" 

 == Sanskritization / 'Hinduization' / 'Brahmanization' is a Questionable Heading == 

 It has reference to the last link given at the end of the main article as ""bibliography"".  

 First of all I praise the efforts of the person who has collected all the references for the bibliography. I accept with full humility and surrender that I never knew that those references are there.  

 However, the heading of the Bibliography note is Sanskritization / 'Hinduization' / 'Brahmanization'. It has given me to understand that that all the three terms are synonymous.  

 Further, What is Hinduization? Is it something similar to Islaminization? Well, I doubt that there was ever such type of goal undertaken under the slogan of Hinduization. In ancient period of India, there was cultural spread of India to East Asia. There is a famous spread of Buddhism to China and from there to Japan. But, I doubt if in the field of Sociology or political science there is a concept like Hinduization.  

 It must be remembered that Srinivas has emphatically remarked that he had picked the term Brahmanization because he was studying a society where there were only Brahmins and Non-Brahmins. When his use of term was criticized and some other scholars in their field work found that there was similar changes in caste mobility but the role model did not have to have be Brahmin way of living then, even Srinivas accepted it and then changed it to Sanskritization. He had referred to the other connotation which the word Sankritization gives. But he had warned against carrying this meaning. He was open to even change this term for some other better term. But clubbing the terms together when the word Hinduization does not suggest anything concrete except a pointer to communal politics in India. It does not sound intellectually right way of presenting it. I propose that it should be correct and simply two terms Sanskritization /  'Brahmanization'be kept.  
 Sumir "