Sociology

Sanskritization Versus Brahminization

It is to be noted that Srinivas first used the term Brahminization instead of Sankritization to explain the process of social adoption of the way of life of the upper castes by the lower castes. He identified Sanskritization with the lower castes’ imitation of Brahminical customs and manners. Srinivas presumed that the Brahmins were the sole model of emulation for the sanskritizing groups. However, subsequently, he abandoned the term for Sanskritization on account of a number of reasons and defined it as “the process by which a ‘low’ Hindu caste, or tribal or other groups, changes its customs, ritual, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high, and frequently, ‘twice-born’ caste. Generally, such changes are followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than that traditionally conceded to the claimant caste by the local community” (Srinivas 1966/77: 6).

There are several reasons which persuaded Srinivas to redefine the above process of caste mobility:

Firstly, he found that “Brahminization is subsumed under the wider process of Sanskritization” (1962/1989: 42). However, he also points out that the two may be at variance with each other at times. For example, though Sanskritization necessitates renunciation of certain habits and customs on the part of the sanskritizing groups, such as drinking liquor, eating beef and pork, and so on, the Brahmins in the Vedic period drank soma, an alcoholic drink, ate beef, and offered blood sacrifices which were given up in post-Vedic times. Though the Brahmins today, by and large, are vegetarians, there are non-vegetarian Brahmins as well. The Assamese, Bengali, Kashmiri, Maithili, Oriya and Saraswat Brahmins eat non-vegetarian food. The Brahmins are characterized by many other regional variations suggesting that they can not be treated as a homogeneous group throughout India with respect to their habits and customs. Therefore, if the term Brahminization was used, it would have been necessary to specify which particular Brahmin group was used as the reference group. Besides, as the Brahmins are also undergoing various changes over time in the cultural domain, it would have been further necessary to specify at which particular period of its history a particular Brahmin group is referred to as a model for Sanskritization.

Secondly, the agents of Sanskritization are not always the Brahmins. In fact, there was a prohibition on the non-twice-born castes from following the customs and rites of the Brahmins, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Brahmins were responsible for this. On the other hand, there were non-Brahmin agents of Sanskritization as well. For example, the Lingayats of South India have been a powerful force for Sanskritization of several low castes of Karnataka. Though founded by a Brahmin named Basava in the 12th century, the Lingayat movement was anti-Brahminical in tone and spirit, drawing many followers from the lower castes. In fact, the Lingayats of Mysore claim equality with Brahmins, and the more orthodox of them do not accept food cooked or handled by Brahmins (Srinivas 1962/89: 43).

Srinivas cites the example of the Smiths of South India to illustrate his point from another angle. The Smiths, who call themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins, wear the sacred thread and have their rituals Sanskritized. Although some of them still continue to eat non-vegetarian food and drink alcohol, the entire community is tread as one belonging to the Left-hand division of castes and “no castes belonging to the Right-hand division, including the Holeyas (Untouchables), will eat or drink water touched by them. Until recently, they suffered from a number of disabilities: they were allowed to celebrate their weddings only in villages in which there was a temple to their caste-deity Kali...Normally Sanskritization enables a caste to obtain a higher position in the hierarchy. But in the case of the Smiths, it seems to have resulted only in their drawing upon themselves the wrath of all the other castes” (Srinivas 1962/89: 43).

There are many other such examples. What is clear from the above is that Sanskritization as a process of social mobility cannot be explained only with the help of the Brahminical model. There can be other models (Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra) as well, depending on the context. In fact, Srinivas also highlights the fact that the Brahmin claim to supremacy was contested by the Kshatriyas on various occasions. Citing G. S. Ghurye, he explains how early Jain and Buddhist literature asserted the pre-eminent position of the Kshatriyas in the caste hierarchy (1966/77: 23-4).

Srinivas also draws on the works of anthropologists D. F. Pocock and Milton Singer to justify his contention. Pocock pointed out to the existence of a Kshatriya model of Sanskritization in addition to a Brahminical model (Srinivas 1966/77: 7-8). Milton Singer states that there exist not one or two models of Sanskritization but three if not four (Srinivas 1966/77: 8). Srinivas quotes Singer: “The local version (of Sanskritik Hinduism) may use the four varna labels--Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra—but the defining content of these labels varies with locality and needs to be empirically determined for any particular locality. It has also been discovered that these different varnas' relative prestige and rank tend to vary with locality, time and group. In many areas, e.g., the kingly or martial lifestyle has a rank equal to or sometimes higher than that of the Brahmin. Groups in these areas who wish to improve their status do so by adopting some of the Rajput lifestyle's stigmata, i.e., by “Rajputizing” their way of life (Sinha). Even the lifestyles of the merchant and peasant have been taken as models in localities where these groups are dominant” (ibid).

Yogendra Singh theorizes this situation when he states that there are two levels of meanings which are implicit in the concept of Sanskritization. These two levels may be described as ‘historical specific’ and ‘contextual specific’ connotations of Sanskritization. He writes, “(I)n historical specific sense, Sanskritization refers to those processes in Indian history which led to changes in the status of various castes, its leadership or its cultural patterns in different periods of history. It is indicative of an endogenous source of social change in the broad historical spectrum of India. In a contextual-specific sense, however, Sanskritization denotes contemporaneous processes of cultural imitation of upper castes by lower castes or subcastes in different parts of India. The nature of Sanskritization of this type is by no means uniform as the content of cultural norms or customs being imitated may vary from Sanskritic or Hindu traditional forms to the tribal and even Islamic patterns.” (1996: 6-7)

Various studies undertaken in different contexts throughout India illustrate the contextual process of Sanskritization. These studies show that the lower castes imitate the customs of other non-Brahmin castes in many places, as mentioned above. In some exceptional cases, even the higher castes have been found imitating the tribal ways, which may be described as the process of ‘tribalization’. In some other contexts, even the Muslim cultural model is emulated by both the upper and lower castes.