Breaking down the question
The question asks for M.N. Srinivas's concept of westernisation — an attributional, concept-based prompt. The examiner wants a precise account of what Srinivas meant by the term, why he coined it, and how it fits within his analysis of social change in modern India.
At 10 marks the answer should define the concept accurately, identify its levels or dimensions, and distinguish it from neighbouring ideas — especially sanskritisation and modernisation — since Srinivas developed westernisation partly in relation to them.
How to approach it
Begin with Srinivas's definition of westernisation as the changes brought about in Indian society by over a century and a half of British rule. State clearly that it is a value-neutral, descriptive concept referring to culture contact.
Then set out its dimensions — technological, institutional and, above all, changes in values and ideology. Distinguish westernisation from modernisation and relate it to sanskritisation. Close with a short evaluation of the concept's usefulness and its limits.
Model answer
M.N. Srinivas introduced the concept of westernisation to describe the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British colonial rule. He defined it as the changes at different levels — technology, institutions, ideology and values — that followed from contact with Western, and especially British, culture. The term was deliberately value-neutral and descriptive, referring to a process of culture contact rather than passing judgement on its worth.
Srinivas distinguished several dimensions of westernisation. At the most visible level lay changes in technology and material life — railways, the printing press, new modes of communication and Western goods. A second level involved new institutions and forms of organisation: modern education, the press, a bureaucratic administration, the legal system and representative politics. The deepest and most significant level concerned changes in values and ideology — humanitarianism, rationalism, equality before the law, and a critical attitude towards custom. Srinivas held that these value changes, though slower, were the most consequential, for they reshaped the outlook of the educated classes.
He also stressed the uneven and selective character of the process. Different groups and regions were westernised to different degrees and in different respects, so that westernisation coexisted with older patterns rather than simply replacing them.
Srinivas was careful to separate westernisation from modernisation. Modernisation, he argued, is a broader and more evaluative term implying rationality and progress, whereas westernisation refers specifically to the imprint of Western culture and need not be identical with becoming modern. He also related westernisation to his companion concept of sanskritisation. The two processes could run in parallel or even reinforce one another — for instance, the humanitarian values spread by westernisation weakened caste disabilities, while some westernised elites simultaneously patronised sanskritic revival.
The concept remains valuable for capturing the specifically colonial roots of modern Indian change. Its limitation, as later scholars such as Yogendra Singh noted, is a certain vagueness — the levels are hard to measure, and treating diverse Western influences as a single stream oversimplifies a complex encounter.
Examiner's perspective
At 10 marks the examiner looks for a definition that ties westernisation firmly to the impact of British rule and treats it as value-neutral culture contact, not a synonym for progress. Reproducing the three levels — technology, institutions and values — accurately is the backbone of a good script.
The discriminating marks come from distinctions: separating westernisation from modernisation and relating it to sanskritisation. A brief, sourced criticism — Srinivas's own caution or Yogendra Singh's critique — lifts the answer into the top band.