M. N.

Srinivas

Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (1916–1999) was an Indian sociologist and social

anthropologist. He is mostly known for his work on caste and caste systems, Social
stratification, Sanskritisation and Westernisation in southern India and the concept of
'Dominant Caste'. He is considered to be one of the pioneering personalities in the field
of Sociology & Social anthropology in India as his work in Rampura (later published as
The Remembered Village) remains one of the early examples of ethnography in India.
This was in contrast to most of his contemporaries of the Bombay School, who were
primary focusing on a historical methodology for conducting research (mainly, in
Indology).

Srinivas was born on 16 November 1916. Srinivas earned his doctorate in sociology
from the University of Bombay (later renamed as University of Mumbai) and went on to
the University of Oxford for further studies. Although, he had already written a book on
family and marriage in Mysore and completed his PhD at University of Bombay before
he went to the University of Oxford in the late 1940s for further education, his training
there played a significant role in the development of his ideas. Srinivas taught in various
institutions of repute like University of Delhi, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and National Institute of Advanced
Studies, Bangalore. He died on 30 November 1999 at Bangalore.

Contribution to Indian sociology and social anthropology

In a Frontline obituary, Parvathi Menon described him as India's most distinguished

sociologist and social anthropologist. His contribution to the disciplines of sociology and
social anthropology and to public life in India was unique. It was his capacity to break
out of the strong mould in which (the mostly North American university oriented) area
studies had been shaped after the end of the Second World War on the one hand, and
to experiment with the disciplinary grounding of social anthropology and sociology on
the other, which marked his originality as a social scientist.

It was the conjuncture between Sanskritic scholarship and the strategic concerns of the
Western Bloc in the aftermath of the Second World War which largely shaped South
Asian area studies in the United States. During the colonial era, the Brahmins or
Pandits were acknowledged as important interlocutors of Hindu laws and customs to the
British colonial administration. The colonial assumptions about an unchanging Indian
society led to the curious assemblage of Sanskrit studies with contemporary issues in
most South Asian departments in the US and elsewhere. It was strongly believed that
an Indian sociology must lie at the conjunction of Indology and sociology.

Srinivas' scholarship was to challenge that dominant paradigm for understanding Indian
society and would in the process, usher newer intellectual frameworks for
understanding Hindu society. His views on the importance of caste in the electoral
processes in India are well known. While some have interpreted this to attest to the
enduring structural principles of social stratification of Indian society, for Srinivas these
symbolised the dynamic changes that were taking place as democracy spread and
electoral politics became a resource in the local world of village society.

By inclination, he was not given to utopian constructions: his ideas about justice,
equality and eradication of poverty were rooted in his experiences on the ground. His
integrity in the face of demands that his sociology should take into account the new and
radical aspirations was one of the most moving aspects of his writing. By the use of
terms such as Sanskritisation, "dominant caste", "vertical (inter-caste) and horizontal
(intra-caste) solidarities", Srinivas sought to capture the fluid and dynamic essence of
caste as a social institution.

His Methodology

As part of his methodological practice, Srinivas strongly advocated ethnographic

research based on Participant observation, but his concept of fieldwork was tied to the
notion of locally bounded sites. Thus some of his best papers, such as the paper on
dominant caste and one on a joint family dispute, were largely inspired from his direct
participation (and as a participant observer) in rural life in south India. He wrote several
papers on the themes of national integration, issues of gender, new technologies, etc. It
is really surprising as to why he did not theorise on the methodological implications of
writing on these issues which go beyond the village and its institutions. His methodology
and findings have been used and emulated by successive researchers who have
studied caste in India.

His The Remembered Village (1976) is considered a classic in this field. It is a study
based on the 11 months he spent in the village in 1948 and on subsequent visits until
1964.

To make people understand the concept of society he categorized these concepts into
two
(i) book view (ii) field view

Now when we talk about the book view. Srinivas always said what is given in the book
might be good as a reference but completely believing it won’t be useful. He gave more
importance to the field perspective. According to books all the caste elements, religion,
kinship, geographical areas formulate Indian society’s foundation.

Srinivas always believed to know Indian society and its different aspects one has to go
in the field use his own mind and observation and share what he or she has
experienced. He said to study Indian society starts with visiting different regions. Study
that region and its functions. This is how you can know the nativity of those regions of
Indian society.

He also emphasized the importance of mathematical and statistical studies. Many rely
on practical analyzes rather on mathematical as it seems to be difficult to follow. He
stuck to the notion of local bounded sites which were best seen his paper on the topic
like dominant caste and joint family conflicts which he himself observed in rural south
India. His uniques style of researching and best works were provided by him due to his
unique sense of methodology. Many of his writing served as a reference to many other
sociologists or researchers who were also determined to study caste in India.

Recognition

He received many honours from the University of Bombay, the Royal Anthropological
Institute, and the Government of France; in 1977, he has received the Padma Bhushan
from the President of India; and he was the honorary foreign member of two academies:
the British Academy and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. National
Translation Mission of the Ministry of Human Resource Development of Government of
India has selected his works, Social Change in Modern India and Caste in Modern India
for translation into Indian languages. The latter one has already been published in
Maithili language.

Writing and inspiration:

Srinivas was greatly influenced by Radcliffe Brown an English social Anthropologist and
by his idea of structure. Radcliffe was also his teacher when he was studying at Oxford.
Srinivas was firmly determined to study religion, caste, and social changes. He studied
every aspect of Indian society and its relationship with one another. Let it be different
tribes, castes, peasants, and sections etc. His writing is of great effort and done in the
field in South India.

Attributional approaches to caste

The scholars using the attributional approach stress the attributes of a caste. However,
each of them lays emphasis on one or other of these attributes and how they affect
interaction. In the case of Srinivas' writing in the 1950s, we find that he chooses to study
the structure of relations arising between castes on the basis of these attributes. Thus
he introduces a dynamic aspect of caste identity very forcefully. Before the concept of
Sanskritization, Srinivas put forth the concept of Brahminization where the lower caste
adopted the practices of the Brahmins to improve their social status. During his study of
north India Srinivas observed that the lower castes adopted the practices of the upper
castes and not only Brahmins and so he called the concept as Sanskritization.

This aspect becomes clearer in Srinivas's work on positional mobility known as

'Sanskritization'. Sanskritization is a process whereby a caste attempts to raise its rank
within the caste hierarchy by adopting the practice, the attributes of the caste or castes
above them, in the rank order. This is to say the 'low' attributes are gradually dropped
and the 'high' attributes of the castes above them are imitated. This involves adoption of
vegetarianism, clean occupations and so on. Closely connected is the concept of
dominant caste. The dominant caste in a village is conspicuous by its:

 Sizeable numerical presence

 Ownership of land
 Political power
 Access to western education
 Jobs in administration
 Place in local caste hierarchy

Topics of great importance to Srinivas:

 1. Social changes are occurring from the evolution of society but when we talk
about Indian society there are certain social changes that have gained much
popularity. Concepts like Sanskritization, Westernization, and Secularization etc
are an example of social changes.
2. Sanskritization is as the process in Hinduism in which the low caste Hindu
person or group tries to acquire values, ideologies, and rituals of higher caste
Hindu. Westernization in India when the culture of West is gaining more
importance than the culture of India. Indian people borrowing the culture of West
is said to be the process of Westernization.
3. Secularization in India is a process in which all the religion existing in India will be
treated as equal and neutral. These are some of the social changes which
Srinivas emphasized on.
4. View on Religion, caste and its impact: He emphasized on many topics related
to religion and village. How religion plays an important role to formulate Indian
society. Religion, therefore, carries caste system which again produces
subdivision of these castes. He later discusses how these castes affect different
caste groups differently. Each caste carries its position in society and treated on
the basis of those ranks. He further talks about how these caste differences bring
out more differences among people differences like occupational differences, a
hierarchy in society, the system of pure and impure, caste panchayats and
assemblies.

5. Dominant caste: according to Srinivas any caste that has three main powers of
numerical strength, political power, and economic power is said to be a dominant
caste.

Now he arises a new concept of dominant caste it does not talks about how castes are
ranked in society. If only concerns with if one has numerical strength, political power
and economic power irrespective of whether he belongs to low or high caste.

We can see this when Srinivas talks about the village of Rampura in Mysore. There he
witnesses that there were several castes each holding different positions. It consisted of
Brahmins, peasants, and untouchables. But here peasants were stronger and dominant
than Brahmins as many peasants had land were numerically stronger and had political
power. That is why in this sense Srinivas said caste that was traditionally ranked below
but having political and economic power proved them as dominant caste in the village.

Criticism Srinivas Faced:

Many have criticized him by saying he has at times eliminated religious minorities from
his research during promoting the concept of Sanskritization.
In his studies, we can see he has focused on Indian traditions like caste and village
which revolve around Hinduism trough this we can see he was using no secular
concept. He focused more on upper caste or we can say, elite groups.

Many concepts of social change were introduced by M.N Srinivas such as

sanskritization and westernization. These two processes cannot be studied individually.
One needs to study both the concepts to acquire full knowledge. He introduced the
concept of sanskritization when he was still studying in Oxford and the concept of
westernization was put up in 1956. In which he shares how westernization has impacted
the Indian culture and gradually it’s sweeping away the Indian culture over western.

The concepts which were introduced by Srinivas were not completely unique as they
might be having the same concept from Aryanization or Brahminization by Lyall and
Risley as said by Mukherjee.

M.N Srinivas importantly focused on fieldwork rather completely falling for bookish
knowledge. He was one of the popular first generation sociologists in India. He
discusses all the complex functions in Indian society with ease. He shares his point of
view on topics such as caste, religion, traditional villages and their impacts on Indian
society.

Books

 Marriage and Family in Mysore (1942)

 Religion and Society Among the Coorgs (1952)
 Caste in Modern India and other essays (1962), Asia Publishing House
 The Remembered Village (1976, reissued by OUP in 2013)
 Indian Society through Personal Writings (1998)
 Village, Caste, Gender and Method (1998)
 Social Change in Modern India(1966)
 The Dominant Caste and Other Essays (ed.)(1986)
 Dimensions of Social Change in India(1977)