INTRODUCTION
India presents one of the oldest, continuous, and uninterrupted living civilizations in the whole world, known as Hinduism. One of the prominent features of Indian civilization is its ‘Caste-system.’ The caste system is a unique way of stratifying society. It has been conceptualized, originated, and practiced exclusively in India. It has given a distinguished identity to Indian society.
SANSKRITIZATION
The concept ‘Sanskritization’ was first introduced by Prof. M.N. Srinivas, the famous Indian sociologist. He explained the concept of Sanskritization in his book “Religion and society among the Coorgs of South India” to describe the cultural mobility in the traditional caste structure of Indian society. In his study of the Coorgs of Mysore, he came to know that the lower castes were trying to raise their status in their caste hierarchy by adopting some cultural ideals of the Brahmins. As a result, they left some of their ideas considered impure by the Brahmins. To explain this mobility process, Srinivas used the term ‘Brahminization.’ Later on, he called it ‘Sanskritization’ in a broad sense. Defining Sanskritization, Srinivas writes, “Sanskritization is a process by which a “low” Hindu caste, or tribal or any other group, changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high, and frequently, “twice-born” caste.
Change is ever-present in society. It is a reality. Human society also experiences a change in different dimensions at different times. The basic meaning of social change is the change in the social structure. The term social change refers to any significant alteration in behaviour patterns and cultural values.
An analysis of the process of Sanskritisation
Srinivas, in his book, the Social Change in Modern India, has used the term Sanskritization for the lower caste people who follow the values, norms, customs, and traditions of the Brahmins. Sanskritization is generally accompanied by and often results in upward mobility for the caste in question, but mobility may also occur without Sanskritization and vice-versa. However, the mobility associated with Sanskritization results only in positional changes in the system and does not lead to structural change. A caste moves above its neighbours, and another comes down, but all this takes place in an essentially stable hierarchical order. The system itself does not change. However, the Sanskritization process was confined not only to Hindu castes but also among tribal and semi-tribal groups like Gonds, Oraons, Cheros of Central India, and the Pahadis of the Himalayas. These usual results in the tribal societies who were undergoing Sanskritization process claiming to be a caste and were the Hindus. In the traditional social system, the only way to become a Hindu was to belong to a caste. The mobility unit was possible through a group, not an individual or a family. However, Srinivas has emphasized the Brahminical model of Sanskritization and ignored the other models like Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra. The Brahminical model was derived from the Kannada, Tamil, and Telugu Brahmins and not from Brahmin castes in other regions.
Criticisms of Sanskritisation
According to J. F. Stall, Sanskritisation used by Srinivas, and other anthropologists is a complex concept or a class of concepts. The term itself seems to be misleading since its relationship to the term Sanskrit is extremely complicated. Yogendra Singh opines that Sanskritisation fails to account for many aspects of cultural change in past and contemporary India as it neglects the non-Sanskritic traditions. Sanskritic influence has not been universal to all parts of the country. In most of northern India, especially in Punjab, the Islamic tradition provided a basis for cultural imitation. When we try to interpret certain changes that have taken place in the field of social mobility in the light of Sanskritisation, we face certain paradoxes. According to Dr. Srinivas, political and economic forces are normally favourable for Sanskritisation. But the “policy of reservation,” a politico-constitutional attempt to elevate the status of lower caste and class people, presents here a different picture. Theoretically, the policy of reservation must be supportive of Sanskritisation. But paradoxically, it goes against it. Those who avail of the “reservation benefits” have developed a vested interest in calling themselves “Dalits” or Scheduled Caste people. They want to be called so in order to avail of the benefits of reservation permanently.
WESTERNIZATION
In comparison with Sanskritisation, Westernisation is a simpler concept. It explains the impact of Western contact (particularly British rule) on Indian society and culture. M. N. Srinivas used the term “Westernisation” to describe the changes that a non-western country had undergone as a result of prolonged contact with the western one. According to Srinivas, it implies “certain value preferences,” which subsume several values, such as “humanitarianism.” It implies an active concern for the welfare of all human beings irrespective of caste, economic position, religion, age, and sex. According to M.N. Srinivas, “Westernisation” refers to “the changes brought about in the Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule, and the term subsumes changes occurring at different levels – technology, institutions, ideology, and values.”
Westernization includes not only the introduction of new institutions but also fundamental changes in old institutions. For example, India had schools long before the arrival of the British, but they were different from the British introduced schools. Other institutions such as the army, civil service, and law courts were similarly affected.
However, the increase in Westernisation does not retard the process of Sanskritisation. Both go on simultaneously, and to some extent increase in Westernisation accelerates the process of Sanskritisation. For example, the postal facilities, railways, buses, and newspaper media, which are the fruits of Western impact on India, render more organized religious pilgrimages, meetings, caste solidarities, etc., possible compared to the past.
Impact of Westernisation
Opened up the doors of knowledge:
Modern education opened up the doors of knowledge and flourished in Europe after the Renaissance movement of the Middle Ages. It had widened the mental horizons of Indian intelligentsia.
Education for all:
During the second half of the nineteenth century, the British government in India opened the doors of education to all sections of Indian society, irrespective of caste or creed. Still, very few amongst the general public could avail the advantages of modern formal education. Education remained confined within a small section of society.
Highlighted evil practices:
Modern education highlighted the evil practices and weaknesses developed into the system, like the rigidity and harshness of many social customs and practices prevalent at that time for the weaker sections of the society, i.e., untouchability and inhuman treatment of women, Sati, Polygamy, child marriage, etc., etc. prevalent at that time.
Attracted attention of social reformers:
Modern education had attracted the attention of intellectuals and social reformers towards real issues caused by ignorance, the irrationality of mumbo-jumbo of rituals and superstitions created by some selfish people to entangle the ignorant and poor masses. They suggested remedies for the country's social, political, and economic ills. They took themselves the responsibility to build a modern, open, plural, culturally rich, prosperous, and powerful India out of a fragmented, poverty-stricken, superstitious, weak, indifferent, backward, and inward-looking society. As a result of such efforts, it led to the abolition of the Sati System and slavery. Female infanticide practice lowered to a great extent.
Realization of the worth of liberty and freedom:
It equipped national leaders with intellectuals tools with which they fought the oppressive British Raj. Indians realized the worth of liberty and freedom. They got exposure to the philosophies of thinkers like Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Voltaire, Spencer, Burke, etc. They understood the reasons and impact of the English, French, and American revolutions.
Criticisms of Westernisation
The concepts of Sanskritisation and Westernisation primarily analyze the social change in “cultural” and not in “structural” terms. This denoted that these terms have a limited range of application and use. Srinivas’s model explains the process of social change only in India, which is based on the caste system. It is not helpful for other societies. Though Srinivas claimed that the concept of Westernisation is “ethically neutral,” it is not so. The Western model which Srinivas has eulogized has its contradiction. Mention can be made of the facts of Western life such as racial prejudice, colour segregation and exploitive nature of the Western economy, etc. These facts contradict humanitarian ideals or rational outlooks on life. It is also commented that the Western model, which Srinivas has eulogized, has its own contradiction. The western model sometimes conveys values contrary to the ones referred to by Srinivas. In this context, mention can be made of the facts of Western life such as racial prejudice, colour segregation, and exploitative nature of the Western economy, etc. These facts contradict humanitarian ideals or rational outlooks on life.
Daniel Lerner has raised some objections to the use of Westernisation as conceived by Srinivas:
It is too local, and the model imitated may not be from a western country but from Russia.
One of the results of prolonged contact with the west is the rise of the elite class, whose attitude towards the West is ambivalent and is not invariably true. In this context, Lerner refers to the appeal of Communism in non-western countries.
Westernization in one area or level of behaviour does not result in Westernisation in another related area or level.
While there are certain common elements in Westernisation, each represents a particular variant of a common culture, and significant differences exist between one country and another.
Difference between Sanskritisation and Westernisation
The Sanskritisation process promoted the sacred outlook, while Westernisation promoted a secular one.
Sanskritisation is a process of upward mobility by process of imitation, while Westernisation is a process of upward mobility by process of development.
Sanskritisation implies mobility within the framework of caste, while Westernisation implies mobility outside the framework of caste.
While Sanskritisation puts a taboo on meat-eating and consumption of alcohol, Westernisation promotes meat-eating and consumption of alcohol.
MODERNIZATION
Modernization “does not denote any philosophy or movement, but only symbolizes a change process.” In fact, “modernization” is understood as a process which indicates the adoption of the modern ways of life and values.” The term was used to previously to refer only “to change in the economy and its related effect on social values and practices.” Today, the term ‘modernization’ is understood as an attempt on the part of the people, particularly those who are custom-bound, to adapt themselves to the present time, conditions, styles, and ways in general.
Definition of modernisation
According to Smelser, “Modernisation is a complex set of changes that place almost in every part of society as it attempts to be industrialized. Modernization involves an ongoing change in a society’s economy, politics, education, traditions, and religion.”
According to Alatas, “Modernisation is a process by which modern scientific knowledge is introduced in the society with the ultimate purpose of achieving a better and a more satisfactory life in the broadest sense of the term as accepted by the society concerned.”
Process of Modernisation
Srinivas has pointed out that modernization is also marked by increasing urbanization which has, in turn, resulted in the spread of literacy. Urbanization has tended to enhance media exposure, and finally, enhanced media exposure is associated with wider economic participation and political participation in the development process. Modernization implies social mobility. A mobile society has to encourage rationality for the calculus of choice. It shapes individual behavior and conditions its rewards. The modernization process involves the rationalization of ends, which means that the goals chosen by society should be rational and the subject of public discussion. In the final analysis, it must be pointed out that the social goals are the expression of value preferences and, therefore, non-rational. The public discussion of goals can in no way guarantee their rationality. Rationality can only be predicted by the means, not by the ends of social action.
Thus, modernization indicates a change in people’s food habits, dress habits, speaking styles, tastes, choices, preferences, ideas, values, recreational facilities, etc. It is also described as “social change involving the use of science and technology.” The scientific and technological innovations have brought about remarkable changes in the whole system of social relationships and installed new ideologies in the place of traditional ones.
Criticism of Modernisation
The emergence of political identities:
Modern Indian society has been stratified in the most insensitive manner for political and governance purposes. For grabbing political power, modern Indian society has been divided into the following unbridgeable groups – Upper castes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Minorities. Sectional interests are being promoted on a caste or communal basis shamelessly.
Poor governance:
In modern India, millions of submerged people suffer from discrimination and exploitation; it is not the caste system but the responsibility for bad politics and poor governance. Modern India is divided sharply into “haves” and “have-nots.” The most important factors responsible for disparities are vote-bank politics, irrational and corrupt ways of pursuing paternal policies, and the government’s failure to address real issues at the central and state levels.
Narrow loyalties of caste and religion:
Narrow beliefs of caste and religion are encouraged in the political arena. It has generated sub-cultures like caste-ism, favoritism, lure for easy money, nepotism, parochialism, communalism, and regionalism. Bigoted sentiments and irresponsible comments are spreading in-discipline in society. With the spread of education and awareness, people's rising aspirations and demands have created an added problem for the government.
Under-currents of caste politics:
Under-currents of caste politics have made the government incapable of solving the burning national issues. It has made maintaining law and order difficult. Inter-caste and intra-caste, inter-community and intra-community, and inter-tribal and intra-tribal conflicts are increasing day by day to get more space in the corridors of power.
Real issues pushed into the background:
Real issues like mass-scale illiteracy, poverty, unemployment, inflation, deteriorated law and order situation, increasing violence or general coarsening of the moral fiber of the Indian society, etc., are pushed into the background. The voice of upright and honest people belonging to the middle class is being continuously throttled mercilessly. They are being punished for following sincerely family-planning norms, which has decreased their numbers. In present-day vote-bank politics based on game of numbers, it is very easy now for the pursuers of political power to sideline them.
Other Criticism includes:
Family values diminished.
Marriages became more contractual than pious.
Evil effects on the Environment.
Contrary views among the new and old generation.
Structural changes mostly remain uneven.
Society did not change in all ways.
Difference between Westernisation and Modernisation
The term Westernisation unlike Modernisation, is ethically neutral. It does not imply that it is good or bad, whereas modernization is normally used in the sense that it is good.
Westernization, as used by Srinivas, covers behavioural aspects like eating, drinking, dressing, dancing, etc., the knowledge aspect like literature, science, etc., and the value aspect like humanitarianism, equalitarianism, secularism, etc. the term Modernisation involves a transformation of social, political and economic organization.
Modernization is a broader concept and has a more comprehensive range of applications. At the same time, westernization characterizes the changes in Indian society and culture due to over 150 years of British rule.
Westernization is a middle-class phenomenon, while modernization is a mass process involving mass media.
Conclusion
The caste system has traveled a very long distance. Many changes have taken place significantly during centuries of Muslim and British rule in the country. As time passed, vested interests in each era distorted or interpreted the original concepts in the manner that suited their purpose. Many deformities and rigidities had developed into a system to preserve its indigenous identity and culture. Still, Caste-system presents one of the oldest social institutions and a continuous and uninterrupted living culture in the world.
In conclusion, as B. Kuppu Swamy has said that “the concepts Sanskritisation and Westernisation help us only to analyze the superficial change processes which took place in the latter half of 19th Century and the first two decades of 20th Century. Neither Sanskritisation nor Westernisation affect social change. So, they are entirely inadequate to help us to analyze the change processes which are currently taking place in Indian society.” Though one cannot say that the terms westernization and Sanskritisation are useless, one can assert that the term Modernization is more appropriate and relevant in providing a satisfactory explanation of the social change.
According to M. N. Srinivas, caste principles and religious practice play an essential role among the Indians in their social life. They are an integral part of the Indian social structure. It is impossible to understand Indian social values without reference to the structural framework in which value formation occurs. He also emphasizes Indian social structure and cultural pattern, which is characterized in terms of its unity as well as diversity. Regarding social change, Srinivas spoke about Sanskritization, Westernization, and Modernization.
Post a Comment