Which sociologist coined the term 'Sanskritisation' ? Differentiate between Sanskritisation and de-Sanskritisa

Question

Q. Which sociologist coined the term 'Sanskritisation' ? Differentiate between Sanskritisation and de-Sanskritisation.

CBSECBSE Class XII Board 2024Subjective· 4mImportance★★★★★

🔒 Locked · start free trial →

You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Concept understanding — Sanskritisation Theory

Sanskritisation: How Social Groups Move Up the Ladder

Imagine you are in a school where the "popular" kids speak a certain way, wear certain clothes, and follow certain rules. If you want to be accepted among them, you might start dressing like them, using their phrases, and adopting their habits. You are not changing who you are at the core — you are changing how you appear and what you do, so that others see you as belonging to a higher status group.

Sanskritisation works on exactly this principle, but across an entire society and over generations.

The Core Idea

Sanskritisation is the process by which a lower caste (or a tribal group) collectively adopts the customs, rituals, beliefs, and lifestyle of a higher caste — typically the Brahmins — in order to raise its social standing. The term was coined by the sociologist M. N. Srinivas, who studied this pattern extensively in Indian villages.

The name comes from "Sanskrit" — the ancient language of Hindu scriptures. The higher castes, especially Brahmins, were associated with Sanskritic traditions: vegetarianism, teetotalism, wearing the sacred thread, performing elaborate rituals, worshipping specific deities, and following strict rules about purity and pollution. A group that wanted to move up would begin to imitate these practices.

Note

Sanskritisation is not about learning the Sanskrit language. It is about adopting the cultural package that Brahmins were seen as representing — a package that commanded respect and authority in traditional Hindu society.

How It Actually Works

A lower caste group might start by:

Giving up eating meat, especially beef, and becoming vegetarian
Stopping the consumption of alcohol
Adopting Brahminical deities (like Vishnu or Shiva) and performing pujas in the Sanskritic style
Hiring Brahmins to conduct their ceremonies
Changing their caste name to something that sounds more respectable
Claiming a higher origin — for example, saying they are actually fallen Kshatriyas or Brahmins who lost status long ago

These changes do not happen overnight. They take decades, sometimes centuries. And they are never done by individuals alone — the entire jati (sub-caste) must act together, because social recognition depends on the group, not the person.

Important

Sanskritisation is a collective strategy. An individual who tries to move up alone will be ridiculed or punished. The whole community must agree to change its practices, and then present itself as a unified block to the rest of society.

Why Does It Matter?

Sanskritisation explains a puzzle: why did caste hierarchies persist for so long without violent revolution? The answer is that lower castes did not usually try to overthrow the system. Instead, they tried to climb it — by becoming more like those at the top.

This had two major consequences:

It reinforced the caste system. By accepting that Brahminical ways were superior, Sanskritising groups implicitly validated the very hierarchy that kept them down. They did not challenge the idea that some people were purer or higher than others — they just wanted to be counted among the higher ones.
It created cultural change from below. Over time, many practices that were once exclusive to Brahmins spread to other castes. Vegetarianism, for example, became far more widespread in India because lower castes adopted it as part of their upward mobility. The culture of the elite gradually became the culture of the many.

A Concrete Example

Consider a community traditionally engaged in leatherwork — a occupation considered highly polluting in the caste hierarchy. Over several generations, this community might:

Give up leatherwork and take up agriculture or trade
Stop eating meat and drinking alcohol
Begin worshipping at temples that follow Sanskritic rituals
Call themselves by a new name, perhaps one that suggests a connection to a higher caste
Start claiming that their ancestors were actually Brahmins who were forced into leatherwork by some historical misfortune …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

M. N. Srinivas coined the term 'Sanskritisation' to describe how lower castes adopt upper-caste practices to climb the social ladder; de-Sanskritisation is the reverse process, where groups reject Sanskritic traditions to assert a distinct identity.

The concept of Sanskritisation was introduced by the renowned Indian sociologist Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (often written as M. N. Srinivas) in his 1952 book Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India. Srinivas observed that lower castes, over generations, would imitate the rituals, customs, diet, and lifestyle of the dominant upper castes — particularly Brahmins — in order to improve their social standing. This was not a sudden change but a slow, often multi-generational process of cultural emulation.

Srinivas argued that Sanskritisation was a powerful engine of social mobility in traditional India. A lower caste might adopt vegetarianism, give up alcohol, start wearing the sacred thread, perform Brahminical rites, and even change its name to a more 'respectable' one. Over time, the group would claim a higher position in the caste hierarchy, and if the claim was accepted by others, its status would indeed rise. This process was not limited to Hinduism — it also occurred among tribal groups and even some non-Hindu communities who adopted Sanskritic practices to gain prestige.

Note

Sanskritisation does not require the group to actually become literate in Sanskrit. It is about adopting the cultural markers associated with the Sanskritic tradition — purity, ritualism, and the authority of the Vedas — as a strategy for upward mobility.

Now, de-Sanskritisation is the opposite movement. It refers to the rejection or abandonment of Sanskritic, Brahminical practices by a group, often as part of a conscious assertion of a separate identity. This can happen when a lower caste or a non-Brahmin community decides that imitating the upper castes is not the path to dignity. Instead, they may revive their own folk traditions, adopt a non-Sanskritic religious orientation (like the Bhakti movement or Dravidian identity politics), or even convert to another religion to escape the caste hierarchy. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Same / Similar Concept — real previous-year questions on the same or a closely similar concept, not this exact question.

CBSE 2026Set 62/3SPQR/41 markMCQ
$Q. Assertion (A) : Sanskritisation operated similarly in different parts of the country. Reason (R) : In regions where the non-Sanskritic were dominant, it was their influence that was stronger. (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false. (D) Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.$
›Reveal solutionSolution

Sanskritisation, while a widespread process of social mobility, did not operate uniformly across India; its specific manifestations varied significantly based on regional dominant groups, including non-Sanskritic ones.

Sanskritisation is a concept introduced by the eminent sociologist M.N. Srinivas to describe a process of social change in India. It refers to the process by which a 'low' Hindu caste, or tribal or other group, changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a 'high' and frequently 'twice-born' caste. This often involves adopting vegetarianism, abstaining from alcohol, and performing rituals traditionally associated with higher castes, all with the aim of achieving upward social mobility and a higher position in the caste hierarchy.

Let us examine the Assertion (A): "Sanskritisation operated similarly in different parts of the country."

While the underlying mechanism of Sanskritisation—the emulation of higher-status groups by lower-status groups to improve their social standing—was indeed a widespread phenomenon across India, its specific manifestations were far from uniform. The model for emulation was not always the Brahminical one. Srinivas himself noted that in different regions, the dominant caste, whether Brahmin, Kshatriya, or even a locally powerful non-Sanskritic caste, served as the reference group. The specific customs, rituals, and lifestyles adopted varied greatly depending on the local social structure, economic power dynamics, and cultural traditions. For instance, in some areas, the emulation might involve adopting specific dietary practices, while in others, it might focus on marriage rituals or religious observances. Therefore, to say it operated "similarly" is an oversimplification that overlooks the significant regional variations in the actual content and direction of Sanskritisation.

Watch out

While the process of Sanskritisation (emulation for upward mobility) is common, the specific groups emulated and the cultural practices adopted varied significantly across regions.

Thus, Assertion (A) is false.

Now, let us consider the Reason (R): "In regions where the non-Sanskritic were dominant, it was their influence that was stronger." …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
CBSE 2024Set 62/RQPS/41 markMCQ
$Q. The impact of Sanskritisation is many sided. Its influence can be seen in : (A) Language only (B) Literature only (C) Drama only (D) Language, Literature, Drama$
›Reveal solutionSolution
The Many-Sided Impact of Sanskritisation

Sanskritisation is a comprehensive cultural process that transforms language, literature, and drama simultaneously, not just isolated aspects of society.

Sanskritisation, a concept introduced by sociologist M.N. Srinivas, describes the process by which lower castes or tribal groups adopt the customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life of upper castes—particularly Brahmins—in an attempt to raise their own social status. This is not a superficial mimicry but a deep cultural transformation that ripples through multiple dimensions of social life.

The genius of understanding Sanskritisation lies in recognising that culture does not operate in compartments. When a community begins to emulate higher-caste practices, the change is holistic. Language shifts as people adopt Sanskritic vocabulary, formal registers, and ritual terminology. A community that once used local dialects for worship might begin incorporating Sanskrit shlokas and mantras, elevating the linguistic register of their religious and social discourse.

Literature undergoes a parallel transformation. Oral traditions and folk narratives start borrowing themes, characters, and moral frameworks from classical Sanskrit texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata. Local deities get reinterpreted as avatars or manifestations of pan-Indian gods. The stories communities tell about themselves—their origin myths, their heroes—begin to align with Brahmanical cosmology and values.

Drama and performance arts reflect this shift just as vividly. Folk theatre forms incorporate episodes from Sanskrit epics. Dance styles adopt mudras and themes from classical traditions. Festivals and ritual performances take on the structure and symbolism of upper-caste ceremonies. The entire performative culture of a community can be reshaped in this process. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →

Q.Which sociologist coined the term 'Sanskritisation' ? Differentiate between Sanskritisation and de-Sanskritisation.

🎓Unlock everything free for 14 days

Unlock everything free for 14 days