“Sanskritization”: A Revisit Of Its Relevance In Contemporary India
Introduction
India is a nation of pronounced geographical, cultural, and social diversity. Influenced by the diversity of the nation, one of the distinctive kinds of social stratification shaping its social fabric is its caste system. Caste finds its ethnic origin in the complex social groups indicated by ‘jati’, subsumed under the Varna system which accord for its ritualistic significance. Going forward, it is important to distinguish the two linked concepts of varna and caste. Varna provides the classification of human society into four hierarchical groups, namely Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. A fifth category excluded from this framework is called “untouchables” or Dalits. Whereas, caste is any of the hereditary, endogamous groups; associated with one or two ascribed occupations (Upadhyay 2013: 5). A key aspect of the caste system is that there is no consensus regarding the hierarchy of castes yet it has withstood vicissitudes of time. However, some kind of mobility is noticed although the Indian society has often been characterized as a ‘closed society’ due to the dominance of caste factors which gives rise to caste-based hierarchy and structured social inequality. Certainly, this poses an arduous task in explaining its multi-faceted social realities and more so its engagement with the transformation of cultures, institutions, and relations observing social change. Nevertheless, social scientists have contributed various concepts to the study of social change; of which the process of ‘Sanskritization’ as propounded by M. N. Srinivas is widely studied. These processes manifest the efforts made to achieve mobility within and outside the framework of the caste system. This has led to the generation of effective discourses of its changing role and continued relevance within which the essay intends to discuss present-day India’s tryst with these two processes of social change.
Srinivas on Social Change
Against the widespread notion of the irrelevance of caste in the post-independence period, M. N. Srinivas saw Caste as a dynamic social institution that has adapted itself to the changing role of caste in contemporary society. He adopted a structural-functionalist approach advocating field-view against book-view (Oomen 2008: 65). In contrast, Oomen expresses that a one-sided approach can lead to distortion of social reality (ibid., 66).
In his study of Religion and Society among the Coorgs in South India, he attempted a structural study of sets of relationships of roles and statuses of castes by primarily differentiating between Varna and caste and, dwija and non- dwija castes on account of undergoing upanayana.
Concept of Sanskritization
The concept of Sanskritization was developed by M. N. Srinivas to understand upward mobility that was being attempted by lower-castes in the order of caste hierarchy and positional change, especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. He defined Sanskritization as “a process by which a ‘low’ caste or a tribe or other group changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and a way of life in the direction of a high and frequently, twice-born caste” (quoted in Upadhyay 2013: 9) Generally, such changes are followed by a claim to a higher position which is made over a generation or two.
In essence, the process employed adoption of the Brahminic way of life by the lower-castes often, though theoretically inconsistent. Accordingly, Srinivas prefers the word Sanskritization to Brahmanization advocating two reasons. Firstly, Sanskritization is a broader term. Upper-castes were seen as the custodians of Vedic knowledge which accorded them the higher status in the hierarchy (ibid., 2). He argues how if Brahmanization was used then it would require mention of the particular Brahmin group and its historicity as today most of the Brahmins are vegetarians and teetotalers, except Saraswat, Kashmiri, and Bengali Brahmins who have a non-vegetarian diet (Srinivas 1956: 481). However, the two terminologies may be inconsistent with each other at times. Secondly, Brahmins are not always the reference groups (ibid.). He initially noted the emulation of ritual and other cultural practices of upper-castes like that of dress, diet, and way of life as similar to Brahmins (ibid.). The Lingayats of South India were powerful agents for the Sanskritization of lower-castes (ibid., 482). Founded by a Brahmin, the movement was anti- Brahmanical in spirit (ibid.). Similarly, he cites the case of Smiths of South India to elucidate his reasoning from another perspective (ibid.). He argues how Smiths called themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins and sanskritized their rituals while they continued to still eat non-vegetarian food and drink alcohol (ibid.). Further, their claim wasn’t accepted by all, and Holeya (untouchables) also wouldn’t accept cooked food and water from them (ibid.). Many other such examples explained how Sanskritization couldn’t be explained using the Brahmanical model alone. This revealed the existence of other models- Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra; depending on the context.
Thus, the reference group now came to be defined as the caste which gains considerable power in any one of the three domains- ritual, economic, and political (ibid., 483). Power in one domain leads to the possession of power in the other two (ibid.). Yet, irregularities do arise. This underlines the emphasis on the process of emulation. In this regard, Srinivas has theorized the process at the “historical” and “contextual” levels (quoted in Upadhyay 2013: 3). Hence, such a process of emulation not only spread among Hindus but also some outlying tribes. Srinivas attributes this to every group’s preference to hold the position of a ‘higher’ caste in a hierarchically graded society and this assertion can best be supported by adopting the lifestyle of a ‘higher’ caste (1956: 482). He asserts that the Brahmin’s way of life eventually seeps down the hierarchy (ibid., 483). As such, two “legal fictions” helped Sanskritization spread among the ‘low’ castes- permission to non-twice-born castes to perform Vedic rituals and substitution of post-Vedic verses for Vedic mantras at religious ceremonies (ibid., 483–484).
It is noteworthy, that Srinivas asserts that if the dominating caste is a local Kshatriya or Vaishya Caste then the process of Sanskritization would be slower as compared to when it is a Brahmin and this will lead to the spread of non- Brahmanical values (ibid., 496). He suggests the prospects of de-Sanskritization in cases of if the pace-setting group is non- Sanskritic or less Sanskritic (ibid.).
Sanskritization often follows upward mobility of the lower-caste under consideration but it is not a prerequisite to mobility or vice-versa. However, the mobility identified with Sanskritization leads to only a positional change in a stable structure (quoted in Carroll 1977: 367). The system in itself doesn’t change (ibid.).
The discussion on cultural emulation in substantial terms helps understand the idea in praxis. Sanskritization may translate to decreasing cultural autonomy of women whereby denying them their right to choose their spouse and adoption of rigid sexual mortality (Srinivas 1956: 484). Lower-castes have a liberal and progressive attitude towards the position of women in their society which tends to become conservative by the process of Sanskritization (ibid.). This brings about a change in the family structure which aligns increasingly with the conventional Hindu Joint family associated with a powerful father figure, monogamy, and a stronger caste institution (ibid., 485). Also, rigid commensality practices persist with changing dietary patterns- ban on beef and pork, and liquor consumption with more prominence on education, the transition from bride-price to dowry, and so on(ibid., 489–490). Additionally, Srinivas explains the political and economic factors as powerful agents in the process of Sanskritization which owes its significance to Westernization (ibid.). While Sanskritization is a cultural process, it is usually concomitant with the acquisition of secular power by a caste. The two processes contribute to the process of social change.
Sanskritization and Westernization
Srinivas’s conception of Westernization refers to changes set in motion in the Indian society during British rule, added momentum with the achievement of independence (ibid., 486). The British promoted radical long-term changes in Indian society by laying the foundations of a modern state with the development of organizations, technology, ideology, and values (ibid.). Eventually, the British also abolished institutions such as Sati (1829), female infanticide, human sacrifice, and slavery (1833) (ibid.). Contrary to what appears, the increase in Westernization didn’t hinder the process of Sanskritization rather facilitated the process sometimes. Srinivas discusses the role of Indian cinema in popularizing the making of films based on Hindu literature where the printing press published its cheap editions (ibid.). Presently, the Hindu mythological soaps broadcasted on the television channels in India have played a remarkable role in spreading Sanskritic values. Further, he highlights how the contribution of “Prohibition”, integral to Sanskritic teachings into the Constitution of India (ibid.). Besides, it is observed that it was the more Sanskritized castes; the upper echelons of Brahmins who first occupied the opportunities offered by the colonial administration that further sustained their established hegemony (ibid., 488). It is also however true that on one hand, some Brahmins opposed practices like that eating beef or pork and drinking alcohol while on the other some upper-caste Indian elites accepted these habits regardless of the direct conflict with Sanskritic customs (ibid.). While in some cases, Sanskritization and Westernization were in contradiction with each other, elsewhere they supplemented each other. Moreover, today some aspects of Sanskritization are revived; some others are refused due to westernization. A. M. Shah elucidates this by referring to women today who don’t observe the rigid rules of purity vs. pollution while menstruating but express responsiveness while performing important rites (2005: 244).
Srinivas rightly points out how lower-castes get more Sanskritized while upper-castes get more Westernized safeguarding the social distance between them and the lower-castes (1956: 490). Perhaps, this could account for the aspiring sections of lower-caste’s direct engagement with the process of westernization howbeit it might also prove to be complex and alienating. Thus, we perceive a significant and dynamic interaction between the processes of Sanskritization and Westernization.
However, addressing whether Sanskritization is a necessary precondition to Westernization, Srinivas says that even though the empirical findings support, he acknowledges that westernization may occur without the transitional process of Sanskritization (ibid., 494–495).
Caste in Contemporary Indian Society
Contemporary Indian society, beginning with independence is characterized by modernization, industrialization, and ostensible decline of the rigid social structure. It could be argued that the dynamic nature of caste and so has Sanskritization adapted itself to stay relevant in contemporary society as well. Sanskritization has been reinforced such that the distinction between the ‘higher’ castes and their customs is increasingly becoming inconspicuous. The aspiration for emulating upper-castes has resulted in creating caste consciousness owing to its relevance in politics and education which has kept caste relevant in contemporary society. Many non- caste structures and institutions have also become powerful agents of Sanskritization which have kept the influence of caste alive.
Reservations
The Constitution of India provides for ‘reservation’ to assure socio-economic justice to the historically oppressed and marginalized sections of the society. Gopal Guru draws a parallel between Sanskritization and Reservation while taking the latter as a variable to analyze the process of Sanskritization (1984: 29). He identifies the constitutional provision as promotion of economic and political power which is what also makes the process of Sanskritization plausible (ibid., 32). In fact, both the concept is a collective phenomenon (ibid.). Further, he notes the paradoxical nature of reservation for and the Sanskritization of Scheduled castes by suggesting that while reservation provides for acquisition of political and economic power, its basis for affirmative action to lower-caste is antithetical to the process of Sanskritization (ibid.). Therefore, reservations play a contradictory role. While it enables middle-class scheduled castes to seek upward mobility on the process of compulsive Sanskritization for a need to structurally integrate them, it also impels economically backward upper-castes to seek downward mobility in the process of de-Sanskritization for they wish to enjoy reservation benefits (ibid., 32–33). However, the process of Sanskritization leaves the poor scheduled castes out of its ambit owing to atrocities perpetrated by upper-caste Hindus to protect their socio-economic interests and to repress their assertiveness against their supremacy (ibid.). A study of Ghazipur district in Uttar Pradesh reveals that scavengers, mainly Dalits challenging their status by looking for alternate work opportunities owing to not only the demeaning nature of the job but also the practice being outlawed had to return to it owing to physical abuse, social boycott, and neglect from governmental agencies (Singh and Ziyauddin 2020: 523).
This emphasizes the importance of positive discrimination, at least as one variant of establishing equity than the requirement for Sanskritization. Moreover, Education is valued by Dalit- Bahujans and seen as an origin of “cultural distinction” which serves to defy caste-based differences (Upadhyay 2013: 8).
Caste in Politics
Post-independence, political parties used caste as one of the determining factors to collect votes. The inclusion of Dalits and Shudras in politics has led to positional change. Upadhyay illustrates this observation by mentioning the appropriation of Dalits and Shudras by the Sangh Parivar in the early 1900s by celebrating caste figures and mythical heroes (2013: 5). This incorporated the ‘low’ castes within the Hindu fold intending to be numerically powerful against the Muslims and other religious minorities to advance their political and nationalistic agenda (ibid., 6). This did initiate a positional change yet it couldn’t be contended that Sanskritization ensued owing to such social acceptance (ibid.). By positional change, it doesn’t unequivocally mean changes at the ritualistic level but “recognition of certain rights or sharing of certain spaces or ‘allowances’ made to groups to sit together and so on” (ibid., 7). At the same time, Dalit and other backward groups were integrated by the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) (ibid., 6). BSP presented their leader Mayawati as the Messiah of the Dalits who would take charge against the growing atrocities against them. Post Mayawati’s victory in Uttar Pradesh (UP) elections, various Dalit monuments were built to boost the self-respect of Dalits and assert their identity. This has increased caste consciousness amongst Dalits and Non-Dalits alike. Gradually, BSP’s political symbol, a Haathi is being increasingly associated with Lord Ganesh and it has changed its slogan to ‘Manuvaad Nahi Manavtavaad’ (not the laws of Manu but humanitarianism) as it integrated with the Brahmins and upper-castes (ibid., 14). At present, the political alliances made by Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) reflect the continuance of their course of action. For instance, it enjoys overwhelming support from all major communities except Muslims and Yadavs in UP and similarly except for Jats in Haryana. This is not a kind of conversion but could be interpreted as an attempt at it (Shah 2005: 247). A reflection of competition among the political parties to appropriate caste groups can be witnessed.
Moreover, the transition from vertical hierarchy to development of caste horizontally due to rewriting of historical caste narratives while advocating a bottom-up perspective, appropriation of caste associations by political parties, and rise of political leaders from within the communities in question lead to reorganization of caste as a structure to caste as a substance without accounting for equality of castes (Upadhyay 2013: 6). Dumont terms this process as substantialization which refers to the “development of pride in one’s social background” (ibid., 7).
Non-Caste Structures and Institutions
As Srinivas puts it “Sanskritization is a many-sided cultural process, only a part of which is connected with the caste system” (quoted in Shah 2005: 238). This justifies the change that modern India is witnessing with the gradually declining ritual hierarchy of castes (ibid., 241). However, it is only partial (ibid.). It could thus, be said that caste is getting disassociated from the process of Sanskritization: “it can even be impersonal” (ibid.). The emergence of sects such as those developed by Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, and Swaminarayana have been spreading as regards followers, temple complexes, and multiplying activities (ibid., 242). Another agent is a large number of spiritual gurus like Asharam Bapu, Mata Amritanandmayi, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and so on who possibly would become architects of nearing sects (ibid.). These ashrams and temple complexes built by spiritual gurus and founders of sects have also led to an unprecedented rise in pilgrims indicating greater Sanskritization with the advancement in stages (ibid., 243). These sects, spiritual gurus, temples have significant social, economic, and political consequences which require examination. Moreover, the larger associations of media in religious dissemination through religious books, movies, periodicals, newspapers, CDs are seen shifting the nature of the meaning of religious engagement (Upadhyay 2013: 17). The modern spiritual gurus don’t acknowledge caste-related issues and are seen to conform largely to the values of the ‘Great Tradition of All-India Sanskritic Hinduism’ (ibid.). This could be defined within the concept of Sanskritization. In fact, the notion of the guru is established in Hindu epics, such as “Vashistha as Rama’s guru” (ibid.). The growing sermons by tele-gurus envelop its followers with spiritual explanations through novel interpretations of holy Hindu texts and practices like Ayurveda, Yoga, Jyotish Shastra, classical music, dance, and drama, etc. (ibid., 18). This has also generated demand for Hinduism abroad which has ramifications on Hinduism in India (Shah 2005: 243).
Thus, Upadhyay redefines Sanskritization as “a process by which an individual from any caste or religion adopts, emulates, learns and preserves the customs, rituals, way of life and ideology derived from Vedic/textual Hinduism” (2013: 20). Moreover, Sanskritization is not restricted to the process of emulation among lower-castes rather it is characteristic of Hinduism, especially the urban middle class who are the receipts of “mosaic Hinduism” as popularized by spiritual tele- gurus (ibid., 19). This expresses the outcome of multiple changes that India has experienced.
However, it could also be said that in present times the caste identities of Spiritual gurus are strategically employed by some political parties like BJP to sanskritize communities to promote their Hindu fundamentalist agenda. For instance, Akhila Kerala Dheevara Sabha (AKDS), the caste association of the Dheevaras, the Hindu fisherfolk of Kerala is urging them towards Sanskritization (Alex 2018: 42). It attempts to sanskritize the religious practices of the Dheevaras further influenced by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) (ibid., 46). RSS aims to alter their food habits to polarize Hindu and Christian fisherfolk (ibid., 48). The magazine ‘Viswakanthi’ is a major tool used by RSS which contains a monthly address by Mata Amritanandmayi, a celebrated Dheerava god woman based in Kerala containing spiritual advice to accredit principles of Sanskritic Hinduism for the community (ibid., 46).
Criticisms
Shah submits that Sanskritization is a hybrid term indicating the union of Sanskrit (language) and Sanskriti (culture) (2005: 239). Perhaps Srinivas conceptualized the process when the upper-caste culture had religious connotations with its genesis in “textual Hinduism” and when it was observed as a group process (Upadhyay 2013: 12). In actuality today the transition of caste as a structure to a substance has brought fluidity in the process which can be observed both at the individual and collective level (ibid.).
The account of Sanskritization as administered in the current context raises opposition. It is quite presumptuous that the upper-castes will always remain Sanskritized (ibid., 9). In fact, their practices today have limited Vedic references, quite dominated by local and borrowed aspects of other traditions (ibid.). This establishes associating emulation of upper-caste culture as Sanskritization problematic. Moreover, the growing political and economic power of the ‘low’ castes provides a way to claim higher status without necessarily emulating the upper-caste culture, and even if it appears so it could be asserted that lower-castes are engaging with Hinduism without accounting for upper-castes as their reference group (ibid., 10). For instance, today, Dalit women in Sonepat, Haryana participate in the celebration of Karva Chauth (ibid., 11). In fact, the very notion of “emulation of upper-castes” is challenged (ibid.). With the development of westernization, this process of emulation is just one variant with weakening relevance (ibid.).
Additionally, the process of Sanskritization is challenged by the conversion of Dalit- Bahujans which doesn’t in itself operate across Sanskritization but records the split in the association of lower-castes with Hinduism (ibid., 10).
Lastly, Srivastava claims the conception of positional change in the hierarchical system through the process of Sanskritization as inconsistent. He argues that taking progressive families against dominant castes as a variable for analyzing Sanskritization is more reasonable (1969: 697). He substantiates his argument by illustrating that in Barigaon; Koiris, the lower-caste are influenced by the most progressive family of their caste rather than by Chattris’ which appear to be the dominant caste, next to Brahmins in the local hierarchical structure (ibid.). This he notes vis-à-vis villages where neither dominant caste exists nor the lower-castes wish to emulate the practices of the upper-caste culture. This could be viewed as a ‘class within a caste’ concept as he defines progressive families to be culturally and economically better off than the others in their caste.
Hitherto, the process of Sanskritization has taken various forms between emulating upper-caste culture for achieving upward mobility and for countering upper-caste hegemony.
Conclusion
Caste presents one of the oldest social institutions. After independence, the subject of social mobility acquired complications with cases of compulsive Sanskritization and de-Sanskritization. While in its textual sense caste emphasizes harmony and cooperation while in actuality there is conflict. Thus the process of Sanskritization needs revision albeit offering a deep insight into caste dynamics. The process of Sanskritization doesn’t succeed in horizontal integration of scheduled castes as it leaves out the rural people and poor scheduled castes (Guru 1984:36). In fact, there is insufficient understanding of the tribal situation, insinuated in the monographic approach of study and lack of recognition (Shah 2005:245). Moreover, it was the traditionally favored upper-castes who were the unit of the process of Sanskritization to a large extent. Hence, it is perplexing that it could achieve vertical cultural integration of the Indian social context (Guru 1984: 37).
This gap is widening in the continued political climate today. On the political front, BJP is creating an illusion of inclusivity. The election of Ram Nath Kovind as the President of India is social engineering of political identities for electoral benefits. This has not only led to caste appropriation but also disillusionment among the masses. However, the Sangh Parivar is aware of the complications that the Hindutva political project brings. Dedicated to broadening the Hindutva sentiments contrived on the Brahmanical value system, BJP exerts a distinct social agenda. The anti-Dalit agenda of the Hindu fundamentalist government reflecting micro and macro level aggressions is evident in the rising cases of Cow Vigilantism (Una case), Honor killing (Bhagwan Dass vs. Delhi), Social boycott (khap panchayats), caste clashes (Bhima-Koregaon violence) and discrimination in universities (Rohit Vemula). BJP has proven to be an agent of Sanskritization, honoring textual Hinduism inclined towards the glorification of Hindutva and the interest of the upper-caste Hindus. The net positional change as a result of social engineering is debatable. Yet, it could be said the BJP is maneuvering a social alliance of upper-castes and other castes in a fashion that leads to the creation of a homogenized majority with significant cultural hegemony.
References
Alex, Deepika Rose. “Religious Identity at the Crossroads Hindu Fisherfolk of Kerala.” Economic and Political Weekly 53, no. 16 (2018): 42–49.
Carroll, Lucy. “” Sanskritization,”” Westernization,” and “Social Mobility”: A Reappraisal of the Relevance of Anthropological Concepts to the Social Historian of Modern India.” Journal of Anthropological Research 33, no. 4 (1977): 355–371.
Guru, Gopal. “Reservations And The Sanskritization Of Scheduled Castes- Some Theoretical Aspects.” Sociological Bulletin 33, no. 1–2 (1984): 29–38.
Oommen, Tharailath Koshy. “Disjunctions between Field, Method and Concept: An Appraisal of M.N. Srinivas.” Sociological Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2008): 60–81.
Shah, Arvind Manilal. “Sanskritisation Revisited.” Sociological Bulletin 54, no. 2 (2005): 238–49.
Singh, Rajeev Kumar and Ziyauddin. “Manual Scavenging As Social Exclusion: A Case Study.” Economic and Political Weekly 44, no. 26–27 (2020, 2009): 521–523.
Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar. “A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization.” The Far Eastern Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1956): 481–496.
Srivastava, Sahab Lal. “The Concept of Sanskritisation: A Re-evaluation.” Economic and Political Weekly (1969): 695–698.
Upadhyay, Surya Prakash. “Sanskritization at large: Cultural Changes in Contemporary India.” Indian Anthropologist (2013): 1–24.
