I

• Social change in modern India is complex and requires collaboration across multiple fields.
• The concepts of Sanskritization and Westernization are used to explain some aspects of religious, cultural, and social change in India.
• Sanskritization refers to the historical and ongoing process where communities adopt Sanskritic culture and practices.
• Westernization refers to changes introduced during British rule and continuing in independent India, affecting various sections of the population.
• Sanskritization has been a long-term process throughout Indian history, while Westernization accelerated post-independence.
• The interrelation between Sanskritization and Westernization offers a rich area for analysis.
• Sanskritization was found to be widespread among Hindus and some tribal groups.
• The concepts of Sanskritization and Westernization are useful for analyzing social changes but require further clarification and refinement.
• The varna model of caste obscured the dynamic features of caste during the pre-British period.
• The varna model represents a single all-India hierarchy with only four or five varnas.
• Caste exists everywhere as hereditary, endogamous groups with traditional occupations.
• Regional differences in caste practices and interactions are significant.
• Varna categories only provide broad all-India classifications, not capturing regional specifics.
• The varna model’s immutability contrasts with the dynamic nature of actual caste relations.
• Disputes and changes in caste positions occurred historically, contrasting with the fixed varna model.
• The varna model supports Brahminical supremacy and reflects religious considerations.
• The varna model evolved during the Vedic period and was elaborated in the post-Vedic period.
• Brahmin writers codified the duties and hierarchy of castes, emphasizing Brahmin superiority.
• The varna model may not accurately reflect the lived realities of many rural and peasant castes.
• The varna model gained popularity during the British period due to various factors, including British legal and educational influences.
• A complete understanding of the varna model’s popularity requires further study.

II

• Sanskritization is the process where a lower Hindu caste, tribal, or other group alters its customs, rituals, ideology, and lifestyle to align with higher, often “twice-born” castes.
• Such changes are generally followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy, which is usually conceded over generations.
• Disagreements may arise if the claimed status is not accepted by neighbors, affecting both opinion and institutionalized practices.
• Examples include Harijans in Mysore not accepting food and water from Smiths, and Kurubas and Okkaligas not accepting from Mārka Brahmins.
• Sanskritization can lead to upward mobility for the caste but does not alter the overall hierarchical system, only changing positional status within it.
• It is not limited to Hindu castes but also occurs among tribal and semi-tribal groups, which may start identifying as castes to become part of Hinduism.
• The Brahminical model of Sanskritization is one of several models; others include Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shūdra models.
• The Brahminical model is often derived from specific regional Brahmin traditions rather than a universal model.
• D.F. Pocock identifies a Kshatriya model where the dominant political power influences societal standards, with historical examples like the Moghuls and British.
• Milton Singer points out multiple models of Sanskritization, including Kshatriya and merchant or peasant models, reflecting local dominance.
• Local versions of Sanskritic Hinduism vary in content based on locality and historical context, and the relative prestige of varnas can differ regionally.
• Brahmin groups show considerable diversity in practices, including diet and occupational roles, with varying levels of Sanskritization.
• Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shūdra varnas draw more from local culture than Brahmins, leading to significant regional differences.
• There is less consensus on Kshatriya and Vaishya status compared to Brahmins and Untouchables.
• Some historical interpretations, like K.M. Panikkar’s, suggest that traditional Kshatriya status has not existed for centuries, with royal families often coming from non-Kshatriya castes.
• The Shūdra category spans a wide cultural and structural range, from powerful landowners to near-Untouchable groups, with varying degrees of Sanskritization.
• Sanskritization may involve imitation of local dominant caste models, including Kshatriya or other varna models, mediated through dominant local castes.

III

• In many parts of rural India, dominant, landowning castes exist that own significant amounts of arable land, have large numbers, and occupy high positions in local hierarchies.
• A caste with these attributes enjoys decisive dominance, but dominance can shift over time or there may be multiple dominant castes in a village.
• New factors like Western education, administrative jobs, and urban income sources have influenced caste prestige and power.
• The introduction of adult franchise and panchāyati rāj since independence has empowered “low” castes, particularly Harijans, with reserved seats in elected bodies.
• These changes have shifted power to numerically large, landowning peasant castes, though Harijans in some villages may also impact local power dynamics.
• Endemic factionalism within dominant castes poses a threat to their sustained dominance.
• Dominance is no longer purely local; a caste with regional dominance will influence local dynamics even if it has only a few members in a specific village.
• The improvement in communications over the last fifty years has led to a decline in local cultural diversity and an increase in uniformity.
• Landownership is crucial for establishing dominance, with a pattern where a small number of large landowners control most arable land, affecting power dynamics in villages.
• Big landowners have significant influence over poorer villagers, with traditional stable ties between landowners and artisans/servants.
• Disparities in landownership are common in developing countries, but in India, they are compounded by hereditary caste groups, with Harijans often being landless laborers.
• Landownership confers power and prestige, facilitating upward mobility, though it is not always essential for high rank.
• Landowning castes may have significant power and prestige even over higher ritual castes, as seen in Punjab and Madhopur village.
• In some areas, ritual superiority persists independently of economic power; Brahmins may be ritually supreme despite being economically subordinate to dominant landowning castes.
• The village consensus may accept Brahmins as ritually superior, even if they are not the most economically powerful.
• Beidelman highlights an inconsistency in caste ranking, where secular and ritual ranks may differ; Brahmins may occupy low secular positions but still command respect in ritual contexts.
• A wealthy Gujarati Bania avoids entering the kitchen of his Brahmin cook to avoid defiling the Brahmin and the cooking utensils.
• Brahmins are distinguished from their religion, which has influenced modern Hindu reinterpretation and helped Hinduism survive anti-Brahmin movements in South India.
• Rationalism and atheism are part of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s ideology, but Tamil non-Brahmin castes’ adherence to it is uncertain.
• Sanskritization models are mediated through locally dominant castes, which transmit Brahminical, Kshatriya, or Vaishya models depending on their own caste identity.
• Caste systems embody two tendencies: acceptance of multiple local cultures and imitation of higher castes.
• Non-Brahmin castes imitate local higher castes rather than Brahmins, focusing on proximity rather than direct imitation.
• Local village systems are influenced by broader all-India systems, with ideals derived from Great Tradition sources like pilgrimages and religious plays.
• Elders of dominant castes traditionally maintained cultural and ritual boundaries, preventing lower castes from encroaching on their hereditary roles.
• Dominant castes enforced rules to preserve structural distance, such as the prohibition of low castes wearing sacred threads or adopting prestigious symbols.
• Incidents of conflict include Noniyas wearing sacred threads leading to violence and legal action by higher castes, and the Kallar imposing prohibitions on Harijans.
• Dominant castes also fostered imitation among lower castes, requiring careful and gradual adoption of prestigious practices to avoid backlash.
• D.R. Chanana discusses the spread of Sanskritization and Westernization in areas influenced by Islam, with Hindu communities showing weaker Brahmin influence.
• The relative weakness of Brahmin influence in these regions is evidenced by the scarcity of temples, Sanskrit schools, and Brahmins knowledgeable in shāstras.
• Hindus in Muslim-majority areas often did not recite Sanskrit mantras and sent their children to madrasas, reflecting significant Muslim influence.
• Despite the lack of Brahmin influence, Hindus in these regions maintained some Vedic wedding rites with Brahmin priests.
• The minimal Sanskritization in nineteenth-century Punjab was countered by British influences, leading to increased Sanskritization through institutions like the Ārya Samāj and educational reforms.
• The dominant caste influences all areas of social life, including descent and affiliation principles.
• Tamil trading castes Tarakans and Mannadiyārs shifted from patriliny to matriliny over 120 to 150 years.
• Tarakan women married into Nambūdri Brahmin or Sāmanthan families, while Tarakan men married Kiriyam Nāyar women.
• Some Tarakan women had relations with royal Vellāttiri lineage men, bringing wealth to their lineages.
• The immigrant weaving caste Chāliyan follows matriliny in some regions and patriliny elsewhere, with some adopting Nāyar identity in the 1940s.
• Patrilineal Kurukkals in Travancore transitioned to matriliny by the late 18th century, with Kurukkal women having hypergamous relations with Nambudri men.
• Kurukkal men married women from the matrilineal Marans, possibly due to pressure from the Pottis.
• S.L. Kalia describes “tribalization” where high-caste Hindus among tribal people adopt tribal mores, rituals, and beliefs temporarily.
• High-caste Hindus adapting to tribal cultures often plan to revert to their traditional ways upon returning home.
• In multi-caste villages dominated by a single caste, violations of caste rules are met with fines, physical punishment, or outcasting.
• Non-dominant castes often admire and imitate the lifestyle of the dominant caste, sometimes assimilating elements of their culture.
• Brahmins and other high castes may assimilate elements from dominant local castes and “go native” in areas with poor communication and contact with traditional centers.
• Brahmin culture is not always highly Sanskritized; for example, Sanādh Brahmins of Western Uttar Pradesh exhibit minimal Sanskritization.
• In Kishan Garhi, Brahmins’ minimal Sanskritization reflects in local festivals and religious practices, such as the Pitcher Fourth festival and worship of the non-Sanskritic mother-godling “Cāmer.”
• Rural India has landowning peasant castes that either dominate or share dominance with Shūdra, Kshatriya, or Brahmin castes.
• Post-independence changes have increased the power and prestige of peasant castes at the expense of higher castes.
• Prominent dominant castes include Ahīr, Jāt, Gujar, Rājpūt, Sadgop, Pātidār, Marātha, Kamma, Reddi, Okkaliga, Lingāyat, Vellāla, Goundar, Padaiyāchi, Nāyar, Syrian Christian, and Izhavan.
• Dominant castes set cultural models, including Brahmins, who may also experience changes due to Sanskritization in areas of dominance.
• Pātidārs, Lingāyats, and Vellālas have influenced their regions’ cultures through Sanskritization.
• Lingāyats, with their use of Kannada and influential monasteries, have driven cultural and social change in Mysore.
• Marāthas, Reddis, and Padaiyāchis have claimed Kshatriya status, influencing lower castes to imitate Kshatriya lifestyles.
• In Gujarat, many castes seek Kshatriya recognition, supported by wealth and Brahminic prestige.
• Brahmins and Kshatriyas have historically enjoyed dominance through ritual and land ownership, contributing to their high status.
• Pilgrimage centers and monasteries have spread Sanskritization, influencing local and distant castes.
• Sanskritization has been a significant cultural change across the Indian subcontinent, occurring universally with varying intensity and regional impact.

IV

• There have been multiple models of Sanskritization, with rivalry between them in early Indian history.
• Later Vedic texts record conflicts between Brahmins and Kshatriyas regarding supremacy.
• Jainism and Buddhism show conflicts between Kshatriyas and Brahmins for social pre-eminence.
• Jain Tirthankaras were exclusively from Kshatriya families, and Buddhist literature often lists Kshatriyas before Brahmins.
• New faiths attracted traders who resented Brahminical dominance and sought alternatives within the caste system.
• The varna model of caste hierarchy is immutable, with Brahminical texts supporting Brahminical supremacy.
• The influence of Brahmins was significant, given their role in legitimizing secular power and their appreciation of political and economic power.
• Some Brahmins sought wealth through education in Sanskrit, which provided material advantages.
• Vedic Brahminical life saw changes, such as the taboo against beef-eating and the disappearance of liquor consumption.
• The Brahminical model of Sanskritization, especially post-Vedic, has been influential, with Kshatriya and Vaishya models being less dominant.
• Western influence in recent decades has caused the Brahminical model to lose ground among some Hindus.
• Ascetic orders from the Brahmin class appeared towards the end of the Vedic period, influenced by earlier non-Brahmin ascetic practices.
• Buddhism and Jainism also influenced changes in Brahminical life, contributing to a puritanical style in Hinduism.
• The Bhakti movement promoted love of God over ritualism and caste, advocating religious equality and simple devotion.
• The Bhakti movement included low castes and women saints, impacting religious equality and preparing higher castes for later challenges.
• The Bhakti movement used regional languages, leading to a feedback loop where Sanskritic Hinduism incorporated regional literature.
• The Brahminical and puritanical model of Sanskritization has been dominant, with varying attitudes towards meat consumption and liquor.
• Among non-vegetarians, there is a hierarchy of meat consumption, with beef-eaters regarded as lowest.
• In Mysore, meat is cooked separately and not on festival days or during weddings.
• In Delhi-Punjab, meat-eating is more common among men, with women often restricted to a vegetarian diet.
• Priests from meat-eating castes may practice vegetarianism and exclusiveness in their personal life.
• Orthodox Brahmins may practice extreme exclusiveness, including separate food preparation and religious devotion.
• Such practices have decreased among educated and urban Indians but persist in some communities.
• A Shri Vaishnava Brahmin in Mysore City proudly practiced strict religious exclusivity, highlighting ongoing adherence to traditional ideals.

V

• The varna model of the caste system distorts understanding of traditional Indian society.
• The traditional system allowed for some mobility, which is further explored in this section.
• Sanskritization bridged the gap between secular and ritual rank, with castes adopting high-status customs and practices.
• Achieving secular power often involved acquiring traditional symbols of high status, including Brahmin rituals and knowledge.
• Ambitious castes recognized the legitimizing role of Brahmins, and even poor Brahmin priests were treated with respect compared to other poor castes.
• Vijayanagar rulers (1336–1565) in South India acknowledged Brahmin elites to legitimize their power and align with Hindu institutions.
• Aspirant castes sought wider social recognition through Sanskritization, which implied contact with pilgrimage centers and influential Brahmins.
• Caste dominance in limited areas sometimes prevented Sanskritization, but broader power often confronted the Great Tradition of Hinduism.
• Bardic castes in North India, like the Vahīvancā, played a role in legitimizing political power and caste status.
• The Vahīvancā provided legitimacy for Rajputs and other castes, such as the Koḷīs, through mythological and genealogical records.
• Hypergamy, where lower castes marry their daughters into higher castes, coexists with endogamy and demonstrates upward mobility.
• Hypergamy is found in regions like Kerala, Gujarat, Bengal, and parts of Uttar Pradesh, showing institutionalized caste inclusion.
• Hypergamy can occur among different sections of the same caste or between distinct castes, providing a basis for claiming equality.
• Hypergamy contributes to caste mobility by allowing lower groups to Sanskritize and claim superiority over others.
• The Amma Coorgs, influenced by Brahminical practices in the 19th century, adopted vegetarianism, teetotalism, and sacred thread, becoming a distinct endogamous group.
• New caste groups often arose from fission within parent bodies due to processes like Sanskritization and hypergamy.

VI

• Caste mobility in traditional periods led to positional changes but not structural changes.
• Medieval Bhakti literature challenged inequality, with some sects initially recruiting followers from various castes.
• Over time, sects either became endogamous or maintained endogamy within each caste.
• The section will not systematically prove social mobility in every Indian historical period but will cite instances from ancient and medieval India, focusing on the pre-British period.
• The varna system evolved during the Vedic period (circa 1500–500 B.C.), with the Purusha Sūkta myth explaining the origins of the four varnas: Brāhmana, Rājanya (Kshatriya), Vaishya, and Shūdra.
• The Brahmin’s position strengthened during the latter part of the Vedic period, linked to the growing importance of sacrifice, pushing the Kshatriya to a secondary role.
• Jainism and Buddhism, started by Kshatriyas, aimed to assert Kshatriya superiority over Brahmins, who defended Vedic culture.
• The Vaishya was initially low in hierarchy but later improved their status, with wealthy Vaishyas respected by kings.
• Kshatriyas in ancient times were recruited from various ethnic groups, including Greeks, Scythians, and Parthians.
• Panikkar suggested that ruling families from the fifth century B.C. came from diverse castes.
• Burton Stein noted that medieval India saw widespread social mobility despite rigid theoretical caste ascription.
• The political system’s fluidity was a significant source of social mobility, requiring martial tradition, strength, and land ownership for political power.
• Capturing political power involved Sanskritizing rituals, claiming Kshatriya status, and patronizing Brahmins for legitimacy.
• British rule froze the political system, blocking this avenue to mobility, though new avenues emerged.
• Bernard Cohn and Arvind Shah’s studies on pre-British India provide insights into political power and social mobility.
• Cohn identified four levels in the 18th-century Indian political system: imperial, secondary, regional, and local.
• The Mughals held the imperial level, with successor states like Oudh at the secondary level, regional systems led by hereditary officials, and local systems managed by lineages, chiefs, or adventurers.
• In the Banaras region, the Nawāb of Oudh was nominally in charge, ruling through officials and the Raja of Banaras.
• The Raja of Banaras controlled localized lineages, collected revenue, and relied on local chiefs and jāgīrdārs for military support.
• By the late 18th century, new actors emerged who paid fixed taxes to the Raja and extracted revenue from lineages or local chiefs.
• Mansa Rām, from the Bhumihār caste, rose from working for a tax collector to becoming Raja of Banaras through royal grants.
• The Raja of Banaras, needing local chiefs’ support and troops, continuously aimed for independence from the Nawāb of Oudh and managed internal conflicts.
• Cohn described the 18th-century Banaras political system as a network of balanced oppositions, where conflicts enabled dominant groups to gain power and higher status, fostering social mobility.
• Arvind Shah’s study of eighteenth-century Gujarat highlights the fluidity of its political system.
• Central Gujarat’s caste Hindus included Brahmins, Banias, Rājpūts, Pātidārs, and Koḷīs.
• Pātidārs, initially known as Kunbis, were traditional peasants; Koḷīs were a major ethnic group.
• Between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, Solanki kings ruled Gujarat, Saurashtra, and Kutch.
• Rājpūt princes and chiefs governed smaller regions under the Solanki kings.
• Rājpūt clan exogamy led to alliances between princes of different areas, with younger sons given land in various parts.
• Muslim hegemony began displacing Rājpūt princes and chiefs in Gujarat towards the end of the thirteenth century.
• During Muslim rule, Koḷīs were labeled as marauders and joined irregular armies.
• Shah identifies several levels in the eighteenth-century Gujarat political system.
• The imperial level was initially occupied by the Mughals and later by the Peshwas of Poona from 1768.
• The “regional” or “provincial” level included Marātha rulers and Gāikwads of Baroda.
• Tribute-paying princes and jāgīrdārs administered territories at a lower level.
• The village was the basic administrative unit, and it had a “continuum of power relations.”
• Between Aurangazeb’s death (1707) and Peshwa authority (1768), Gujarat saw political strife.
• Contenders for power included Muslim officials, Marātha cliques, and Rājpūt chiefs.
• Some Muslim officials and nobles established petty kingdoms by playing Marātha factions against each other.
• Rājpūt princes and Koḷi leaders also formed small kingdoms amid the confusion.
• A pargana was the basic administrative entity, generally under a Kamāvisdār or jāgīrdār.
• Kamāvisdārs, appointed by the Gāikwād, were responsible for administration, law, order, and tax collection.
• Desais, hereditary headmen, managed villages within a pargana, and were usually from high castes.
• Villages were categorized as law-abiding (rāsti), unruly (mewāsi), or mixed (rāsti-mewāsi).
• Mewāsi villages, often located near ravines or jungles, were generally rebellious and extracted payments from others.
• Pātidārs, a prominent peasant caste, emerged in central Gujarat, growing wealthy from cash crops.
• Pātidārs’ status improved as Rājpūts’ importance declined, and they adopted “kingly” customs.
• The political system of Banaras and Gujarat favored mobility for dominant local groups and some officials.
• The period of Mughal decline in the eighteenth century enhanced mobility but did not fundamentally differ from earlier periods.
• Kerala’s pre-British political system was also characterized by fluidity, studied by Kathleen Gough and Eric Miller.
• Central Kerala experienced constant warfare between adjacent kingdoms, dependent on military and economic resources.
• In North Kerala, local rulers used European and Arab aid to gain power and establish autonomy.
• Political and social mobility among Nāyar aristocrats was more pronounced in North Kerala.
• The traditional dēsam (village) in Malabar was a self-sufficient unit with caste ranking related to land rights.
• Pre-British Kerala’s political system involved frequent warfare and shifting allegiances among chieftains.
• Prominent chieftains included the Rajas of Walluvanad, Maharajas of Cochin, and Zamorins of Calicut.
• Peripheral chiefdoms remained autonomous and shifted allegiance among kings.
• Pre-British Kerala saw significant mobility for dominant castes, with Nāyars sometimes rising to Kshatriya status.
• Kings and political heads had the authority to promote or demote castes within their kingdoms.
• The Maharaja of Cochin, for example, could raise castes’ ranks and was involved in caste disputes.
• Even big Zamindārs had the power to grant higher caste status and received tribute for these privileges.
• Kings at the apex of the caste system had the final say in caste rankings and disputes.
• The Delhi Court under Mughal emperors was the ultimate authority in caste disputes across regions.
• Learned Brahmins advised kings on caste matters, but kings had the authority to enforce decisions.

VII

• The pre-British productive system in India also influenced social mobility, aside from the political system.
• Pre-British India did not suffer from overpopulation; Kingsley Davis estimated the population at around 125 million in 1800.
• Land that could be made arable was available, giving tenants and agricultural laborers leverage over landowners.
• Oppressive landowners faced the risk of laborers moving to new areas or finding different masters, restraining their behavior.
• Agriculture, especially with irrigation, required significant labor at various stages, which large landowners could not always supply from their own families.
• High-status landowners often avoided physical labor, increasing the demand for labor.
• Caste and prestige considerations meant that landowners, generally high-caste, avoided working the land, further driving the demand for labor.
• In the village of Rāmpura, even wealthy families struggled to secure enough labor despite their resources.
• Historical evidence suggests that finding adequate labor was challenging in pre-British India, with increasing numbers of landless laborers over time.
• Burton Stein argued that marginally settled lands allowed new settlements and regional societies, limiting the tribute local warriors could extract.
• The Vellāla community in South India grew due to this agrarian “openness,” though systematic studies are lacking.
• Medieval South India’s social system allowed for considerable individual mobility, differing from the narrow, localized ranking systems of later periods.
• Social mobility in medieval India was linked with spatial mobility, driven by factors like arable land availability, natural disasters, and excessive tribute demands.
• Obstacles to movement existed but were not insurmountable; subdivisions within peasant castes emerged as groups migrated and formed new jātis.
• New jātis often claimed superiority over existing ones and adapted slightly different customs or became more Sanskritized.
• British rule and subsequent forces led to jātis merging into larger castes, with ongoing differentiation among sections.
• Stein’s view that the contemporary model of localized caste competition is unsuitable for understanding pre-British social mobility highlights cultural variations between regions.
• Migration allowed groups to adopt new cultural practices and achieve higher status, sometimes escaping the dominance of local castes.
• Despite regional variations, the dominant caste or political chief had limited power, providing low castes some degree of freedom.
• Stein emphasized that individual family mobility was significant in medieval India, while collective or “corporate” movements became more prominent later.
• Collective movements, requiring modern facilities like the printing press, emerged in more recent times compared to individual family mobility.
• Mobility within the caste system often necessitated eventual collective movements for practical reasons, such as finding marriage partners.
• Small groups or families had to expand to ensure they could engage in hypergamous marriages and sustain their social mobility.