Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Caste remains a central theme in Indian sociology, and the contributions of M.N. Srinivas and Andre Beteille are foundational to its understanding. While both scholars engaged with the complexities of the caste system, their approaches and conclusions differed significantly. Srinivas, through his fieldwork in Mysore, introduced the concept of ‘Sanskritization’ to explain social mobility, while Beteille, with his studies in Tamil Nadu, offered a structural perspective emphasizing the economic and political dimensions of caste. This answer will comparatively analyze their perspectives, highlighting their key arguments and points of divergence.
M.N. Srinivas’s Perspective: Sanskritization and Social Mobility
M.N. Srinivas, in his seminal work ‘Religion and Society among the Coorgs’ (1952) and later in ‘The Remembered Village’ (1976), proposed the concept of ‘Sanskritization’ to explain the process of social mobility among lower castes. Sanskritization refers to a process by which lower castes adopt the ritual and cultural practices of upper castes, particularly Brahmins, in an attempt to enhance their social status.
- Key Features: This involved adopting vegetarianism, wearing the sacred thread (janeu), and changing surnames.
- Direction of Mobility: Srinivas argued that Sanskritization was a relatively painless form of social mobility, as it did not involve conflict.
- Limitations: He acknowledged that Sanskritization was limited to ritual status and did not necessarily translate into economic or political power.
Andre Beteille’s Critique and Structural Perspective
Andre Beteille, in his work ‘Caste, Class and Power’ (1965), offered a critical perspective on Srinivas’s concept of Sanskritization. He argued that Sanskritization was a limited and often superficial form of mobility, and that it did not address the fundamental structural inequalities inherent in the caste system.
- Structural Emphasis: Beteille emphasized the importance of understanding caste in relation to land ownership and economic power. He argued that caste was not merely a matter of ritual status, but was deeply intertwined with the material conditions of life.
- Critique of Sanskritization: He contended that Sanskritization often involved adopting the symbols of upper-caste status without gaining access to the economic and political resources that underpinned that status. He saw it as a form of ‘positional competition’ rather than genuine social mobility.
- Purity and Pollution: Beteille viewed purity and pollution not as inherent qualities, but as social constructs used to maintain social distance and justify inequality.
Comparative Analysis: Key Differences
| Feature | M.N. Srinivas | Andre Beteille |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Cultural and ritual aspects of caste | Structural aspects – land, economy, power |
| Social Mobility | Sanskritization as a key mechanism | Sanskritization as limited; structural change needed |
| Purity-Pollution | Functional in maintaining social order | Social construct reinforcing inequality |
| Methodology | Fieldwork in specific villages | Comparative analysis across regions |
Impact of Modernization
Both Srinivas and Beteille acknowledged the impact of modernization on the caste system. Srinivas believed that modernization would lead to a weakening of caste boundaries, while Beteille argued that caste would continue to be a significant factor in Indian society, albeit in modified forms. Beteille predicted that caste associations would become increasingly important in the political arena as lower castes sought to mobilize for their rights.
Beteille also highlighted the role of the state in perpetuating caste inequalities through policies like reservation, arguing that while intended to address historical injustices, they could also reinforce caste identities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both M.N. Srinivas and Andre Beteille made significant contributions to the study of caste, their perspectives differed considerably. Srinivas focused on the cultural dynamics of social mobility through Sanskritization, while Beteille emphasized the structural inequalities rooted in land ownership and economic power. Beteille’s critique of Sanskritization highlighted its limitations as a pathway to genuine social change. Their combined insights provide a nuanced understanding of the caste system, its complexities, and its enduring relevance in contemporary India.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.