M.N. Srinivas's structural-functional perspective significantly contributed to understanding Indian society, particularly caste and village life, through concepts like Sanskritization and dominant caste. However, it faced several critiques. Firstly, it was often seen as ahistorical, tending to view caste as a static system and underplaying the transformative impact of colonialism and other historical forces. Secondly, its emphasis on social order and consensus often overlooked inherent conflicts, exploitation, and power dynamics within the caste system, presenting a somewhat harmonious picture. Critics argued it neglected the agency of marginalized groups in challenging the status quo. Thirdly, its primary focus on village studies, while insightful, limited its generalizability to the complexities of urban India and broader regional variations. Lastly, while not entirely ethnocentric, it sometimes prioritized internal dynamics without fully engaging with external influences or alternative theoretical frameworks, thus offering a limited, albeit foundational, understanding of India's intricate social fabric.