Talk:Sanskritisation

WP:V

evidence that Srinivas coined the term? --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

it appears he popularized it in a shifted meaning: the term as established refers to purely linguistic phenomena, but the linguistic changes of course reflects underlying societal processes, and it seems Srinavas extended "Sanskritization" to these as well. This isn't necessarily a case for disambiguation, since the "two" meanings are closely related and overlapping. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sanskritization: A Concept about Social Change thus categorized as such.

I undertake it a mere discussion. In no way I am raising doubts of the perception of the term. Sanskritization was a term coined by M. N. Srinivas to replace his earlier term Brahmanization. He was made to review his use of term to suggest the social change under the term Brahmanization which he undertook to use after his research which had been published as 'Religions and Society among the Coorgs of South India, Oxford, 1952.

He was a Professor of Sociology and undertook the research adopting participation methodology to study the social change in Coorg near Mysore. However, to an un-initiated person, it sometime gives the impression that the term Sankritization somehow refers to a linguistic genre. It is to be borne in mind that it a concept of sociology suggesting the social change and social mobility of the castes on vertical as well horizontal level. It is a constrain of the sociology, political science, psychology et all that it have to pick terms from day to day words which carry different meaning in day to day communication. However, when it is used in context of the subject, it acquires the status of a term and becomes the part of the terminology. It is at that stage that it carries a definite meaning and dimension. Hence, it should not be taken as some linguistic gimmick at all. Further, in light of above presentation, it should be categorized under sociological term, a term referring a social change, a term belonging to historic changes taking placed in a 'caste based' society as it is found in India. sumir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Further I will direct the attention to the following line. "According to M.N. Srinivas, Sanskritization is not just the adoption of new customs and habits, but also includes exposure to new ideas and values appearing in Sanskrit literature."

I doubt, it was ever said by him. I am having three of his titles in my personal library. In one of his book, titled Castes in Modern India and other essays, he writes that those who try to evaluate the social structure on the basis of Varna System, tends to take help of the Vedic literature. He objects to such an analysis by such scholars. In no way, it is suggested that Sanskritization takes place by adopting the values as written in Sanskrit literature. The rites and practices which are adopted, they are those which are seen by one social group at lower strata in case of dominating group of their area. The dominating group may be from Shudra, Vaishya or Kshatriya Varna. Further, he has, at one place, suggested, that in case of the members of Brahmin class, they tend to remain aloof because they have been taught the values as found in the Sanskrit literature. But, if it is to be generalized on that basis as it is done in the given article, then it is a fallacy. It should be corrected.

Sumir 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Sumir Sharma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)  

It is to be further correct as in the section "Srinivas" in the main article, the conclusion is that it was social change for individual. NO. It was a social change for a social group as such. There are studies relating to Ganjam and Bordo of Orissa region who were distillers to tried to raise their social status. It was not an effort by an individual or individuals. It was by social group and in context of the society of India, it was by one caste adopting a particular profession. Hence, in place of individuals, there should be social groups or castes or tribes. Sumir Sharma--Sumir 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it a Cultural Assimilation?

The content of the main article begins with an assertion that it was a cultural assimilation process. I doubt that this the right observation. As far as I understand that it was a process of social change which was identified by Srinivas on the basis of field research as well as based on collection of data in the field of sociology analyzed on the basis of the historic data. It was used to state that the caste structure in India was not rigid and there was social mobility for the castes in the social hierarchy. There was no process of 'Acculturization' thus the issue of assimilation does not rise. However, if there is a study which suggests that when the Tribes under the changed political or economic scenario raised themselves in social status and then finally accepted by the Caste based social hierarchy, then I surrender. If it is believed that when a lower caste tended to raise its social status by adopting the cultural features of the local dominating caste and that means they were being assimilated into it, then I would strongly argue that the wrong meaning is being carried. I ask can one say westernization means assimilation in to western culture. If it is so, then I am afraid, then it is not a correct way of understanding the social processes. Westernization does not mean that there was complete cultural overhaul. It suggest of receiving the traits of culture but that does not mean that any society getting westernized is getting assimilated into western world. I hope that instead of phrase 'cultural assimilation' the term 'social change' be used. Sumir 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Sumir Sharma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)

Hi. If you find something wrong in an article, the right thing to do is usually to be bold and fix it. If there is disagreement about it, then you can discuss it here . Shreevatsa (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Shreevatsa thanks for the advice. However, intellectual propriety demands that instead of being bold, show boldness by giving the argument. If you are not in agreement with some view, then, that does not mean you just pick the sword and cut the neck. You must be confident about what you say but you should be open to correct your view if you find there is need of unlearning or learning something new. I know that I can do that. I have done such type of edits at number of places wherein I have boldly removed the whole section. Sir, I believe, it better to first propose and then see the argument of other side. It can be that I may be wrong in my perception of the term. Secondly, I have not initiated this article. So, I believe that who had done so much of hardwork in brining this original thought here, he must review it first. Thirdly, there are some reference which I myself have not checked. I have read M. N. Srinivas. Being a asst professor in History, I give lecture wherein I have to mention about sanskritization. But I have never undertaken a research myself to evaluate the working of this process which actually belongs to field of sociology. Hence, I have restraint from correcting the shortcomings. It is not that I have any doubts about my cognition but I believe that grace demands that one should not bold every time.

Any how thanks. --Sumir 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)

That is indeed an admirable position, but it does not always work well with the Wikpedia process. Often the original text of the article was written years ago by now-inactive (or anonymous) users, and unfortunately the "other side" which you seek to engage in argument might not even be present. So directly editing the page is sometimes the only effective way to initiate a discussion. (And inaccuracies in the article might not be the result of the original writer's intention but interpolations by later editors.) Here's a brief history of this article: it was originally created and expanded mainly by User:MANOJTV in 2006; here's a version from early 2007, here's a version from mid 2008, and some of the references were added in 2009. You can draw your own conclusions about which words in the article were intended to be there by whom. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanskritization / 'Hinduization' / 'Brahmanization' is a Questionable Heading

It has reference to the last link given at the end of the main article as "bibliography".

First of all I praise the efforts of the person who has collected all the references for the bibliography. I accept with full humility and surrender that I never knew that those references are there.

However, the heading of the Bibliography note is Sanskritization / 'Hinduization' / 'Brahmanization'. It has given me to understand that that all the three terms are synonymous.

Further, What is Hinduization? Is it something similar to Islaminization? Well, I doubt that there was ever such type of goal undertaken under the slogan of Hinduization. In ancient period of India, there was cultural spread of India to East Asia. There is a famous spread of Buddhism to China and from there to Japan. But, I doubt if in the field of Sociology or political science there is a concept like Hinduization.

It must be remembered that Srinivas has emphatically remarked that he had picked the term Brahmanization because he was studying a society where there were only Brahmins and Non-Brahmins. When his use of term was criticized and some other scholars in their field work found that there was similar changes in caste mobility but the role model did not have to have be Brahmin way of living then, even Srinivas accepted it and then changed it to Sanskritization. He had referred to the other connotation which the word Sankritization gives. But he had warned against carrying this meaning. He was open to even change this term for some other better term. But clubbing the terms together when the word Hinduization does not suggest anything concrete except a pointer to communal politics in India. It does not sound intellectually right way of presenting it. I propose that it should be correct and simply two terms Sanskritization / 'Brahmanization'be kept. --Sumir 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)

Er, the bibliography is an external link, maintained by Tim Lubin on his website. We (Wikipedia) cannot change it. :-)

Shreevatsa (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I got it. Then I must suggest that it should be removed.(Now do not ask me that I should be bold.) But, I am really surprised to read the contents of the Britannica. Surprising. It is believed that they employ the best brains in field to write the article. But, in this case, they confused a social process with a social reality.

I must suggest that even the See also contents are not appropriate. The whole problem seems to be that Sanskritization is equated to influence of Sanskrit language and also Hinduism and Sankritization have been equated. Sankritization is a social process. It was even problem for M. N. Srinivas to pick a term to suggest that social process in case of India which had a specific milieu. He had referred to it again and again. Kindly correct the See also links at least. --Sumir 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I must disagree about removing the external link, as it is a useful bibliography about exactly this topic and we cannot remove it just because some word there seems out-of-place. (If sufficiently concerned about the word, you can email Tim Lubin, I guess!) The word is indeed used in some titles there: Anncharlott Eschmann's “Hinduization of Tribal Deities in Orissa: The Śākta and Śaiva Typology” and “The Vaiṣṇava Typology of Hinduization and the Origin of Jagannātha”. I've removed most of the "See also" links. The confusion is understandable: linguists do use "Sanskritization" to mean the introduction of Sanskrit words into a language (etc.), but "Sanskritization" here (and usually) refers to this sociological sense. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I approve your stand and concur with you. Indeed, the scholar has collected an admirable list of references and that earns it deserving position to continue to exist there. Rest, I really read your views with great interest. I have not read the titles about which you have referred that the words seems to be interchangeably used. It is really sad if that is being done. Sanskritization in sociology is a concept and well defined by now. It may be replaced at some future date but it is a concept referring to a process of change in social field. Hinduism is a very wide term. If it is interchangeably used then it is a sad story.

--Sumir 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)  

The examples added for the Rajput doesn't matches with links

Dear admin Please look at first example: Rajput case doesn't matches with link. The sanskritisation as a process was post 1880s most scholars like Srinivas, Christophe Jaffrelot all say the same. Various main Rajput community formation topic varies from 500-600 AD to 1500-1600 AD. This is historical part not related to the last 110-130 yrs Sanskritisation process. Would be happy if some admins give response to the queries. RS6784 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)