M.N. Srinivas transformed the study of Indian society by insisting that it be observed rather than merely read. Trained in the British social-anthropological tradition of structural functionalism, he brought its emphasis on institutions, social structure and the functions they perform to the Indian village. Where the indologists had relied on classical texts, Srinivas championed the field-view — knowledge grounded in direct participant observation of living communities. His concepts of sanskritisation, dominant caste, westernisation and secularisation gave Indian sociology an original vocabulary drawn from empirical study rather than borrowed wholesale from the West.
The Field-View
The field-view holds that the sociologist must go and live among the people studied, watching how caste, kinship, ritual and power actually operate. Srinivas's own fieldwork among the Coorgs and later in the Mysore village of Rampura gave him a textured picture of social life that no scripture could supply. He argued that the textual book-view produced a static, Brahmanical and idealised image, whereas fieldwork revealed flux, negotiation and local variation. This methodological shift, influenced by functionalist anthropology, made the empirical study of villages central to Indian sociology.
Sanskritisation
Sanskritisation is Srinivas's best-known concept. It describes the process by which a lower caste, tribe or group adopts the customs, rituals, beliefs and lifestyle of a higher, usually twice-born, caste in order to claim higher status over a generation or two. A group might give up meat and liquor, adopt vegetarianism, take up Sanskritic rituals and revise its origin myths. Importantly, sanskritisation brings positional change within the hierarchy without altering the structure of the system itself — the ladder remains, only the climbers move. Srinivas later broadened the reference model beyond the Brahmin to include locally dominant castes.
Dominant Caste
The idea of the dominant caste captures how power works at the village level. A caste is dominant when it combines several attributes: numerical strength, ownership of a large share of arable land, economic and political power, and a respectable position in the ritual hierarchy. With modern politics, education and administrative office added to these, a caste can dominate village affairs even without high ritual rank. The dominant caste often becomes the reference group for sanskritisation, so the two concepts work together to explain both mobility and control in rural society.
Westernisation and Secularisation
Westernisation refers to the changes brought to Indian society by more than a century of British rule — in technology, institutions, values and ways of life. Srinivas distinguished it from modernisation, treating it as an ethically neutral term describing the spread of Western science, law, dress and humanitarian outlook among different sections of society. Closely linked is secularisation, the process by which the religious idiom of social life gives way to rational, this-worldly considerations. Together these concepts let Srinivas analyse how tradition and change coexisted, with sanskritisation and westernisation often operating simultaneously in the same society.
Village Studies
Srinivas was a leading advocate of the village as a unit of study, and he helped inspire a wave of village monographs in the mid-twentieth century. He treated the Indian village not as a self-sufficient little republic — an image he criticised — but as a living community linked to wider economic and political networks. His account of Rampura, published as a study of remembered fieldwork, remains a model of how intimate observation can illuminate caste relations, ritual and the texture of everyday rural life.
Critique
Critics note that sanskritisation over-emphasises upper-caste emulation and cultural imitation while neglecting structural inequality, class and the economic basis of caste; it explains positional mobility but not systemic transformation. The concept fits some regions better than others and says little about groups that reject Brahmanical models. The dominant caste idea has been questioned where power is fragmented or contested. Marxist scholars in particular argue that Srinivas's functionalism underplays conflict, exploitation and the material forces driving change. Even so, his field-view and coinages remain indispensable tools.
How to use this in the exam
Frame Srinivas as the champion of the field-view against the indological book-view, and connect his method to structural functionalism. Define sanskritisation, dominant caste, westernisation and secularisation crisply, ideally showing how they interlock — the dominant caste as the reference model, westernisation running alongside sanskritisation. Use Rampura and the Coorg study as concrete evidence of fieldwork. Close with the standard critique that these concepts capture cultural mobility but underplay class, conflict and structural change, which lets you pivot neatly to the Marxist perspective that follows.