Sanskritization is a specific term used in the context of Indian society, akin to that of acculturation. First appeared in the work of MN Srinivas, “Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India”, it refers to a process wherein the members of the lower strata of the society tries to emulate the practices of those in the upper strata mostly with an aspiration to improve their social status and to achieve social mobility. Though “Sanskritization” was used by Srinivas to account for the social dynamics amongst Coorgs in the 20th century, scholars like AM Shah (Sanskritization Revisited) argue it as a context specific usage leading to oversimplification. Hence, later debates and research were focussed on the historical trajectory of the term.
An ever-evolving Phenomena
Though the advent of globalisation and advanced technologies has steered the permeation of the practices of upper castes throughout the society, Sanskritization has always been an omni-present force in Indian society owing to it being a hodgepodge of a variety of castes, making interaction between them inevitable. Thus, Marxist historians like DD Kosambi regard Sanskritization as an ever-evolving phenomena that can be traced back to the evolution of material culture in the ancient history of India. The history of Sanskritization is therefore a history of interaction between the practices of different groups.
Ever since the start of Vedic age, Brahmins were accorded the topmost position in the hierarchy of the varna system in Indian society. According to MN Srinivas, there are three axes of power in the varna system- Rituals, Economic and Political powers. Possession of power in any of the three spheres usually leads to an acquisition of power in the other two though there are some occasional inconsistencies. Brahmins being the custodians of rituals has successfully wielded power in other two spheres too. Therefore, the rituals, practices, and lifestyle of Brahmins were seen as supreme and universal while that of other groups were despised.
Raja of Travancore Performing Hiranyagarba ritual to attain Higher Caste Status. Source: Historic Alleys
Urge for an upward Social Mobility
However, attempts to make practices and lifestyles of brahmins exclusive and supreme had a counter effect. A forbidden fruit will always be tastier and other castes too started aspiring for it. With the growth of trade and urbanisation, this became intense as other social groups started wielding economic power and they thought that the best way for social mobility is by adopting the practices of upper castes.
As a result of this, we can see that several castes have adopted the ritualistic practices of Brahmins. Aryan Gods were preferred to local deities for worshipping. Recital of epics like Ramayana became a household practice even in South India. Some castes wear sacred thread too to announce that they are equal in status to that of Brahmins.
From Languages to Gods – A story of Homogenisation
Sanskritization wasn’t just limited to the adoption of rituals. It also involved the adoption of lifestyle. Since the dietary habits and occupation of brahmins were regarded supreme, many castes started to adopt vegetarianism and teetotalism. They also denounced traditional occupations like tanning, butchering etc, as Brahmanism despised all these. Hence the practices of the topmost layer have made its way to all the layers of the society. But this is more evident in middle layers than the lower layers as it’s easier for them to achieve social mobility.
Though Sanskritization has become the buzzword for social mobility, it has its pervasive effects too. It has led to the depletion of indigenous cultures in many parts of the country. There are several folk stories in many parts of the country where the local deity is described as an incarnation of Vedic Gods. Several languages, Gods and customs have been erased by the dominant narrative as they were gradually taken over. The dominant narrative has always tried to define local customs as a sub part of its religious pantheon. They were often denied an independent existence of their own.
Social Mobility is not necessarily a Social Transformation
Ishita Rai views Sanskritization as a potent “cultural power” by which the dominant group disseminates its world view, values and thereby mould public opinion. Hence, on the surface, while it attempts for homogeneity and cultural integration, it is at the cost of reinforcement of caste hierarchies rather than its dismantlement. It is pertinent to note that the castes that undergo this process achieve only social mobility and not a transformation in the social structure. Dalits were mostly excluded in this process. Thus, it offers limited scope for social mobility. Often, the identity and problems of subaltern sections aren’t heard enough in such a system. Subaltern scholars therefore opts ethnicization of the subaltern identities for emancipation. Sanskritization was therefore not left without any resistances.
Sanskritization has shaped the identities of women as well. It has offered social mobility to some sections of the women by allowing them to marry men from upper strata of the society. However, in the dominant narratives of the society women were not given an independent identity and were relegated to the domestic sphere; expected to fulfil household responsibilities. Though the percolation of patriarchal norms like bride’s price, women’s chastity, etc. can’t be fully ascribed to Sanskritization, it has accelerated it. Thus, women’s autonomy was severely endangered under it.
What is De- Sanskritisation
Since historical times, there were several instances where the local people have pushed back against the Brahmin narratives. Folk stories are galore with examples of such resistances. Leaders like Ambedkar call for an assertion of the identity of the Dalits rather than an “imitation of higher by the lower”, which he sees as the root cause of caste formation in India. This phenomenon of assertion of lower caste ideals and shunning of the previously held upper caste ideals by the lower is termed as de-Sanskritization.
The solution to the perpetual debate of Sanskritization and its effectiveness in yielding social mobility can yield different answers depending on our schools of thought. However, it is nothing less than a farce to believe that caste will vanish from the Indian society only due to it. Structural changes should be made into the society to that effect and no sections of the society should be seen as left out while making any such structural changes. True emancipation from caste is possible only if the lower castes aren’t worried about imitating the ideals of the upper. To facilitate this, society shall desist from the renewed tendencies in recent times to view Indian culture often from the prism of Brahminism which can again reinforce caste hegemony and instead try to appreciate and celebrate diversities within all sections of the society.
