I am somewhat mystified by the notion of cultural appropriation. As far as I know, nonmaterial cultural artifacts have historically (and probably pre-historically) passed through community boundaries almost universally in both or all directions whenever two or more communities have been in any kind of contact with one another, even through interfaces where there was very considerable hostility, or a steep power, status or wealth differential. I don't know whether this can properly be called appropriation or exploitation given that (at least prior to intellectual-property laws) the originators of these artistic, technological or other materials remained in full enjoyment of them to whatever extent they desired. In the case under discussion, Paley's version of the Ramayana takes nothing away from any of the dozens or hundreds of previous realizations of it, nor, as far as I can see, from those for whom it is part of their mother culture -- it's simply one more thing which they may find interesting or not, as they choose. We do not have a case like the Elgin Marbles, which were materially stolen from Greece by the British.

What I can't help thinking here is that the corporate project of extending intellectual property law into every nook and cranny where a dollar can be extracted by state force has now invaded the field of cultural criticism and that rather disparate and even questionable categories of people -- "races", nations, ethnic groups -- are being reified into entities that own and control things, have interests and intentions, and so on, while actual living persons and communities are being set aside. This program in general has been significantly detrimental to precisely the groups people here are concerned about, as when the same people who discovered the use of a medicinal plant are legally deprived from using it because Monsanto or the like has copyrighted its molecules.