In this essay we will discuss about Indian Caste System:- 1. Historical Background of Indian Caste System 2. Characteristic Features of Indian Caste System 3. Types.
Historical Background of Indian Caste System:
By the end of the Rig Vedic period, the division of society into the four classes – the priest (Brahmana), warrior (Kshatriya), peasant (Vaisya), and serf (Sudra) – was regarded “as fundamental, primeval, and divinely ordained”.
These divisions have survived to the present day. The Sanskrit word used for them, ‘Varna’, means ‘colour’, and itself indicates, according to Basham, “their origin in the development of old tribal class structure in contact with people of different complexion and alien culture”.
In his opinion, the four Varna’s of India developed out of very early Aryan class divisions, for some class stratification existed in many Into-European communities. If mutual exclusiveness be the chief criterion of caste, then the early Vedic period had only two castes: the Arya and the Dasa or Sudra.
But the Aryans were divided into three classes. The main body of the Aryan community was composed of the vis, ruled by a small number of petty princes (Rajanya or Kshatriya), who had certain priestly families (Brahmins) as their spiritual advisers.
This three-fold division of the Aryan is of hoary antiquity, going back at least to the Indo-Iranian era, for the Arthravan (priest) and the Rathaestar (charioteer), mentioned in the Avesta, are evidently the Iranian counterparts of the Vedic Brahman and Rajanya, and the Vastrya (tiller) and the Huitay (artisan), mentioned in the Avesta, may well correspond to the Vedic Vis.
Both the Rig Vedic Aryans and the Iranians of the age of the Gathas were, therefore, distinctly class-conscious, as is inevitable in every society that has left behind the state of primitive savagery. But there is nothing to show that the Gathic Iranians or the Rig Vedic Aryans were already divided into castes.
The subsequent development of the three primitive classes of the Aryan community was not the same in Iran and India. In Iran the Aryans met no aboriginal population utterly different from them and conspicuously marked by dark skin colour, and, therefore, the primitive classes there developed along normal lines as in every country of the world.
In India, however, it was far otherwise. Here the Aryans met a dark aboriginal population perhaps superior to them in civilisation (as suggested by the ruins of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa) whom they, for that very reason, learnt to fear and hate immensely. The primitive class-consciousness of the invading Aryans could not but grow sharper in these circumstances.
Basham explains this development in these words:
“In India class stratification grew more rigid when, in the Vedic period, a situation arose rather like that prevailing in South Africa today, with a dominant fair minority striving to maintain its purity and its supremacy over a darker majority”.
In course of time, tribal class-divisions hardened, and “the dark-skinned aboriginal found a place only in the basement of the Aryan social structure, as a serf with few rights and many disabilities”.
Varnasrama-dharma:
It is now agreed on all hands that the social divisions in India were not hereditary in the beginning, and that they were only functional divisions. The phrase varnasrama-dharma is interpreted to mean that Dharma is not the same for all. There is, indeed, a common Dharma, a general norm of conduct, which all must follow equally, but there is also a dharma appropriate to each class and to each stage in the life of the individual.
The dharma of men of high birth is not that of humbler folk, and the dharma of the student is not that of the old man. Basham, therefore, remarks that “this thorough-going recognition that men are not the same, and that there is a hierarchy of class, each with its separate duties and distinctive ways of life, is one of the most striking features of ancient Indian sociology”.
The underlying strength of the Indian caste system which sustained it for thousands of years is to be sought in the security and protection it assured to the lowest of the low. There was, no doubt, some inequity and exploitation in the system.
Those who belonged to the upper strata did not hesitate to take advantage of their position and to enjoy privileges at the cost of those who were below in the social hierarchy. It is amazing that in spite of such exploitation, there has been no caste war on a widespread scale, as is to be expected in such situations.
Some people have tried to explain this by pointing out that the Brahmins cleverly related the social system to religion and succeeded, to a large extent, in building up a superstitious regard for this social institution.
The views of Dr. B. K. Ghosh may be quoted in this connection :
“In India there was not even a derelict state to enforce the caste-laws. Rather the caste-laws were enforced on the state in India by the Brahmanical theocracy. So the Brahmins have-always ruled supreme in matters of caste, and they did not abuse their powers the less because they were Brahmins. But even in the process of abusing their powers the Brahmins built up round the prostrate body of decadent Hinduism an effective armor of social sanction which enemies superior in military prowess and political acumen have not been able to completely destroy in spite of continuous assault for more than a thousand years”.
It is difficult to accept in its entirety the explanation of Dr. Ghosh. Is it possible to sustain an institution based on exploitation for thousands of years simply by building up a religious armor around the institution? As already indicated in the foregoing paragraph, the source of strength of the system lay probably in the fact that caste laws afforded economic security to the bulk of the population.
The vulnerable section was protected from cut-throat competition by specifying clearly the activities appropriate to each class and forbidding other classes from interfering in domains not reserved for them.
Hindu social structure was built on the principle that in the interest of society all functionaries— viz., the potters, blacksmiths, barbers, washer men, Brahmins, etc.—were obliged to confine their activities to their respective fields and contribute their mite to the all-round well-being of the society.
If all of them contributed to the furtherance of societal interest, the society also would, in its turn, protect all, even the humbler folk, from unhealthy competition of people more able and far more resourceful. The people were enjoined to abide by the dictum: Follow the calling assigned to you, come what may.
It is dangerous to stray away from one’s assigned vocation and take to a course not one’s own. That is, each individual was asked to follow the dharma appropriate to his class, and not to tread on others’ domains.
Originally, the dharma of each class must have been related to the inherent propensities and abilities of men, the underlying assumption being that men are not always the same. Caste rules did for the weaker sections of the population what trade and craft guilds did for their counterparts in Europe.
The assurance that no one, whatever be his physical and mental deficiencies, would be forced to destitution contributed, in a large measure, to the stability and continuity of the system over thousands of years. In this connection, reference to Durkheim’s discussion on alienation and stratification and his emphasis on a stable society as a pre-requisite for an integrated personality will be in order.
“The absence of an established harmony of means and ends, far from producing freedom, produces, according to Durkhem, resentment and apathy—the war of each against all. Durkheim’s theory therefore leads to the ironic conclusion that people should feel freest in a closed, integrated system in which they have little choice of occupation or opportunity for social mobility, while in an open, universalistic system they should feel coerced, dehumanized, estranged. In the latter case it follows that they will also experience a need to, in Erich Fromm’s words, ‘escape from freedom’. Society’s emphasis on success thus becomes the principal source of alienation.”
In course of time, however, the privileged class, as is expected, developed vested interest and the principle of not denying to Caesar what belonged to Caesar was given up. The appeal was always made to the ancient authorities.
Little attempt was, however, made to interpret their truths in terms of changing conditions. As an inevitable consequence of all this, the creative and spiritual forces weakened and only the shell of what used to be so full of life and meaning remained.
They clung stubbornly to forms and shells and rags of the past and missed nine-tenths of its nobler meaning. The static repetition of the forms and caste rules accompanied by “feebleness of the creative intuition” made the system immobile and completely incongruous with the moving times.
Inequities and injustices, multiplied. The deserving were denied their dues on grounds of their low caste and the most undeserving got more than their deserts by virtue of their belonging to the charmed circle of the high caste.
The faith which sustained the system for thousands of years gradually lost its hold. Even its economic raison d’etre was not there. It was now left to the more powerful force like industrialization and science to strike it hard and destroy its economic base.
Characteristic Features of Indian Caste System:
As indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the Indian caste system underwent radical transformation in course of time.
As it is today, the Indian caste system exhibits the following characteristics:
(i) Birth determines the caste of an individual,
(ii) Merits or achievement do not enable one to elevate oneself from a lower caste to a higher caste. On the contrary, any failure to conform to caste norms may lead to the degradation of a person from a higher caste to a lower caste,
(iii) Caste system is endogamous. That is, the members of a caste marry within the caste group. Marriage outside one’s caste is forbidden,
(iv) Caste exclusiveness is not confined to marriage alone, but embraces almost all areas of social life, particularly in the matter of food. Food cooked and served by members belonging to a lower caste are generally not taken by those belonging to a higher caste,
(v) Generally, caste distinctions are displayed in surnames, so that the caste of a person can be immediately known from his surname. When you meet a person bearing the surname ‘Pandit’ or ‘Acharya’ or ‘Bhattacharya’, you know at once that he is a Brahmin. Surname serves as a caste identification mark.
The aforesaid characteristics may be regarded as the marks of the caste system in general. This is not to suggest that the pattern is uniform in all parts of the country. Actually, there are variations, though minor, among different sections of the Hindu society and in different regions. Why or how these variations occur may be discussed with reference to certain examples.
To begin with, one of the axial principles of the caste system is the maintenance of purity in daily living. Different kinds of standards are set for assessment of purity. Thus, among some groups particular occupations are considered to be impure and hence unbecoming of high caste people to follow.
Similarly, some occupations are rated to be pure and appropriate for these people. Judged by this standard, some people may lose their status because of their taking to a calling considered inappropriate for people of higher caste. Likewise, there is a tendency among those who are low in the caste hierarchy to avoid taking up occupations considered low in social estimation.
In general, white-collar jobs are rated higher in terms of social esteem in comparison with blue-collar jobs. Once the idea of ‘purity’ is accepted as a standard of evaluation, numerous sub-castes emerge because the yardsick is entirely subjective. And mind knows no limits in determining what is pure and what is impure. As Milton said, mind is its own place; it can make a heaven of hell and hell of heaven.
Besides occupation, the idea of purity affects kitchen also—the type of food to be taken, the manner of cooking food, the caste of the people who cook the food and such other considerations that vary from place to place and group to group. Some high caste people do not hesitate to eat uncooked food served by low caste persons while they refuse to accept cooked food from these very people.
Innumerable sub-castes have grown around this yardstick. Vegetarian food is considered traditionally a ‘pure’ food while non-vegetarian food is considered to be ‘impure’.
There is naturally a tendency among those who occupy a low place in the social hierarchy to shun non-vegetarian food and to seek to elevate their social status by taking ‘pure’ vegetarian food, by following a calling considered ‘pure’ and by observing rituals and other ways of life that are appropriate for high caste people.
Professor M . N. Srinivas has termed this tendency among low caste people to upgrade themselves as sanskritisation.
He gives the following definition of sanskritisation:
“San- skritisation is the process by which a ‘low’ Hindu caste, or tribal or other group, changes its customs, ritual, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high, and frequently twice-born, caste. Generally such changes are followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than that traditionally conceded to the claimant caste by the local community. The claim is usually made over a period of time, in fact, a generation or two, before the ‘arrival’ is conceded”.
These illustrations indicate that the system of caste has never been absolutely static. This point has to be taken into account for a proper appreciation of the nature of the caste structure as it exists today. Another factor which contributed, in no small measure, to the dynamism of the caste structure is land ownership.
The so-called ‘low’ caste people improved their social position considerably by owning land. The observations of Professor Srinivas are very pertinent in this regard:
“The power and prestige which land-owning castes command affect their relations with all castes, including those ritually higher. This is true of parts of the Punjab where the land-owning Jats look upon the Brahmins as their servants, and of Madhopur village in eastern Uttar Pradesh where formerly the dominant Thakurs refused cooked food from all Brahmins except their gurus or religious teachers”.
The first social anthropologist to draw attention to the association between caste and land-ownership was F. G. Bailey who conducted field studies in Orissa in the early fifties. Bailey found that land came to the market and the same changed hands from Brahmins, the traditional land-owners, to non-Brahmins who did not own any land in the past.
Another revealing fact which he recorded was that the Kshatriyas who were the traditional landowning class till the end of the nineteenth century owned only 28 per cent of it when Bailey made his study.
It should, however, be noted that though the high caste people may experience a fall in secular rank, their ritual rank does no necessarily suffer a corresponding fall.
The observations of Beidelman will be in order in this connection:
“At the risk of inconsistency I must emphasise that there are many areas in which ritual seems to operate independently of economic determinants. In Senapur and Rampur the Brahmins were not the powerful or economically superior caste, but were subordinate to the Jats and Thakurs. But by consensus the village would probably agree that these same Brahmins are ritually supreme”.
Inter-caste marriage also served to soften the rigours of caste rigidity in some cases. Caste is, no doubt endogamous. But throughout historical periods inter-caste marriage took place, resulting in up-gradation or degradation in status of families.
“The giving of girls in marriage to boys from a higher caste or higher section of the same caste added to the prestige of the wife-giving lineage and caste. In some cases it also enabled the lower group to claim, eventually, equality with the higher group”.
Professor Srinivas has referred to the “fluidity” of the political system in pre-British India as an important source of caste mobility. Some sections took advantage of political instability and attempted to wrest political power which was an avenue, among others, to upward social mobility.
Such an attempt could, however, be made by a group on fulfillment of three pre-conditions: “a martial tradition, numerical strength, and preferably also ownership of a large quantity of arable land”.
After having captured political power, it had to “sanskritise its ritual and style of life and lay claim to being Kshatriya”. In order to strengthen its claim further, it has to “patronize (or even create) Brahmins who would minister to it on ritual occasions, and produce an appropriate myth supporting the group’s claim to Kshatriya status”.
In course of time the claim of the group was established and accepted by the community. This adds another dimension to the dynamism of the system.
On a close scrutiny of the prevalent caste divisions, one would fail to find a rational principle underlying the existing caste differentiation. There are groups whose traditional occupations can by no means be characterised as ‘impure’ and yet those groups were assigned a lower social status in comparison with groups whose traditional occupations were decidedly of a lower order.
One explanation for such irrational assignment of caste ranking is that those who were at the helm of political affairs at the time may have been displeased with a particular section for not being sufficiently loyal to it and out of spite may have assigned to it a comparatively lower caste ranking.
Till the early period of the British rule there have been many such cases of caste mobility. But the system itself continued, more or less undisturbed. The establishment of British rule on a firm footing, however, brought about a radical change in so far as the caste system was concerned.
Westernization, which followed the British rule, was, in the words of Professor Srinivas, “a fundamental process, and not something superficial and external”.
It was a process which struck at the economic base of the caste system by introducing market economy as well as technology in the method of production. Westernization also brought about a radical change in the outlook of the people. The inequities of the caste were brought home to the elitist sections of the population by their exposure to Western education and Western ways of life.
Through them it percolated to the lower strata. Consequently, the caste lost its economic rationale and its ideological base— the twin forces which sustained the system through centuries. The present day method of production in factories made it virtually impossible for high caste people to maintain their aloofness from those who belonged to comparatively lower caste.
They not only worked together in close contact but also took their tiffin and lunches in the factory canteens which were not organised on caste lines. The experiences of the work place were carried over to their families and wider social relationships.
While commenting on this aspect, Morgan and Ward make the following observations :
“But we should stress that social experiences that members undergo within organisations feed back into their life outside, into primary groups such as the family, and into their general relationships in the community and elsewhere………….. that while we all belong to families, most people in developed societies spend most of their time within the framework of one organisation or another. Unlike the simpler societies, kinship by no means constitutes the dominant mechanism in social life”.
Another aspect of Westernization, viz. urbanisation, also contributed substantially to the weakening of the traditional caste base. “Urban life sets up its own pressures, and a man’s daily routine, his place of residence, the times of his meals, are influenced more by his job than by caste and religion”.
Finally, the Constitution of India has prohibited untouchability and declared illegal all practices relating to untouchability in public places.
The cumulative effect of the operation of forces listed above has been the weakening of the caste structure on the social plane. In most parts of India, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas, the importance of caste has declined as a social force. Rural areas are also catching up reasonably fast
It is a paradox that while caste is fast losing its ground on the social plane, it is gaining a fresh lease of life in the political life of the community. Caste considerations influence political activity at every stage from the panchayat right up to Parliament.
While the caste is breaking down in social or cultural fields, conflicts between castes are being intensified by party politics, linguistic and regional rivalries, and other current developments.
A careful study of elections in India offers undoubted evidence that the tactics of the political parties and the general nature of election campaigns are accentuating, rather than diminishing, caste differences and prejudices.
A great deal of attention is given to caste considerations by Indian politicians, irrespective of whether they belong to the right or to the left, in spite of their professions to the contrary. If, for example, a particular caste-group happens to be of a sizeable number in a constituency, the political parties involved in the contest generally set up candidates belonging to that caste.
Selig Harrison, reflecting on the role of caste in Indian politics, observes :
“Political competition in a representative system was bound to give casteism a new lease of life’, as Vinoba Bhave put it if only because the single-member constituency inherently favours — barring gerrymandering — any social group in any country which happens to live in close proximity in a particular locality …. The most perplexing election surprises become crystal-clear when the caste factors in a constituency come to light”.
Types of Caste System:
1. Caste among Indian Muslims:
Ghans Ansari drew up a sketch of Muslim social organisation in the state of Uttar Pradesh thus :U.P. Muslims group their jatis in several blocs, not unlike the vama categories. A major distinction is between the Ashraf, the “honorable”, and the Ajlaf, the “commoner.”
The former are supposed to be descendants of distinguished foreign, non-Indian, ancestors. Traditionally, they are landowners, civic and religious leaders. They are also generally more wealthy and “more purely Islamic” among the Muslims of their locality. According to Ghans Ansari, there are four classes of Ashraf in U.P. Those who belong to the highest class are called Sayyad.
They claim their ancestry from the daughter of the Prophet and her husband, the fourth Caliph of Islam. “Sayyads are further divided into some twenty sections; endogamy is common within each section but is not mandatory”. Next to Sayyads are the Sheikh. They claim to have descended from Arab ancestors who were among the first followers of the Prophet. Marriage may be contracted between Sayyads and Sheikhs.
There are two other “classes”, viz. the Mughals and Pathans. They are supposed to have descended from Mongol and Afghani conquerors. The Sayyads and Sheikhs rarely enter into matrimonial relationships with these two “classes.”
Those Muslims who are engaged in scavenging, sweeping and other menial tasks rank very low in the social hierarchy. In Uttar Pradesh they are commonly descended from converts who retained their former jati name, occupation, poverty, and disabilities. Muslims of higher status do not ordinarily take food from them. Sometimes they are not allowed to worship inside the village mosque but must stand and pray outside.
They are treated in much the same way as their Hindu counterparts. There is, however, one very important difference. A “high Muslim may choose to take food from them or worship with them without incurring the kind of penalties that a high-ranking Hindu might suffer for such transgression”.
The middle ranks among Muslims of U.P. include Muslim Rajput’s and the clean occupational castes. The social distance between them and the highest Muslims may be explained with reference to the following illustrations. Zarina Ahmad reports that in the villages she studied no member of an Ashraf group will marry a non-Ashraf or even take food with one.
Ghans Ansari reports that Muslims of the Shiah sect are stricter about food than are Sunnis. Shi’as is supposed to refuse prepared food from any non-Muslims but Sunnis will take such food from ‘Clean Hindu Castes’. Mandelbaum refers to an incident from a village of Lucknow district. The incident illustrates Muslim sensitivity to rank.
One of the guests at a wedding in an Ashraf family was a woman of the manihar, bangle- seller jati, who had just returned to the village after a long absence. Her husband had prospered; she wore expensive cloths, and, not being recognised as she came in, she was seated at a table with Ashraf ladies.
In the middle of the meal, one of the Ashraf women recognized her; the other women at once stood up and refused to sit at the same table with the manihar woman. It caused a lot of embarrassment, but the manihar lady had to sit and eat on the floor.” Evidently, these Muslim ladies were reacting exactly in the way high caste Hindu ladies would do in similar circumstances.
Even in Pakistan villages, traditional social groupings continue. Zekiye Eglar reports the following with reference to a Punjabi Muslim village in Pakistan : “A child learns the caste it belongs to from the time it begins to speak and tells it when he gives his personal name. Very early, the child also learns that it can marry only within its own caste.”
Inayat Ullah reports the following about another Punjabi village of Gujranwala District, Frisian: “The first question to be asked from a visitor is about his caste, as this information decides whether he is to be given a cot to sit on or is to seat himself on the ground; and whether a special meal is to be cooked for him, or whether ordinary food would be sufficient.”
The Moplah (Mappilla) Muslims of Kerala are also divided into castes.The Thangals, who claim descent from the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima, are at the top. The Arabs, who are descendants of immigrants from Arabia, come next. The Pusalars said to be recent converts from the fisherman caste, occupy the third position. The Ossans, who are barbers by occupation, are at the bottom.
2. Caste among Indian Christians:
Indian Christians were, by and large, converts. Even after conversion to Christianity, “functioning jatis of converts did take form and were articulated into their local social hierarchies.” As a consequence, caste divisions occur among Indian Christians, both Catholic and Protestant.
For example, the Syrian Christians of Kerala, the earliest converts to Christianity in India, claim to have been recruited originally from Nambutri Brahmins and Nayars and, as such, they claim superior ranking among Christians.
This is, more or less, true of all converts throughout India. Caste restrictions are rigidly observed among the Christians of the West Coast. Thus, a Catholic Brahmin from Maharashtra would marry none other than a Catholic Brahmin.
The example of Nadar converts in Madras is very interesting. Though the Christian missionaries urged them to become one united body in the fellowship of Christianity, it was not possible for Nadars to do so. They faced a dilemma. They were in need of belonging somewhere socially and culturally. They could not establish social and cultural contacts with Europeans for obvious reasons.
They could not also do so either with those converts who had traditionally enjoyed higher social status than the Nadars nor with those converts who were traditionally below them in social ranking. They had, therefore, no other alternative but to form a new jati after conversion.
“The new jati became almost as rigorous and endogamous unit as their original jati. The Christian Nadars have much the same marriage preferences and affinal relations as do the Hindu Nadars; they use similar kinship terms and roles; they observe similar practices of ritual seclusion and purification”.
It should, however, be noted that conversion weakens pollution ideas. Social life among Christian converts is more free than among Hindus.
3. Caste Among Sikhs:
Equality is a basic tenet of Sikhism. But this has not prevented the emergence of castes among Sikhs. They are broadly divided into Sardars and Mazhais. The former consists of high castes and the latter of sweepers. The Sardars include jat and Kamboh (land-owners), Tarkhan (carpenter), Kumhar (potter), Mehra (water-cairier), and Cimba (washer man). The first two castes regard themselves as superior to others.
The Mazhabis were converted to Sikhism from a low caste and much later than the higher caste groups. In some parts of Punjab there exist the sansi (shepherded) who were formerly included among the “Criminal Tribes”. Sansi converts of Sikhism rank even lower than Mazhabis.
4. Caste among Jews:
The ancient Indian settlements of Jews are in Cochin and in Maharashtra. Although both settlements were numerically small, they were divided into jatis. The Cochin Jews are divided into two jatis, viz. the White Jews and the Black Jews. Their relations are like those of a higher and a lower jati elsewhere in the region. The White Jews would not intermarry or interline with the Black Jews.
They would not even count a Black Jew as one of the minyam, the minimum number of ten required for congregational worship. A traveler’s report of 1570 gives the first mention of their social organization consisting of “a Sephardi community and other congregations of the black Jews”.
The Sephardic families were descendants of immigrants from Europe. North Africa and the Middle East. They came after the Portuguese opened the sea route from Europe to India in the early sixteenth century. The descendants of these Sephardic families came to be galled White Jews. The White Jews were generally lighter in skin colour than the Black Jews though some of the White Jews were as dark as any of the Black Jews.
A third jati arose from converts made by the White Jews from among their servants. They were called by the Hebrew term meshuhararim and referred to as Brown Jews in English. The other ancient settlement of Jews in India is in the Marathi-speaking region.
These Jews are known now by the Hebrew term, Bene Israel, sons of Israel. Prior to the eighteenth century they did not know Hebrew and apparently had no knowledge of or contacts with other Jewish groups. They lived in some Konkani villages as oil-pressers. This was not considered to be a prestigious occupation and for that reason they did not rank high in their villages.
Like oil-pressers in other regions, they attempted to improve their social status by such reforms as purifying their diet and prohibiting the re-marriage of widows. After Cochin Jews established contact with them in the eighteenth century and after they came to know of other foreign Jews in Bombay city in the nineteenth century, they were exposed for the first time to Judaic scriptural law and other aspects of Judaism.
They immediately took to it but did not relinquish their jati divisions.
Like the Cochin Jews but independently of them, the Bene Israel was separated into two jatis—the higher jati being called the Gora, i.e. the fair ones, and the lower jati the Kala, the dark ones. There was no inter-dining or inter-marriage between the two groups. They, however, worshipped in the same synagogue. The Gora Jews claimed purer Jewish ancestry while the Kala Jews were considered to be of mixed origins.
Most of the Bene Israel now live in Bombay city. Quite a large number have migrated to Israel. The barriers between the two jatis are far less rigid in the city than they had been in the Konkan villages. These Jewish jatis provide further examples of the gravitational attraction of the Indian caste system.
There is nothing unusual about it. Such influence is exerted by the social order of the dominant group on the smaller and culturally different groups of people in all places and at all times.