Talk:Sanskritisation

message: evidence that Srinivas coined the term? --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:V]]

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Was it a Cultural Assimilation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sanskritization / 'Hinduization' / 'Brahmanization' is a Questionable Heading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The examples added for the Rajput doesn't matches with links