Sanskritisation, a term coined by M N Srinivas, describes the cultural and social mobility within Indian society, particularly among lower castes and tribes adopting customs of higher castes, known as 'twice-born.'

This source of change predates colonialism, contrasting with later influences like secularization and modernization.

The process accelerated under British rule due to improved communication. Lower castes, seeking upward mobility, adopted Brahminic customs such as abstaining from meat and alcohol, aiming to attain higher social status.

The impact and significance -

1. socio-cultural mobility

2. Its influence can be seen in ideology, language, literature, music, dance, drama etc

Critics of Sanskritisation highlight several shortcomings.

📍D N Majumdar notes instances of reverse Sanskritisation, where upper castes, like Kashmiri Pundits and Brahmins in Haryana and Punjab, abandon their traditional lifestyles.

📍 it's argued that Sanskritisation overemphasizes individual mobility without addressing structural inequalities. Despite some individuals ascending, systemic inequality persists.

📍Sanskritisation perpetuates the notion of upper caste superiority, reinforcing the desirability of imitating higher castes. This ideology justifies existing hierarchies and exclusions.

📍Moreover, Sanskritisation enables the transmission of dominant caste practices, such as dowry, to lower castes, eroding their culture.

📍Harold Gould suggests that economic and social competition, rather than cultural emulation, drives Sanskritisation. This trend devalues Dalit culture, undermining the dignity of their labor.

📍Additionally, Sanskritisation's focus on Brahminical norms neglects other caste models. With reservation policies, Dalit empowerment, and Westernization, Sanskritisation's relevance diminishes, as marginalized groups assert their identity through politics and socio-economic means, rather than emulation of higher castes.