2.3. Sanskritisation

The term sanskritisation was coined by M.N. Srinivas. It may be briefly 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.

Sanskritisation refers to a social process where lower castes adopt the customs, rituals, and cultural practices of higher castes, particularly those defined as ‘twice-born’ in Hindu social hierarchy. This process often includes adopting higher caste attire, rituals, and lifestyle choices to improve one’s social standing within the caste system.

Imagine a person from a lower social status, like a factory worker, who starts dressing in traditional attire similar to that of a local business owner. By doing so, they aim to gain respect and recognition in their community, akin to climbing a social ladder.

The impact of Sanskritisation is many-sided. 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 within the Hindu space though Srinivas argued that it was visible even in sects and religious groups outside Hinduism.

Sanskritisation affects various cultural aspects, including language and literature. As lower castes adopt the practices of higher castes, their customs may evolve in areas like art and rituals. This process is predominantly observed within the Hindu community but also appears in other religious contexts.

Think of how pop music can influence traditional folk music. Suppose a folk musician starts incorporating elements from popular songs into their performances to attract a wider audience. This blend shows how influences can be drawn from different traditions or cultures, similar to how lower castes adopt higher caste practices.

In those areas, however, where a highly Sanskritised caste was dominant, the culture of the entire region underwent a certain amount of Sanskritisation. In regions where the non-Sanskritic castes were dominant, it was their influence that was stronger. This can be termed the process of ‘de-Sanskritisation’. There were other regional variations too.

Sanskritisation is not uniform across India; its effects vary based on regional caste dynamics. In places where a higher caste predominates, their customs may be adopted more widely. Conversely, in areas where lower castes hold power, traditional practices may resist Sanskritisation, leading to de-Sanskritisation.

Consider two neighboring towns: in Town A, the elite class drives cultural trends, influencing the local music, fashion, and festivals. In Town B, a different community with a distinct identity upholds its traditions, resisting the influences of Town A. This contrast highlights how cultural shifts depend on local caste hierarchies.

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.

Sanskritisation can enhance a group's status within the local caste framework. This improvement is often linked with economic or political advancements. Essentially, as lower castes adopt the customs of higher castes, they may gain respect and recognition, which can lead to better living conditions and social standing.

Imagine a community of artisans who start using traditional clothing and participating in religious festivals typically associated with a higher caste. As they gain acceptance, they might receive better business opportunities and social recognition, much like a small business gaining prominence by partnering with bigger brands.

Sanskritisation as a concept has been criticised at different levels. One, it has been criticised 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. In other words, inequality continues to persist though some individuals may be able to improve their positions within the unequal structure.

Critics argue that Sanskritisation overstates the potential for social mobility among lower castes. While some individuals may succeed in adopting higher caste customs and achieving a better status, the overall social structure remains unequal. Thus, this process does not address the deep-rooted disparities of the caste system.

Think of a sports team where only a couple of players get promoted to the major league, while the majority remain in the minor leagues. While these few may improve their status, it does not alter the fact that the whole system is still skewed, and the majority have limited opportunities.

Fifth, the effect of such a trend is that the key characteristics of dalit culture and society are eroded. For example, the very worth of labour which ‘lower castes’ do is degraded and rendered ‘shameful’. Identities based on the basis of work, crafts and artisanal abilities, knowledge forms of medicine, ecology, agriculture, animal husbandry, etc., are regarded useless in the industrial era.

Sanskritisation also has a gendered impact, particularly affecting women in lower castes. As these women assimilate into higher caste norms, their traditional practices and identities may be undervalued. The meaningful roles they played in their communities, such as in agriculture or artisanal crafts, can be diminished as higher caste values take precedence.

Imagine a traditional craftswoman who is proficient in her art but feels pressured to abandon her practices to align with modern standards. As she adopts these new norms, her unique skills and contributions to her community lose value, akin to a once-respected local food vendor now struggling as fast food chains dominate the market.

--