Neighbors and Networks: Dvaraka Among Cities
The network of cities inspired by Dvaraka's example had grown substantial—dozens of communities across different lands, each maintaining their own character while sharing core commitments to equity, dignity, and participation. Yet these cities were not always in agreement, and the network sometimes faced tensions that required genuine negotiation rather than simple harmony.
A dispute arose between two neighboring cities in the network—one had adopted a more democratic process for selecting leaders, while another maintained a council of elders. When the democratic city proposed that all cities in the network should adopt similar systems, the other refused. The disagreement threatened to fracture the network; some feared that without uniform governance, the shared values would be lost.
A council of representatives from various network cities convened in Dvaraka to address the dispute. Rather than impose uniformity, the discussion moved toward something more subtle: agreement on principles without requiring identical structures. The democratic city acknowledged that a council of elders, if genuinely accountable and renewed regularly, could serve similar functions to elections. The traditional city acknowledged that democratic processes could strengthen accountability. Both could be expressions of the same underlying value—that power should be shared and responsive to those affected by it.
The resolution taught the entire network something important: that diversity of practice, grounded in shared values, was actually a strength. A city facing a particular set of circumstances could learn from how another, with different circumstances, had applied similar principles. The network became not a empire of identical cities but a community of varied approaches united by commitment to certain truths about what humans deserve.
Trade between the cities flourished—not just in goods but in ideas. Young leaders traveled between cities, learning how others tackled similar problems. Scholars moved between archives, comparing how different communities had recorded their histories. Musicians and artists traveled the network, carrying songs and stories that had emerged from one city's particular genius but could move other hearts in other places.
Yet the network also maintained healthy borders. Dvaraka did not attempt to rule the others; the other cities did not attempt to impose their ways on Dvaraka. There was genuine respect for autonomy, combined with genuine commitment to mutual learning. As centuries passed and the original network expanded, this balance—between cooperation and independence, between shared values and diverse practice—became the secret of the network's endurance.