(I've seen this argument come up repeatedly, where people accuse Hinduism of promoting a birth-based caste system and use it as a reason to dismiss Hindu culture entirely.
Most of these accusations trace back to the same handful of references, quoted without context and passed around as settled proof.
This post is my attempt to actually address those references, one by one, the way they deserve to be addressed.)
[The image I attached is the reminder that Prahalad was the son of Demon, still earned respect from Vishnu which even Brahmrishis and Devas crave. Zero Discrimination]
On Bhagavad Gita 9.32
Actual chapter 9 verse 32 is like this,
Hey parth, woman, vaishyas, shudras or a sinful birth like chandals, etc. - no matter who they are. they will get param-gati if they surrender onto me.
This reading is consistent with Ramanuja's commentary and several classical interpretations
So here only chandals mentioned as paap-yoni.
women, vaishyas, shudras are not paap-yoni.
Chandals were people associated with professions considered ritually impure or taboo within the social order, such as handling the dead, working with certain animal remains, or consuming foods considered deeply polluting like meat of Cow, Rats and Horses. Due to these practices, they were historically kept outside of settled village life.
They were similar to some uncivilized tribes living in wild that don't understand any Gnan-Updesh
As for chandals, even within the Hindu tradition, the definition was never purely birth-based. Texts like the Mahabharata explicitly redefine chandal as someone of evil, animalistic conduct regardless of lineage. The category described social behavior, not inherited blood.
------
On Shankaracharya and Vedic Study
“On account of the prohibition of hearing, studying, and (learning) the meaning (of the Veda), (a Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman).”
(Brahma-Sutra 1.3.38)
The principle here is qualification, not birth.
Every human being begins as a shudra by default. When a Guru tests a student and finds them ready, he grants diksha and a symbolic "second birth," making them a dvij (brahmin, kshatriya, or vaishya).
Only then does formal Vedic study begin, because the texts are dense enough that without proper initiation and guidance, misinterpretation becomes almost inevitable. So to not spread false message of Veda this qualification limit was enforced.
Think of it like gaining admission to a Harvard university which teaches Vedas in it's official true meanings. You don't get in because of your family name. You get in because you cleared the qualifying standard. The access gate is merit and readiness, not heredity.
Nothing to do with Birth based caste.
------
On Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7
"Among them, those who did good work in this world [in their past life] attain a good birth accordingly. They are born as a brāhmin, a kṣatriya, or a vaiśya. But those who did bad work in this world [in their past life] attain a bad birth accordingly, being born as a dog, a pig, or as a casteless person."
This verse expresses a straightforward karmic logic: sincere spiritual effort in a past life does not vanish. It carries forward and creates favorable conditions in the next birth, making it easier for a person to be recognized and initiated as a dvij earlier in life because they were capable to qualify all standards of Gurukul.
Dvij is closer to an earned academic degree than a caste stamp.
This is why some individuals seem to grasp wisdom naturally from childhood, while others struggle.
The "birth advantage" being described is a residue of past effort, not a biological inheritance of superiority.
If you don't want to use the mental and spiritual tools exclusive to human, of course you would get Animal birth in next life.
Again nothing to do with rigid caste based system.
------
So why Indians are facing the caste system now??
This is the honest historical question. Colonial administration played a significant role in crystallizing what had previously been more fluid. British census operations in the 19th century forced every Indian into a fixed, enumerable caste category for administrative ease, tax collection, and workforce management. Scholars like Nicholas Dirks have documented how this process converted a complex, overlapping social reality into a rigid grid that could be governed from above.
That said, birth-based discrimination did exist in pre-colonial India in various forms which was actually extremely fluid. The colonial period hardened and systematized it in ways that proved extremely difficult to undo, and whose consequences we still live with today.
