• The term ‘sanskritisation’ was coined by M.N. Srinivas. It may be defined as the process by which a low caste or tribe or other group takes over the customs, ritual, beliefs, ideology and style of life of a high and, in particular, a ‘twice-born(dwija) caste’.
• Its influence can be seen in language, literature, ideology, music, dance, drama, style of life and ritual.
• It is primarily a process that takes place in the Hindu space though Srinavas argued that it was visible even in sects and religious groups outside Hinduism.
• It operated differently in different regions. In those areas where a highly sanskritised caste was dominant, the entire region underwent a certain amount of Sanskritisation. In those areas, where non-sanskritic castes were dominant, it was their influence that was stronger, this can be termed as the process of ‘de- sanskritisation’.
• Srinivas argued that, ‘the sanskritisation of a group has usually the effect of improving its position in the local caste hierarchy. It normally presupposes either an improvement in the economic or political position of the group concerned or a higher group self-consciousness resulting from its contact with a source of the ‘Great Tradition’ of Hinduism such as a pilgrim centre or a monastery or a proselytizing sect.”
• But in India, there are many obstacles to any easy taking over of the customs of the higher caste by the lower. Traditionally, the dominant castes punished those low castes, which was audacious enough to attempt it.
• Sanskritisation refers to a process whereby people want to improve their status through adoption of names and customs of culturally high-placed groups. The “reference model’ is usually financially better off. In both, the aspiration to be like the higher placed group occurs only when people become wealthier.
CRITICISMS OF SANSKRITISATION
• It has been criticized for exaggerating social mobility or the scope of lower castes to move up the social ladder. For it leads to no structural change but only positional change of some individuals. Inequality continues to persist though some individuals may be able to improve their position within the unequal structure. Cultural Change
• The ideology of sanskritisation accepts the ways of the upper caste as superior and that of the lower caste as inferior. Thus, the desire to imitate the upper caste is seen as natural and desirable.
• Sanskritisation seems to justify a model that rests on inequality and exclusion. It appears to suggest that to believe in pollution and purity of groups of people is justifiable or all right. Therefore, to be able to look down on some groups of people just as the upper caste looked down on the lower castes, is a mark of privilege. It shows how such discriminatory ideas become a way of life. Instead of aspiring for an equal society, the exclusion and discrimination seek to give their own meaning to their excluded status. This gives rise to an undemocratic society.
• Since sanskritisation results in the adoption of upper caste rites and rituals it leads to practices of secluding girls and women, adopting dowry practices instead of bride-price and practising caste-discrimination against other groups.
• The effect of such a culture is that it erodes characteristics of dalit culture and society. For example, the very worth of labour which lower castes degraded and rendered shameful. Identities based on the basis of work, crafts, artisanal ability are regarded useless.
