An Open Letter to the Head, Department of Sociology, University of Delhi
By: Ankur Betageri
Tags: Caste Systems, M N Srinivas, Sanskritization, India, Sociology

Untitled by Banksy

An Open Letter to the Head, Department of Sociology, University of Delhi

Dear Professor Roma Chatterji,

I understand that M.N. Srinivas’s theory of Sanskritisation is part of the undergraduate syllabus (Core Course 04, Sociology of India-II: 2.2) of Delhi University. On close study I found the theory full of ideological assumptions and theoretical inconsistencies and that its implications were not borne out either by contemporary social reality or the history of caste. I have written a detailed refutation of the theory which can be read here.

I deliberately published the refutation in a literary journal as I wanted a public discussion/debate on the issue.

I request you and the syllabus revision committee to read the refutation. If you are convinced of the validity of my arguments I request you to please consider withdrawing M.N. Srinivas’s paper “‘A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization’, The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15(4), 1956, pp. 481–496” from the Delhi University B.A. Sociology (Hons.) syllabus. If, however, you or your colleagues do not find my arguments convincing it would be nice if you could let me know just where or how I am wrong.

I hope you would not point to ethnographic studies of castes which demonstrate the emulation of practice x or y of a higher caste by a lower caste. The offering of such “evidence” merely confirms the researcher’s bias and nothing more; it also raises the problem of induction.

Some of the fundamental questions I am asking are:

1. How do you establish the “high” caste-ownership of a practice (like vegetarianism, teetotalism, wearing of janeau etc.,) when historical evidence shows that the “higher” castes themselves adopted these practices from other castes/religious groups placed lower on, or outside, the Brahminical hierarchy?

2. If there is a tendency to emulate the practices of “higher” castes by “lower” castes when did it historically begin? If we assume that it began with the institution of the four varnas in about 600 BCE can one demonstrate the disappearance of the practices of the “lower” castes and the mass appropriation of the practices of “higher” castes? How can this be demonstrated given problem 1, that of the caste-ownership of practices?

3. If caste emulation leads to change in the status of middle and lower castes in the space of two to three generations, as Srinivas says, why has there been no noticeable change in the status of these castes in the Brahminical hierarchy in the two thousand years of the history of caste?

I am asking you to consider the withdrawal of the paper from the syllabus not only because I think the theory of Sanskritization is wrong but also because the theory presupposes — the rationale of the theory is — the religious narrative that Brahmins came out of the mouth of the cosmic giant Purusha and other varnas out of other lesser/inferior regions. Teaching a theory which presupposes such religious ideas can be construed as religious education which is expressly prohibited by our Constitution. Article 28 of our Constitution states: “(i) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds” and “(ii) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution.”

For a long time now, I have been wondering about the role of civil society — and my own role as part of civil society — in engendering events like public lynching and caste atrocities. The ideological response to such events in the newspapers have been predictable: public lynching, if it is communally motivated, is blamed on far-right groups, and if it is not, on fake news and fake whats-app forwards. Similarly, caste atrocities are either blamed on some mysterious “caste hostilities between rival castes” (though it is, almost always, one kind of caste which gets physically attacked) or on the casteist/feudal agenda spread by far-right groups which motivates lumpen elements in society to carry out such attacks. But since this is only a journalistic narrative, I have never been satisfied with it and have been asking the following questions: 1. Am I in any way responsible for this, and if yes, how? 2. Is the education system in any way responsible for this and if yes, what reforms can we bring about? It is when I was trying to find answers to these questions that I remembered M.N. Srinivas’s concept of Sanskritization, for it was from this concept (taught in Sociology class when I was about sixteen) that I learnt to respect the hierarchy of castes and learnt that Brahmins were a caste that all other castes emulated. And it suddenly occurred to me that if I had not been primed into looking at people and castes like this from an early age by the educational system I probably wouldn’t be responding to communal and caste atrocities like I did: as if they were unfortunate and tragic events but not entirely unexpected. And this is how I reasoned, ideologically: well, the social order is arranged in a certain way, with the “higher” castes at the top and “lower” castes at the bottom, and the “higher” castes by the very virtue of being higher castes, have a “natural” right to beat up the “lower” castes because they are, well, lower. I had, in other words, never questioned why the higher castes were higher and the lower, lower; I had just assumed them to be facts of the society because I had read about a hierarchy of castes and a process of caste-emulation through which castes rose up in the hierarchy.

Thus, through my own personal experience it became clear to me that the education system played a huge role in naturalizing caste (and communal) atrocities, and if caste supremacy and caste inferiority existed in society, it was because they were being constantly reproduced in society through its many institutions, the most powerful being the institution of education.

This is how I came to study the theory of Sanskritization which has resulted in the refutation.

So, this has been the story of my “motivation.” I hope it clarifies that I have no intention to target a specific caste. That said, if it seems that my focus on Brahmins is excessive it is because my refutation does not focus on how caste is being transmitted today but shows how it has been transmitted through the ages since the first mention of the four varnas in the Purusha Sukta.

With this I once again urge you and the syllabus revision committee to read the refutation and inform me of your decision.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Ankur Betageri