Sanskritisation Revisited A.M. Shah This paper discusses the origin, development and continuing rele- vance of M.N. Srinivas’ concept and analysis of sanskritisation. It points out how it is a mistake to limit the use of the concept to emulation of the culture of higher castes by lower castes for upward mobility in caste hierarchy. In reality, as Srinivas himself clarified, sanskritisation is a many-sided cultural process, only a part of which is connected with the caste system. The paper indicates how caste hierarchy is gradually getting dissociated from sanskritisation, and how many non-caste structures and institutions have become its powerful agents, leading to greater sanskritisation of the society as a whole, including the dalits and the adivasis. It is well known that one of the basic contributions of M.N. Srinivas to the study of Indian society and culture is his concept and analysis of sanskritisation. He used the concept first in his doctoral dissertation on Coorg religion submitted to Oxford University in 1947 and published in 1952. As Srinivas himself noted later (1967, reprinted in Srinivas 2002: 221), the eminent linguist and historian Suniti Kumar Chatterjee (1950) also used the term almost at the same time as Srinivas used it, but with- out the two scholars knowing about one another’s work. This was similar to the well-known phenomenon in physical sciences of simultaneous dis- covery by two or more scientists without knowing one another’s work. Srinivas’ concept has had a long career, culminating in its inclusion in the Oxford English dictionary (1971). This has happened because not only Srinivas but also many other scholars have written extensively about it. These scholars belong to a variety of disciplines: anthropology, sociology, history, political science, linguistics, Sanskrit, Indology, and others. One may agree or disagree with the concept, one may misunder- stand it, or one may interpret it differently, but one uses it all the same. The frequently used term ‘de-sanskritisation’ also presumes ‘sanskriti- sation’. The concept continues to be used extensively even now, and will, I am sure, continue to be used as long as scholars are interested in under- standing Indian culture and society in space and time. As soon as we use the term sanskritisation, Sanskrit language comes to our mind. Indeed several linguists such as Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 54 (2), May-August 2005, Pp. 238-249 Sanskritisation Revisited 239 V. Raghavan and J.F. Staal have commented on this aspect of the concept. Sanskritisation and de-sanskritisation of languages have taken place throughout Indian history. In modern India, however, there has been widespread sanskritisation of all regional languages, including tribal languages, except perhaps Tamil. Use of standardised language in education, administration, print and electronic media, and other sectors of society, along with migrations from rural, including tribal, areas to urban centres, have played a major role in sanskritisation of regional languages. Rural, tribal and caste dialects have been on the way to extinction, if they have already not become so. Hindi, after its recog- nition as an official language of India, has become highly Sanskritic. There are now innumerable Sanskrit tongue-twisters, often obscure, in bureaucratic parlance. Sanskrit words are also being used increasingly as personal names in modern times all over India, including tribal areas, except again perhaps in Tamil Nadu. Sanskritisation is much more than a matter of language, however. Since it is based on Srinivas’ concept of Sanskritic Hinduism, it is, of course, concerned in a major way with religion. However, it is also concerned with many other aspects of society and culture. Srinivas has described its features in great detail in many of his writings. I will not, therefore, repeat them here. Basically, these features are part of what is called great traditional, classical, or higher Hinduism elaborated in classical Sanskrit texts. ‘Sanskritisation’ is a hybrid word. Srinivas himself stated that it was ‘an ugly term’ (1956a: 73; 1956b; 2002: 202) and ‘I myself do not like that word. It is extremely awkward’ (1956a: 90).1 A question is often asked, particularly in discussions of the concept in regional languages: is this word based on Sanskrit (name of the language) or sanskriti (meaning culture, civilisation)? Both Srinivas and Chatterjee based it on the former rather than the latter. For both of them, the concept was inextricably linked to the religious and cultural complex found in classical Sanskrit literature. In any case, however, in scientific discourse the substantive content of a term is far more important than its etymology. To understand the basic nature of sanskritisation it is necessary to keep in mind Srinivas’ original description and analysis of Sanskritic versus non-Sanskritic culture in his Coorg book. Its foundation is laid in the initial two chapters on ‘The ritual idiom of Coorgs’. We find here detailed analysis of one after another item of culture concerning time, space, directions, shaving, bath, dress, lamp, stove, rice, milk, coins, salutation, music, food, ritual purity and impurity, mourning, funeral, betel leaves, areca nut, and so on. He uses three rules formulated by A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, his teacher at Oxford, to decipher ritual idiom and thus 240 A.M. Shah understand the language of Coorg ritual.2 He then uses this understanding in the rest of the book to describe and analyse the nature of Hindu gods, goddesses, and other sacred objects and personages, the rituals of their worship, the myths concerning them, the rites of passage, the festivals, social customs, and so on. It is in this context that he puts forward his concepts of Sanskritic and non-Sanskritic Hinduism, and of sanskriti- sation. Although Srinivas made a considerable number of general observations on Indian society and culture in the Coorg book, the main focus of the book remained Coorg society. In the years following its writing, he carried out intensive fieldwork in village Rampura and its neighbourhood in the former Mysore state (now in Karnataka) and also read modern anthropological and sociological literature that was beginning to appear. Armed with this new knowledge, he presented his thoughts on sanskritisation more comprehensively for the first time in ‘A note on sanskritisation and westernisation’ he wrote for a seminar orga- nised by Milton Singer at Poona in July 1954. Srinivas could not attend the seminar, but sent the paper for publication in Far eastern quarterly. In the meanwhile, he presented the same paper at the all India con- ference of anthropologists and sociologists held at Madras in November 1955. While presenting the paper he spoke at some length to introduce it. The paper, the speech and the discussion were published in the report of the conference in October 1956 (see Srinivas 1956a). In the paper he expressed his awareness of ‘the complexity of the concept and its loose- ness’ (Ibid.: 75; 1956b; 2002: 202) and in the speech he expressed his dissatisfaction with the word ‘sanskritisation’ (1956a: 90). Several lead- ing participants in the conference, such as V. Raghavan, Irawati Karve, N.K. Bose, P.N. Prabhu and N. Dutta-Majumder, criticised the paper sharply. Since I was a participant in the conference, I could see the criticisms were quite sharp. Srinivas’ reply was equally sharp: I am afraid that in spite of the criticisms against the term sanskritisation, I shall continue to use it, and, that too, unrepentantly, because there is nothing in anything that has been said by anyone, including the President [Irawati Karve], that has convinced me that I should discard it (Ibid.: 113). Taking advantage of the discussion at the conference, Srinivas added a long note at the end of the paper on the eve of its publication in Far eastern quarterly (1956b, reprinted in Srinivas 2002: 200-20). He stated here that the concept was not ‘perfect’ (2002: 219). However, he continued to use it, re-examining it continuously in view of new data and new ideas because, as he stated, ‘Perfectionism is often a camouflage for Sanskritisation Revisited 241 sterility’ (2002: 219). In all of his work, he believed, like E.E. Evans- Pritchard, his other teacher and later colleague at Oxford, in the heuristic value of an idea rather than in its truth-value (see Fuller 1998, reprinted in Srinivas 2002: 702). It is often said that the term sanskritisation is only another word for ‘brahmanisation’. However, Srinivas clarified in all his writings on the subject, beginning with the Coorg book, that the Brahmans are not always the source or agency of sanskritisation. Often the non-Brahman castes play this role. In fact, the source of sanskritisation for a low non- Brahman caste can be another non-Brahman caste just above it in hierarchy. It is also significant that many sanyasis and sadhus are highly sanskritised in their behaviour without being Brahmans, and they are an important agent of sanskritisation. Even an Untouchable can be highly sanskritised. The reason is that the source of sanskritisation may not be any caste at all; it can even be impersonal. Incomplete reading of Srinivas’ writings has often led to an impres- sion that sanskritisation is essentially a process of emulation of the culture of upper castes by lower castes for upward mobility in the ritual hierarchy of castes. Many textbooks of sociology and social anthropo- logy describe it this way. Surely, this process of emulation exists and is very important. Srinivas himself has analysed it at great length, to such an extent that some of his statements have contributed to this limited interpretation of the concept. However, it would be a mistake to view it as confined to and limited by the caste order.