Introduction
M.N. Srinivas revolutionized Indian anthropology and sociology by pioneering the empirical 'field view' grounded in British structural-functionalism, deliberately departing from text-based Indological 'book views'. Through rigorous intensive fieldwork in South India, he provided indigenous sociological concepts to analyze the fluidity, dynamics, and persistent structures of the Indian caste system.
1. Methodological Shift: The 'Field View'
Prior to Srinivas, Indian social structure was primarily analyzed through classical textual sources and Indology. Influenced by A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Srinivas introduced intensive participant observation, arguing that real rural social life deviated significantly from sacred prescriptions.
2. Sanskritisation and Social Mobility
- Mechanism: Introduced in his landmark study Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India (1952), Sanskritisation refers to the process by which a low or middle caste emulates the customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life of higher 'twice-born' castes. Srinivas identified Brahminical, Kshatriya, and Vaishya models of emulation.
- Nature of Mobility: Srinivas emphasized that Sanskritisation results strictly in positional change (the upward movement of a specific caste in the local hierarchy) rather than structural change (the fundamental hierarchy and framework of the caste system remain unaltered).
3. Westernisation versus Modernisation
- Westernisation: Formulated as an ethically value-neutral analytical tool, Westernisation describes multi-layered transformations occurring at ideological, institutional, technological, and behavioral levels resulting from British rule and Western contact.
- Critique of Modernisation: Srinivas consciously rejected 'modernisation' as an analytical category, regarding it as value-loaded and inherently burdened with normative assumptions of what constitutes 'progress' or 'good'.
4. Concept of the Dominant Caste
Drawing on fieldwork in Rampura recorded in The Remembered Village, Srinivas formulated the concept of the 'Dominant Caste' to explain decentralized rural power dynamics. He identified four crucial criteria for dominance:
- Numerical Strength: Sizable population in the village or locality.
- Economic Power: Ownership of a decisive portion of cultivable land.
- Political Clout: Dominance in local governance and conflict resolution.
- Ritual Status: A reasonably high position in the ritual hierarchy.
5. Critical Appraisal
- S.C. Dube: Argued that Srinivas' framework overemphasized unilineal emulation, downplaying multiple regional reference models and plural social realities.
- Gail Omvedt: Pointed out that Srinivas overemphasized emulation of upper-caste hegemony while neglecting autonomous Dalit resistance, anti-caste movements, and subaltern assertions.
- Sujata Patel: Highlighted that the structural-functional lens tended to romanticize village harmony, underplaying entrenched class-caste exploitation and systemic conflict.
Conclusion
Despite criticisms regarding an over-emphasis on consensus, M.N. Srinivas' conceptual framework remains foundational to Indian anthropology. His concepts transformed Indian village studies from static colonial typologies into dynamic inquiries of social mobility, caste assertion, and institutional transformation.