Sanskritisation

Meaning of Sanskritization

The term “Sanskritization was introduced into Indian Sociology by Prof. M.N. Srinivas. The term refers to a process whereby people of lower castes collectively they to adopt upper caste practices and beliefs, as a preliminary step to acquire higher status. Thus, it indicates a process of cultural mobility that is taking place in the traditional social system of India.

Context of the introduction of the Term “Sanskritization”

M.N. Srinivas in his study of the Coorgs in Karnataka, found that lower castes, in order to raise their position in the caste hierarchy, adopted some customs and practices of Brahmins, and gave up some of their own which were considered to be “impure” by the higher castes. For example, they gave up meat eating, drinking liquor and animal sacrifice to their deities. They imitated Brahmins in matters of dress, food and rituals. These people who started calling themselves “Amma Kodavas”, became strict vegetarians like the Brahmins, began to wear scared thread and arrange marriage from among themselves, on the model of the Brahmins. In fact, they started imitating 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” to denote this process. The term “Brahminisation” denotes the imitation of Brahmin way of life. Later on, he replaced it by Sanskritization”.

Definition of Sanskritization

M.N. Srinivas, in fact, went on broadening his definition of the term “Sanskritization” from time. to time Initially, (1962), he described it as follows.

1. Sanskritization is “the process of mobility of lower castes by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism to move in the caste hierarchy in a generation or two”– Prof. Srinivas redefined the term in 1966 in his book “Social Change in Modern India” in the following manner.

2. Sanskritization is “a process by which a low caste or a tribe or other group changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently, twice-born caste”. The second definition is much broader, for it includes some ideologies [such as “Karma”, “dharma”, “papa” (sin), “punya” “mosksha” etc.]. It is in currency now. Yogendra Singh points out that the second definition cited above is broader and more appropriate in some respects:

• (i) Firstly as per this definition, the imitating group need not be only a low caste group, it can be a tribal or any other group.
• (ii) Secondly the imitation is not restricted to mere rituals and religious practices. It also means imitation of ideologies.
• (iii) Thirdly, the Brahmins do not constitute the only model. It could be a group occupying a higher position in the hierarchy. Srinivas admits that it is the locally dominant caste which will be the model. The dominant caste could be Brahmin or Lingayats or Kshatriya or Vaisya, etc.. The criteria of dominance may be ritually higher status, education, economic strength or numerical majority

Why did he preferred the term Sanskritization is preferable to Brahminisation

• (i) Sanskritization is a broader term and it can include in itself the narrower process of Brahminisation. For instance, today, though by and large, Brahmins are vegetarians and teetotallers, some of them such as Kashmiris, Bengalis and Saraswath Brahmins eat nonvegetarian food. Had the term “Brahminisation” been used, it would have become necessary to specify which particular Brahmin group was meant.
• (ii) Further, the reference groups of sanskritization are not always Brahmins. The process of imitation need not necessarily take place on the model of Brahmins. Srinivas himself has given the example of the low castes of Mysore who adopted the way of the life of Lingayats, who are not Brahmins but who claim equality with Brahmins. The lower castes imitated not only Brahmins but also Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Jats, Shudras, etc. in different parts of the country. Hence the term Brahminisation does nor completely explain this process. M.N. Srinivas himself acknowledged this fact.

Analysis of the Process of Sanskritization

An analysis of the process of “Sanskritization” would reveal to us the following aspects.

• 1. Sanskritization as a process of imitation: “Sanskritization” denotes a process in which the lower castes try to imitate life-styles of upper castes in their attempt to raise their social status. The process seems to be associated with the role of local “dominant caste”. Though the lower castes for some time, imitated Brahmins they soon shifted it towards the local dominant caste which in most cases was a non-Brahmin dominant caste.
• 2. Sanskritization indicates the process of upward mobility. In this process, a caste is trying to raise its position in the caste hierarchy not at once, but over a period of time. It would take, sometimes, a period of one or two generations.
• 3. Sanskritization indicates only positional change. Mobility that is involved in the process of Sanskritization results only in “positional changes” for particular castes or sections of castes and need not necessarily lead to a “structural change”. It means while individual castes move up or down, the structure as such remains the same.
• 4. Sanskritization is not a new phenomenon as such. M.N. Srinivas writes: “Sanskritization has been a major process of cultural change in Indian history, and it has occurred in every part of the Indian sub-continent. It may have been more active at some periods than at others and some parts of India are more sanskritised than others; but there is no doubt that the process has been universal”
• 5. The castes which enjoyed higher economic and political power but rated relatively low in ritual ranking went after Sanskritization for they felt that their claim to a higher position was not fully effective. The three main aspects of power in the caste system are the ritual, the economic and the political ones. The possession of power in any one sphere usually leads to the acquisition of power in the other two. But Srinivas opines that inconsistencies do occur.
• 6. “Economic betterment is not a necessary pre-condition to Sanskritization, nor economic development must necessarily lead to Sanskritization. However, sometimes a group [caste, tribe] may start by acquiring, political power and this may lead to economic development and Sanskritization. Economic betterment, the acquisition of political power, education, leadership, and a desire to move up in the hierarchy, are all relevant factors in Sanskritization, and each case of Sanskritization any show all or some of these factors mixed up in different measures.”
• 7. Sanskritization is not necessarily confined to the castes within the Hindu community, it is found in tribal communities also. Example, The Bhils of Western India, the Gonds and Oraons of Middle India, and the Pahadiays of Himalayan region have come under the influence of Sanskritization. These tribal communities now claim themselves to be Hindus, for their communities represent some caste groups within the fold of Hinduism.
• 8. The process of Sanskritization serves as a “reference group”. It is through this process that a caste group tries to orient its beliefs, practices, values, attitudes and: life-style” in terms of another superior or dominant group, so that it can also get recognition. Since this term was made applicable by M.N. Srinivas even to Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra models (in addition to Brahamana model), it has greater relevance to function as a “reference group”.
• 9. Sanskritization does not take place in the same manner in all the places. Studies have revealed that in most of the castes the lower castes tend to imitate the upper castes particularly the. Kshatriya and Brahmin castes. There are instances of upper castes imitating some of the practices of lower castes and sometimes of even tribal groups. For example, a Brahmin may make a blood sacrifice to one of the local deities through the medium of a non-Brahmin friend. The Muslim cultural ways have imposed some limitations in the imitation process of some upper and lower castes. This is very much in evidence in Punjab. Thus, it can be generalised that Sanskritization is not a one-way process; it is a two-way process. In this process a lower caste does not always “take” from the higher caste, sometimes, it also ‘gives’ in return.
• 10. The British rule in India provides a favourable atmosphere for Sanskritization to take place. Political independence has weakened the trend towards this change. Now the emphasis is on vertical social mobility and not on the horizontal mobility. But in this process of mobility that is, Sanskritization, the basic unit remains only the group and not the individual or family.
• 11. The process of Sanskritization does not automatically results in the achievement of a higher status for the group. People will have to wait for a period of a generation or two before their claim can be accepted. Further, it may so happen that a claim can be accepted. Further, it may so happen that a claim which may not succeed in particular area or period of time, may succeed in another.
• 12. Significant developments in the realm of material culture have accelerated the process of Sanskritization. Industrialisation, occupational mobility, mass media of communication, spread of literacy, advent of Western technology, improvement in the transportation system etc., have speeded up the process of Sanskritization. Introduction of parliamentary system of democracy and universal suffrage have also contributed to the increased Sanskritization.
• 13. As M.N. Srinivas has pointed out, Sanskritization serves to reduce or remove the gap between the ritual and secular ranking. It is, indeed, one of its main functions. For example, if a caste, or its segment gains secular, that is, political power, it immediately starts imitating the so called “status-symbols” of the customs, ritual, ideals, values, life-styles, etc. of the upper caste communities. The lower caste group which successfully gets into the seat of secular power also tries to avail itself of the services of Brahmins especially at the time of observing some rituals, worshiping and offering things to the God in the centers of pilgrimage, celebrating important Hindu festivals, fixing, “muhurtham” (auspicious time for doing good work or starting new ventures) for some important occasions and programmes and so on.
• 14. Sanskritization has often been seen as a kind of protest against the traditional caste system. Sanskritization is a type of protection against the caste system in which the status is ascribed or predetermined. Lower castes which are disillusioned with their predetermined statuses and impressed with the higher statuses accorded to the upper caste, naturally desire to go up in the status hierarchy. This desire is virtually against the traditional hierarchical principle of the caste system. Making an attempt through Sanskritization to move up in the status hierarchy setting aside the hierarchical principle of caste, amounts to a protection against the caste system itself.
• 15. Sanskritization, as M.N. Srinivas himself has said, does not denote a basic change in the structure of the Hindu society. It should not be construed that through this process any kind of social change can be brought about in the casteridden society. Since membership in the caste-ridden society is based on the unchangeable factor of birth, no one can become a member of the reference group” as such. However, an individual or a group may improve his or her social position within the range of one’s own Varna group. Srinivas further observes that the process of sanskritization can only support the existing system but can never remove it. hence, the changes that are affected through Sanskritization, though cannot be neglected, have limited significance.

Sanskritization: Some Critical Comments.

Though the concept “Sanskritization” introduced by M.N. Srinivas has been regarded as a significant contribution to the social literature, it is not free from criticism. Number of comments have been levelled against the term by the scholars. Some of them may be cited here:

• 1. According to J.F. Stall, “Sanskritization as used by Srinivas and other anthropologists, is a complex concept or a class of concepts. The term itself seems to be misleading, since its relationship to the term Sanskrit is “extremely complicated”. Srinivas himself writes: “It is an extremely complex and heterogeneous concept. It should be treated as a bundle of concepts rather than as a single concept. The important thing to remember is that it is only a name for a widespread cultural process.” It could be said that in view of the looseness of the concept, it fails to lead to any consistent theory of social change.
• 2. Yogendra Singh comments: Though “Sanskritization and Westernisation, in logical sense, are “Truth asserting” concepts, they “fail to lead to a consistent theory of cultural change. Such consistency is far from realisation……” In Zetterberg’s words, the concepts “Cannot be true or false. They can be clumsy or elegant, appropriate or inappropriate, effective or worthless but never true or false.”
• 3. Yogendra Singh points out that Sanskritization did not have any panIndian pattern. He states: “Neither in respect of the sources for cultural emulation nor in regard to the pattern and direction of emulation of cultural forms, has there been a universal Indian character.”
• 4. Yogendra Singh also opines that “Sanskritization fails to account for many aspects of cultural change in the past and contemporary India as it neglects the non-Sanskritic traditions”. Observing the truism of Yogendra Singh’s comments in one of his studies in a village, Mackim Marriot observes that, we cannot establish that the process of sanskritization always takes place by replacing or removing the non-Sanskritic rituals. “Sanskritic rites are often added on to non-Sanskrit rites without replacing them”
• 5. It is also commented that much against the assumption of M.N. Srinivas, the “Sanskritic influence has not been universal to all parts of the country. In most of northern India, especially in Punjab, it was the Islamic tradition which provided a basis for cultural imitation.” In Punjab, writes Chanana, “Culturally Sanskritic influence has been one of the trends, and at times, it could not have been the main trend. For a few centuries, until the third quarter of the 19th century, Persian influence had been the dominating one in this area”- (as quoted by Prof. Yogendra Singh)
• 6. Dr. D.N. Majumdar comments that it is wrong to assume the process of Sanskritization as a universal process observed throughout India. In his study of Mohana, village in Uttar Pradesh, he observed a strong exception to this assumption. In this village, as he noticed, the lower caste people do not have any urge or inclination to imitate the “life-styles” of Brahmins or any other dominant higher caste of that region. If a cobbler wears Tilak (or Vibhuti), dhoti and the sacred thread and follows some of the customs of higher castes, nobody recognises him as an upper caste man. “If Sanskritization is really a universal process, where exactly does it stop and why?…” Dr. Majumdar questions.
• 7. M.N. Srinivas has been changing the definition of the term “Sanskritization” from time to time and this adds to the problem of understanding its meaning and range of operations in clear terms. First, Dr. Srinivas used the term to mean Brhminisation. Later on, he extended its meaning. He used it to mean a process in which a lower caste, a tribal group or any other group attempts to imitate the “life-styles” of a locally dominant upper caste, mostly a twice-born caste. As per his recent interpretation, the process includes the imitation of ideas, values and ideologies. Here also it becomes difficult to ascertain the real meaning of the term “ideology”.
• 8. When we try to interpret certain changes that have taken place in the field of social mobility in the light of Sanskritization, we face certain paradoxes. According to Dr. Srinivas, political and economic forces are normally favourable for Sanskritization but the “policy of reservation” a politicoconstitutional attempt to elevate the status of lower castes and backward class people, presents here a different picture. Theoretically, the policy of reservation must be supportive of Sanskritization. But paradoxically, it goes, against it. Those who avail themselves of the “reservation” benefits have developed a vested interest in calling themselves “dalits” or “scheduled caste” people. They want to enjoy the benefits of “reservation” permanently.
• 9. “As suggested by Harold A. Gould, often the motive force behind Sanskritization is not of cultural imitations per se but an expression of challenge and revolt against the socio-economic deprivations.” Yogendra Singh writes: “Sanskritization is thus a cultural camouflage for latent interclass and intercaste competition for economic and social power, typical of a traditional bound society where traditionally the privileged upper castes hold monopoly over power and social status. When the impact of the external forces like political democratisation, land reforms and other social reforms break this monopoly of the upper castes, the cultural camouflage of Sanskritization is thrown away, in favour of an open conflict with the privileged classes based on nativistic solidarity.”

MODELS OF SANKRITIZATION

Introduction

Sanskritization follows Varna models. The reference groups may be Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas or Sudras. In the process of sanskritization, the objectives of the lower castes or tribes involved are to give manifestation to their new identity in respect of social status and power. The customs, manners, lifestyles of the higher castes are imitated as means to end. Thus the models of Sanskritization may be the Brahmin model (priestly model), the Kshatriya model (kingly model), the Vaisya model (trader model), or the Sudra model (worker model)

A careful observation of this process would reveal some of its pre-conditions.

• The imitated caste is normally regarded as superior to the imitating caste in ritual status, economic matters, respectability and social prestige.
• Castes taking part in the process of sanskritization must have the will to increase its social status at least by imitating the upper castes.
• Imitating caste must have close socio-cultural contacts with the imitated castes.
• Those castes which are taking part in this process must be prepared to consider the upper caste their “reference group “.

Brahmin model of Sanskritization

The Brahmin model reveals how the lower groups emulate the way of life of Brahmin Varna. The process involves adoption of vegetarian or a less defiling diet, teetotalism, giving up of defiling occupations, prohibition of widow remarriages as gestures of purification, adoption of marriage code of Brahmin, Sanskrit rituals, hiring the services of Brahmin priests, attaching more and more importance to sons as a matter of significance given to patrilineage and drink to ancestors.

The lower castes started imitating some of the aspects Brahminic way of life of which the following may be noted:

(i) Rituals: Some of the “low” caste Hindus imitated the rituals of the Brahmins, such as their ways of observing festivals, chanting Vedic mantras, visiting the places of pilgrimage, fixing marriages on the “advice” of the “purohits” and giving away the daughter as “Kanyadana” in marriage, and so on.
(ii) Marriage: The practice of pre-puberty marriage was common among the Brahmins sometime ago. Marriage then was regarded as an indissoluble bond and widow-marriage was not allowed. The very presence of the widow was considered a bad omen. Though such practices were not there among lower castes, they started imitating the same on the model of the Brahmins.
(iii) Treatment of Women : Women among the high castes were assigned only a secondary position due to puranic beliefs and restrictions imposed by the Dharmasastras. Especially among Brahmins, women were considered to be polluting during menstruation and child birth and were expected to be subservient to their men folk in all respects. Though the low castes had given comparatively better freedom to their women folk, their imitation of “Brahmin model” made them to give harsh treatment and very low status to their women.
(iv) Food Habits and Dress Habits: Brahmins have been vegetarians and teetotallers since a long time. Some of the low castes imitated the food habits of the Brahmins and preferred to remain vegetarians and even gave up drinking alcohol. Some low castes also imitated Brahmin dress style such as wearing shalya, turban [or rumal], kachche panche, kachche sari and so on.
(v) System of Giving Names to New Born Ones: Many of the low castes started giving names to new born members on the model of the Brahmins. For example, in place of the little traditions and typical names, giving traditional names such as Parameshwara, Ramkrishna, Shankara, Madhava, Eshwara, Gowri, Parvathi, Saraswathi, Lakshimi, Rukmini and so on.
(vi) Imitation of Ideologies and Values: In their attempts to rise up in the social hierarchy the low caste people started using in their daily conversation and ideological concepts members on the model the Brahmins. For example, in place of the traditional and typical names such as- Karma, Dharma, Papa, Punya, Maya, Sansara, Paramatma, etc. which are found in Sanskrit literature.

For example, the Lingayats of Karnataka belonged to different castes before they embraced Saivism. After accepting Saivism they adopted the customs of Brahmins. Likewise, the Smiths of South India who call themselves as Viswha Brahmins today have adopted the Brahminic way of life. The Koris of Eastern Uttar Pradesh were originally non-Brahmins. However, the Brahmins whom the Koris served loyally recognised the latter as Brahmins. Once the Koris got recognition as Brahmins, they acquired the customs and social practices of Brahmins. Now they refuse to accept even water from the Brahmins, considering themselves purer than the Brahmins.

Kshatriya model of Sanskritization

The Kshatriya model of Sanskritization reveals how the lower groups emulate the Kshatriya way of life. The lower groups give up widow remarriages, put on scared thread, worship Vedic deities, perform Vedic rituals or change their surnames, adopt dress, customs, and values similar to those of Kshatriyas. The Kshatriyas go by different names and have different styles of life in different parts of India. So, the lower groups emulate the way of life the Kshatriya in their locality.

For example, the Gulzars or Marathas of Maharashtra were Sudras. Sivaji belonged to this caste. As Sivaji came to power he went through a religious rite of transition into Kahatriyahood. Along with Shivaji the remaining Gulzars or Marathas became Kshatriyas. Since then adopted Kshatriyas way of life. The Kayasthas of Uttar Pradesh served as scribes to Moghuls and British rulers. They were a low caste in the twelfth century but by the nineteenth century they became Kshatriyas. But Kayasthas in West Bengal remain to be Sudras. To cite another example the Khatris in Punjab were Sudras. They patronised the local Brahmins. As recipients of benefits, the Brahmins conceded to the claim of the Khatris to the status of Kshatriyas .In Medieval South India, certain families of Maravars in Tamil Nadu acquired wealth by serving the rulers. All such families formed as a group and started practicing endogamy and separate identity and higher rank i.e. Kshatriya. The Noniyas of Eastern Uttar Pradesh were salt makes and earth moves their status was low, just above untouchables. In the second half of the nineteenth century and during the Second World War some of them made money as contractors on government roads, bridges, and public works. They found an organisation and imitated the way of life of Kshatriyas. They labelled themselves as Chouhan Rajputs. However, in the caste hierarchy they ranked firmly among the upper castes in the Sudra category. In the mid 1950s, they were served by Brahmin priests; their goddess was treated as vegetarian, no longer offered animal sacrifices, they kept their brides in purdah (seclusion) and they wear scared thread. They acquired Kshatriya status.

Vaisya model of Sanskritization

The Vaisya model is also to Brahminic model in so far as rituals and food habits are concerned, but it is broadly oriented to commercial activities. The Vaisya model reveals how the lower groups emulate the way of life of the Vaisyas who go by different names in different parts of India. The Telis of Orissa, who are a low caste engaged in oil extraction, have insisted that they were really Vaisyas where trade was halted by external circumstances. Therefore, they had to take to oil work. They have today taken in diverse trades, to be on par with other Vaisya.

There is another example the Kanbis of Gujarat were peasant cultivators. In 1931, they officially changed their caste name to the more honorific Patidars and emulated the way of life of the dominant caster of Rajput. As times changed Vaisyas became the dominant caste in Gujarat. As a result Patidars emulated the way of life of the dominant caste of Vaisyas. Today they rank themselves with the Vaisyas.

Sudra model of sanskritization

The Sudra model shows low the low castes in social hierarchy imitate the way of life of Sudras. The castes that imitate the way of life of the Sudras the untouchables. The imitating castes adopt less defiling food habits, less defiling occupations, adoption of Vedic rituals at the time of marriage, construction of temples for Sanskritic deities in their localities, keeping the bodies clean by taking daily baths, utterance of Sanskritic words like Ram , Namaste , Pap, Punya, Karma, keeping the house and its surroundings clean, making daily visits to the temples, observance of fasts as Sudra castes do and prohibition of widow marriages.

For example, the laundry men of Western Uttar Pradesh emulated the way of life of Sudras. They are now Sudras. Their counterparts in Eastern Uttar Pradesh are still untouchables likewise. The Bhangis in Delhi were untouchables. Almost fifty years ago, they adopted vegetable selling, teetotalism(alcohol banning), vegetarian foods, sacred thread, Vedic rituals, festivals like Deppavali, Ram Navami and Dassarah on lines similar to those performed by higher castes and construction of Ram and Hanuman temples in their own colonies. Now they claim the status of Sudra.