Compare M.N Srinivas and Louis Dumont's understanding of Indian caste system.

M.N Srinivas & Louis Dumont

i) Sanskritization and Mobility Changes in secular hierarchy through migration, marriage, education etc. leads to a change in ritual hierarchy of a caste. Thus he viewed it as a hierarchical system at the extremes, but with a scope of mobility in the intermediate strata.

But Dumont says that no mobility is possible as notions of 'purity and pollution' cannot be changed by any mobility and that caste is a perfectly closed system.

ii) Caste as a system Srinivas said that caste is a system of beliefs, rituals, norms, sustained through practices like endogamy, boundary maintenance, caste panchayats etc.

But Dumont viewed caste as a system sustained through ideology. Brahmanic ideology becomes mass ideology and notion of purity and pollution sets deep in consciousness. Dumont studied caste as a system of dialectics.

iii) Obituary to caste Srinivas said that caste is changing forms rapidly in recent times due to many factors, however it has still not outlived its functionality thus will continue to function, though in less stringent form.

Dumont viewed caste as a cultural system which is perpetuated by ideology. There is no change in its form and all changes are superfluous.

iv) Srinivas dominant caste concept

Lower castes and intermediary castes are becoming dominant due to more numbers, education, land, jobs, thus caste purity is under change and hegemony of upper caste is under strain.

Dumont said that caste is based on factors like occupation etc. There is no scope for any mobility.

Thus both M.N Srinivas and Dumont explain caste differently, based on their bearings of study. While Srinivas's aim was to free caste from varna and thus stop its romanticization, Dumont was interested in establishing it as a cultural system, overlooking its economic aspects.