Sanskritisation

Sanskritisation

The term Sanskritisation was coined by the sociologist M.N. Srinivas. It refers to the process by which a ‘low’ caste, tribe, or other group adopts the customs, rituals, beliefs, ideology, and lifestyle of a ‘high’ caste — particularly a ‘twice-born’ (dwija) caste. The goal is to improve the group’s position in the local caste hierarchy.

Sanskritisation is not limited to religion alone. Its influence spreads across language, literature, ideology, music, dance, drama, and everyday life. Although it is primarily a process within the Hindu social order, Srinivas argued that it could also be observed in sects and religious groups outside Hinduism.

Regional Variations

The operation of Sanskritisation varied across India. In regions where a highly Sanskritised caste was dominant, the entire region’s culture underwent a degree of Sanskritisation. In contrast, where non-Sanskritic castes were dominant, their influence was stronger — a process that can be called de-Sanskritisation. For example, in Punjab, Sanskritic influence was never very strong; for centuries until the late 19th century, Persian influence was the dominant cultural force.

What Drives Sanskritisation?

Srinivas noted that Sanskritisation of a group usually improves its position in the local caste hierarchy. It normally presupposes either:

• an improvement in the economic or political position of the group, or
• a higher group self-consciousness resulting from contact with a source of the ‘Great Tradition’ of Hinduism — such as a pilgrim centre, a monastery, or a proselytising sect.

However, in a highly unequal society like India, there were — and still are — obstacles to the easy adoption of higher-caste customs by lower castes. Traditionally, dominant castes punished those low castes that were audacious enough to attempt it.

The Story of Kumud Pawade

The autobiography of Kumud Pawade, a Dalit woman who became a Sanskrit teacher, illustrates the problem. As a student, she was drawn to Sanskrit perhaps because it offered a way to break into a field closed to her on grounds of both gender and caste, or because it would let her read original texts about women and Dalits. As she pursued her studies, she met with reactions ranging from surprise to hostility, from guarded acceptance to brutal rejection. She wrote: “The result is that although I try to forget my caste, it is impossible to forget. And then I remember an expression I heard somewhere: ‘What comes by birth, but can’t be cast off by dying — that is caste.’”

Criticisms of Sanskritisation

The concept has been criticised on several grounds:

1. Exaggerates social mobility — It leads only to positional change for some individuals, not structural change. Inequality persists even if a few people move up.

2. Accepts upper-caste ways as superior — The ideology treats the ways of the ‘upper caste’ as naturally desirable and those of the ‘lower caste’ as inferior.

3. Justifies inequality and exclusion — It appears to legitimise beliefs in pollution and purity of groups.

4. Leads to regressive practices — Adoption of upper-caste rites and rituals often results in secluding girls and women, adopting dowry instead of bride-price, and practising caste discrimination against other groups. …