists only within the borders of that particular religion)?

This explains also how it is normal for us to combine different religions at a popular level, if more of them have a significant presence in the same territory. Like Roma in the Balkans, integrating features of Christianity and Islam, or in Transylvania (Romania), mixing Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant branches of the Christianity. Since these are Abrahamic religions, it happens that in areas like these, the non-Roma are polarized along religious lines. Every religious feature is considered as a unique identity mark that should be preserved and defended against the followers of other religions. The fact that we manage to put them together makes the others to consider that we are elusive or not serious about religion. But, if they want to see the reality as it is, they should respect our point of view, since it does not harm anyone.

Among Dharmic people it is normal to integrate in the personal outlook every new religion encountered, to visit and pay respect to shrines of different faiths, even members of one Dharmic religion may administer temples of another Dharmic religion. For example, as Gandhi remembered about the priest from the temple he used to visit in his childhood, about how he used to cite both from Hindu sacred texts and from Quran. From the beginning of the 20^th century, the Indian Subcontinent had also its share of problems caused by bringing religion into the modern crisis of identity, by using it in an attempt to patch the gaps and recreate a personal/group identity. However, this issue does not really address the religious core, there are no real debates on religious issues, only some religious items are used for other purposes.

In the background, the people continued to be preoccupied with the same problem debated for millennia, namely that the subjective perception stemming from our Ego would never truly understand and keep pace with the objective reality as it is. The cinematography, for example, offers new possibilities to explore it. The scenarios of most Indian films revolve around the perception of the others, dealing with misunderstandings, mistaken identities, with close relatives living side by side without knowing it, with different characters having similar facial features, but with different natures, who, for various reasons, appear in the same film, impersonated by the same actor.

A world of appearances seems to be the result of whatever method used by the mind to create a nomenclature of meanings from its perceptions, even if it finds reasons to justify its failures. The consequence of the relativisation of every product of the Ego, in every field, is that the fundamental interest of the Dharmic people is not what is commonly known by the others as religion (with its doctrine and daily rituals), but the objective reality (named Brahman, Nirvan), beyond the net of personal or group notions (named Maya). Usually, it is considered that Maya includes also the highly abstract Devel/Bhagwan, as long as it has attributes. To clarify the place of Devel/Bhagwan, it is compared to a bidimensional image of a tridimensional reality, as reflected in a mirror.

Since the reality is the focus of attention, it is emphasized the personal experience, every influence from other people is considered as a guidance, it does not amount to the status of a dogma. Consequently, there is no interest in converting other people, since it is pointless a conversion to reality, to something that is not the emanation of the Ego, this is something that everybody can experience by themselves. Conversions are to other’s point of view. It is accepted that there are possible many personal views and the responsibility for finding the right way is not enforced by coercion, but it is assured by the old concept of satyamev jayate (“truth alone triumphs”). The responsibility for the social stability remains in the realm of Maya and it is assured also naturally by its actors: the state authority, the family and other personal social relations. This is because it still continues the millennia long debate about the position of the human being in Brahman/Nirvan and in Maya and about the right ways to dispel the ignorance. There appeared many opinions and developments and it is acknowledged that many others exist as potentiality. What the others may consider as a world of divergent outlooks, it is just lucidity, a right vision of the reality, with long-term benefits.

There are no specific separations between something that should be loved and something that should be despised. Some non-Dharmics tend to consider that Brahman/Nirvan is the good entity and Maya is the bad entity. First of all, they are not entities, they are states of mind, everything may be perceived either through Brahman/Nirvan or through Maya. This kind of separations occurs only inside Maya. Most of the opinions respect Maya for giving us the possibility to live a civilized life and everything that distinguishes us from other animals. Hating its results for their imperfection, this would be a false aim, it would never orientate us towards Brahman/Nirvan. An empathy, a lucid vision is the natural way to bring us closer to the reality. Not the products of Maya are ultimately important, but its process, it is good to understand what is really happening. When someone understands the process, the spell of Maya disappears, it becomes obvious the difference between the mental process and the reality.

Living in diaspora, thus focused on what is fundamental in the identity, the Roma assimilated the features of the local cultures and religions, every time there were Romani interpretations, resulting something different from the original. These interpretations were always at a popular level, there are not until now official relations between Roma and local religions, because the Romanipen remained invisible from the point of view of the majority in the areas we live, there could not be found ways for communication. The exception was the Ottoman Empire, a state organized on a multi-religious basis. As the Roma were beyond any Abrahamic classification, they received a public identity simply as Roma, an indirect recognition of the Romanipen. Most usually, the result of such relations between the Romanipen and the local religions was an assumption that the Roma are converted to them and many times resulted in a nominal acceptance by Romani individuals, since from a Romani point of view the concept of conversion is not significant. These nominal acceptances are usually changed when immigrating to an area with another religion or, if there are more religions present in the same area, individuals may have formal relations with more of them.

As long as they are not assimilated themselves into the non-Romani majority, they have an independence of opinion, interpreting and assimilating everything from a Romani point of view. For example, in a Romani house it does not appear the image of Jesus on cross, because the image of dead people is bibaxtali (inauspicious). In Christian areas there are preferred images of female saints and annual pilgrimages to places dedicated to such female saints are important gatherings for the local Romani communities (for example, Sainte Paraschiva, in Jassy, Romania, or Sainte Anne de Beaupre in Quebec, Canada). The respect for such female saints becomes more understandable when considering the cult of Kali Sara from Carmague. In the annual pilgrimage in April her statue is taken out from the cellar (until recently, only Roma had access there) and immersed in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, the same as, in the Subcontinent, during the annual holiday, is immersed the goddess Kali. The position of Kali Sara in the local prevailing Catholic Church, as being tolerated but not recognized, illustrates the position of the Romani people as minority having the Romanipen invisible from the others’ point of view. Recently she was painted also in an Orthodox Church in Romania, with the same status, tolerated but not recognized. Also, in probably the only area inhabited by Roma and having a significant non-Abrahamic religion, the Andes from South America, the local goddess Pachamama, is respected as the Mother of the World (see http://www.romanothan.ro/romana/cadrujuridic/rrom/quito_d_.htm). As for the Muslim areas, there are not such local female religious images. These Romani interpretations consist mostly in selections of features where there can be recognized universal human values, usually they do not suppose an opinion about the doctrine of the local religion, these are relative from a Romani point of view. If there are differences of opinions with the local religion, they remain mostly at an anecdotal level or in the area of the paramicha (stories), like the description of the Roma not as the descendants of Abrahamic Eve, but of another woman who did not sin.

In the last decades some Romani communities or individuals converted to neo-Protestant religions. From the point of view of these religions, it is continued the “invisibility policy”, hence the Romanipen is dismissed as a mere tradition. The result is complex, a combination of dismissal or outright interpretations of aspects of Romanipen from a Christian point of view (which sometimes divide communities) and a continuity of the usual Romani interpretations from a Romani point of view, so that many times it is not very clear who is interpreting who. It is noticeable that the success of some neo-Protestant religions among Roma (especially the Pentecostals) owes much to their decentralized organization, to the autonomy of the local communities, which can be made only of Roma, with Romani pastors preaching in Romani (if the local community speaks this language, otherwise a local language).

In history, the reaction of the local religious authorities towards Roma was a lack of interest or to support and enforce the anti-Romani persecutions, when they occurred. The same issue of the cultural differences that determined the invisibility of the Romanipen had a heavy weight as in all the other aspects of the relations between the Roma and the non-Roma. In 1568, Pope Pius V ordered the expulsion of all the Roma from the domains of the Catholic Church. In Wallachia and Moldavia (parts of contemporary Romania) the Eastern Orthodox Church supported and benefited from the slavery imposed by the local leadership, by amassing as slaves an important part of the local Romani population. Later during the 2^nd World War, the Catholic Church supported political regimes that perpetrated the Holocaust, like the Ustashe Croatia. On the Muslim side, while the Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni secured the safety for the Muslims in the territories occupied by the Germans and even recruited for Waffen SS the Handschar Muslim division, he did nothing to help the Roma nominally Muslim.

Some modern opinions of Romani individuals about the Romanipen: Delia Grigore, in Rromanipen-ul (rromani dharma) şi mistica familiei and other writings, presents the Romanipen as Dharm, with a focus on the specific Dharmic patterns, like the purity rules respected by the members of a caste, the social relations inside such a group, the importance of the marriage and of the family, the role of the masculine and feminine, the importance of the concept of lajav (“shame”) and the lack of significance of the concept of bezax (“sin”), the normality of the World as it is, the understanding of the time as a continuous present. Her text is focused on the Romani terms, direct correlations with counterpart mainstream Dharmic terms are rare, while the local prevailing Abrahamic religion is named euphemistically the “classical religion”, when there are described differences from the Romanipen. Ian Hancock (in Romani "Gypsy" religion) presents features of the Romani way of life, naming the Rromanipen as "Indian-based spiritualism", saying that "it is in Hinduism that the roots of their religion are to be found". Ronald Lee (in The Rom-Vlach Gypsies and the Kris-Romani, Roma in Canada) writes that the Romanipen is Hinduism-based and that the Roma are usually only nominally included in local religions, also describes the similarities between the cult of Kali Sara and of goddess Kali.

More articles by Alin Dosoftei