 |
M.N. Srinivas’s Concept of Sanskritisation and its Critical Evaluation |
M.N. Srinivas’s Concept of Sanskritisation and its Critical Evaluation
Lecture Prepared by
Dr Anil Kumar
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Patna Women’s College, Autonomous
Brief Biography of the Author M.N. Srinivas
Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (16 November 1916 – 30 November 1999)
born in a Brahmin family in Mysore, Karnataka. He is popularly known as M.N. Srinivas.
He was a pioneering Indian sociologist and anthropologist renowned for his influential theories on caste and social change. Educated in Mysore, Bombay, and Oxford, Srinivas combined rigorous academic training with immersive fieldwork to study Indian society from within.
His most notable contributions include the concepts of Sanskritization—the process by which so-called “lower castes” emulate (imitate) the practices of higher castes, especially the Brahmin, to elevate or rise their social status—and dominant caste, referring to castes with numerical strength, economic resources, and political clout (power) in a given region.
Srinivas emphasised the importance of ethnographic fieldwork, advocating for participant observation to grasp the lived realities of Indian communities.
He held key academic positions at the University of Delhi and, University of Baroda, and founded the Institute of Social and Economic Change in Bangalore.
Meaning of Brahmanisation and Sanskritisation
M. N. Srinivas, in his study of the Coorg in Karnataka, found that some “lower castes,” in order to raise their social position in the caste hierarchy, adopted some customs and practices of Brahmins, and gave up some of their own. They imitated Brahmins in matters of dress, food and rituals.
For M. N. Srinivas, they started imitating the Brahmin way of living in all possible ways. By doing this, within a generation or so, they could claim higher positions in the hierarchy of castes. In the beginning, M. N. Srinivas used the term “Brahminisation.” Thus, the term “Brahminisation” denotes the imitation of the Brahmin way of life.
He uses the term Brahmanization in his book “Religion and Society Among Coorgs” (1952).
M.N. Srinivas got criticised from various corners of society for using the term Brahmanisation, because it denoted the caste identity, and he was trying to establish his caste hegemony.
Later on, he used the term Sanskritization for the same process. However, he broadened the reference group to whom people were imitating, and called it Sanskritization.
Brahmanization vs Sanskritization
(1) Narrow vs Broder
Sanskritization is a broader process which includes the narrower process of Brahmanization in itself.
(2) Reference Group
In the Brahmanization process, the reference group was only the Brahmins. However, in the Sanskritization process, the reference group can be anyone who is the “Dominant Caste”. Here, by the dominant caste, he always means the Brahmin Caste plus other dominant castes. Thus, the Brahmin Caste were also present in his idea of the dominant caste.
#ORIGIN-OF-THE-TERM
DOMINANT #CASTE
The concept of "dominant caste" emerged from Srinivas's ethnographic study of Rampura village in Karnataka (formerly Mysore State) in 1948. His essay, based on this ethographic study, was first published as "The Social System of a Mysore Village," as part of the book “Village India: Studies in the Little Community” (1955, the American Anthropological Association), Edited by McKim Marriott. This essay was later published as part of his book The “Remembered Village” (1978, Oxford University Press). McKim Marriott (February 1, 1924 – July 3, 2024) was an American anthropologist.
#HIGHER-STUDY
“Village India: Studies in the Little Community” (1955, Edited by McKim Marriott). https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.29729
Dominant Caste: Meaning and Features
What Is a Dominant Caste in India?
A dominant caste is a group that holds strong power and influence in a particular village or region—not necessarily the highest in ritual status, but powerful in other ways.
In the Indian caste system, a dominant caste refers to a group that holds substantial numerical strength, economic resources, and political influence within a particular village or region. These castes may not be at the top of the ritual hierarchy—such as Brahmins—but they often surpass other castes in terms of land ownership, wealth, and control over local governance. Their large population allows for collective action, while their economic power—especially through land—gives them leverage in shaping local markets and employment. Politically, dominant castes often influence elections, policy decisions, and access to public services. Socially, their status is reinforced by their ability to set norms and expectations, even if they are not ritually superior. The concept was formalised by sociologist M.N. Srinivas, who emphasised that numerical strength, economic dominance, and political control are key factors in identifying a dominant caste. These castes play a crucial role in shaping rural society.
Key Features of Dominant Castes
I have identified these key features of the domonenet caste. Points 3rd and 4th are added by me.
1. Large Population (Numerical Strength): They have more members in the particular area, which helps them organise and assert influence in society.
2. Economic Control: They usually own a lot of land, resources, or businesses, giving them financial power in society.
3. Education: Because of good financial stats, they have more literacy in their society
4. Government Jobs: Because of more literature, people are normally overrepresented in Government jobs. Government jobs not only provide financial stability, but they also confer (special right or advantage) state power.
5. Political Power: They often play a major role in local politics, elections, and decision-making through their social networks of educated people, people in government jobs, and wealth.
6. Social Influence: Even if they aren’t at the top of the ritual caste hierarchy (like Brahmins), their economic and political strength gives them high social status.
Analysis of the Process of Sanskritization
(1) Sanskritization is a process of imitation. Subjects of Imitations are:
(1.1) Rituals
(1.2) Marriage Customs
(1.3) Treatment of Women
(1.4) Food Habit
(1.5) Dressing Habit
(1.6) Name Giving Ceremony to the Newborn Child
(1.7) Ideological Values, Such as: Karma, Dharma, Pap, Moksh, Atma, Parmatma, etc.
(2) Sanskritization Process Indicates the Upward Mobility
(3) Pre-Conditions of Sanskritisation
(4) This process is not only found among Hindus but also among the “Tribes”
(5) Sanskritization works as a reference group, to which other castes imitate
(6) This does not take place in the same manner all over India
(7) Some castes are powerful in terms of Economy and Politics. But their claim was not accepted by the higher caste after the process of Sanskritization.
(8) Economic betterment is not necessary for the Sanskritization
(9) It only indicates positional change, not the structural change.
(10) After Snaskritization, the group can not claim to be part of the upper strata. It takes generations to be part of the upper strata.
(11)The Sanskritization process reduces the gap between the ritual and secular ranking.
(12) Sanskritization is a kind of protest against the traditional caste system.
(13) The Sanskritization process does not change the Basic Structure of the Hindu Social Order.
Sanskritization: Some Critical Comments
“The terms themselves seem to be misleading” - J. F. Stall
“It is an extremely complex and heterogeneous concept” - M. N. Srinivas
“Fail to lead to a consistent theory of cultural change,” and “Did not have any pan-India pattern” - Yogendra Singh
“We can not establish that the process of Sanskritization always takes place by replacing or removing the non-Sanskritic rituals” - MacKim Marriot
“Not a universal process.” - D. N. Majumdar
The above criticism is itself explanatory. No historical evidence shows that any caste becomes superior by imitating the culture and ritual of any community or communities. The caste status in society does not depend only on your claim but also on how others treat you. Others will not treat you as having a higher rank or status simply because of your culture or rituals.
His initial idea of Brahmanisation, and later Sanskritisation, is highly casteist and racist, and it can not be accepted in any civilised society.
#THOUGHT-OF-ANIL
Culture and rituals are not solely deterministic factors; rather, they serve as reflectors. Imitation, however, is not a true reflection—it is not a shadow of one’s status. Instead, it represents a form of false consciousness.
If we borrow the ideas of Dialectical Materialism from a German Philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), from his Book "The Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline" (1817) and German Philosopher Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 - March 14, 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) and their book "The Communist Manifesto" (First Published 21 February 1848), and Karl Marx "Das Capital" then we can come to conclusion that it is material condition and idea generated by it are determinign the class and status in society.
For more clarity, we can add the idea of "Class, Status, and Party" (Published Posthumously in 1922) by Maximilian Carl Emil Weber (1864 - 1920), and the"Idea of Hegemony" by Italian Marxist Philosopher Antonio Francesco Gramsci (1891-1937) in his "Prison Notebooks" (First Published Posthumously in Italian in 1947).
#INFORMATIVE-NOTE
Hegel believed that ideas, particularly through a dialectical process, play a crucial role in shaping and changing society.
The full name of "Das Kapital" is "Capital: A Critique of Political Economy". The first volume was published in September 1867 in Hamburg, Germany. The second and third volumes were published posthumously in 1885 and 1894, respectively, edited by Friedrich Engels.
While Marx didn't explicitly write an article or book solely dedicated to "dialectical materialism," he developed the concept throughout his works, most notably in "Das Kapital". He engaged with the idea of dialectics, initially developed by Hegel, and reinterpreted it through a materialist lens, emphasising the material conditions of society and their influence on historical development. Engels, in collaboration with Marx, further elaborated on this concept in "Anti-Dühring" (1877).
#HIGHER-STUDY
Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks (1929-1935)
The Intellectuals, by Antonio Gramsci, 1949
Anti-Dühring (1877)
Marxist Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Hegel's Dialectical Process in Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences
How to see the process of imitation?
While I was pursuing my Master's, I disagreed that any person or society imitates the caste or even the rituals. When I first taught this topic in 2014 at Raffles University, I developed my concept of imitation. For me:
People do not merely imitate the caste or community; rather, they emulate (=to try to equal or excel) the attributes and aspirations associated with power, status, and influence.
What individuals seek to replicate is not the social group per se, but the symbolic and material advantages that certain groups represent. In this sense, the true reference group is not defined by caste or community boundaries, but by the ideals of power, prestige, inspiration, and the vision of a better life.
For example, a young person from a marginalised background may not aspire to replicate the rituals or customs of an upper caste, but may instead be drawn to the lifestyle, educational achievements, or professional success that members of that group visibly possess.
Similarly, individuals may model themselves after celebrities, political leaders, or entrepreneurs—not because they share the same ethnic, racial or religious identity, or other but because these figures embody the dreams and possibilities that transcend traditional group affiliations.
This phenomenon reflects the sociological concept of reference groups—groups that individuals look to for guidance in shaping their attitudes, behaviours, and aspirations. These reference groups often represent ideals rather than realities: they are constructed around perceived success, authority, or moral leadership. In modern societies, where mobility and media exposure has expanded the range of possible identities, people increasingly align themselves with aspirational figures and symbolic roles rather than fixed social categories.
Thus, imitation is not about reproducing caste or community norms—it is about pursuing the power, position, and inspiration that those norms may symbolically represent. In this context, the reference group becomes a constellation of dreams and ambitions, guiding individuals toward imagined futures rather than inherited pasts. These facts time and again prove that M.N. Srivas formulated his idea of Brahmanisation and Sanskritisation with his casteist and prejudiced mindset. - Anil Kumar
#ABOUT and #MEANING of REFERENCE GROUP
The theory of “Reference Group” was given by the American Sociologist Herbert H. Hyman (1918-1985) in his book "The Psychology of Status", which was issued as number 269 of the Archives of Psychology by Columbia University in New York in 1942. The book explores the concept of status and its impact on individuals and social behaviour. "The Psychology of Status" is a key work in social psychology, where Hyman formally introduced the concept of reference group theory and discussed the idea of "subjective status" as a person's perception of their position relative to others. The book was reprinted in 1980 by Arno Press in New York.
#THOUGHT-OF-ANIL
In my view, M.N. Srinivas appears to have loosely adapted Herbert H. Hyman’s concept of the “reference group” with a casteist and prejudiced mindset in his formulation of Brahmanisation and Sanskritisation. —Anil Kumar
Now in detail:
While Hyman introduced the idea of reference groups to explain how individuals evaluate themselves and their social position by comparing themselves to others they aspire to emulate (=to try to equal or excel), Srinivas applied a similar logic to the Indian caste system.
In his analysis, the so-called “lower caste” groups seek upward mobility by adopting the rituals, customs, and lifestyle of the so-called “higher castes”—particularly Brahmins—thus engaging in a process he termed Sanskritisation.
This aspirational mimicry closely parallels the psychological and sociological dynamics embedded in Hyman’s reference group theory.
However, Srinivas did not explicitly acknowledge Hyman’s influence, which raises questions about the originality and theoretical grounding of his conceptual framework.
Thus, it appears that he loosely adapted Hyman’s concept, substituting the idea of the reference group first with the Brahmin Caste and later with the Dominant Caste. I have already critiqued his notion of Sanskritization above, under the heading “How to See the Process of Imitation?” My analysis of imitation aligns closely with Hyman’s theory of the reference group. —Anil Kumar
I have already mentioned that his initial idea of Brahmanisation, and later Sanskritisation, is a highly casteist and racist idea, and it can not be accepted in any civilised society.
2 Comments
Cannot imagine such dense, rich properly cited , perfectly quoted article, this is your best creation till now. Thank you for such such rich article.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your appreciation. I am doing all this for my students
ReplyDelete