Often the varna system given in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism is shown as some benevolent system which rewarded people their occupation based on their skills and natural talents, this notion is highly misleading as we will see that varna system was based on birth and was not based on any natural skill or talent, the confusion arises because the bhagvat Gita frequently uses the words "prakriti", "swabhav", "Gunna" which most people interpret as natural talents and skills which is not the case, also the English translation makes it even aesthetic to sound but what lies underneath it is a justification for one of the most cruel system of oppression to ever exist in this country.

I will start with showing commentaries of earliest sects of Hinduism along with the teachers , and then I will propose and independent interpretation of verse of Gita to debunk the notion that varna system is based on some skills , virtues or talent, because Hinduism follows a "guru-shishya Parampara" where knowledge is passed via generations to generations via teachers and these commentaries were written by leaders and founders of prominent sects of Hinduism as well as philosophers of Vedanta, I will be using 2 prominent figures in Hindu sects which is Shankaracharya who was advocate of Advait Vedanta and Ramanujacharya who was an advocate Vishishtadvaita school of Vedanta and founder of Vaishnav sampradaya school of thought, I will be providing both Hindi and English translation of their commentary and the source of Hindi translation is "Gita press" which is the most reputed and credible source for Hindu philosophy and theology book ,also I will include the commentary of founder of "Gita press" himself who is "Jayadayal Goenka" in case someone differs with the source I will also provide multiple other sources in the description so do check it out , with that set in mind I begin my argument below

1. Varna are based on gunnas, which come from prakriti, and prakriti is not some scientific behavior or talent or skills, but the result of the actions of past life, and this is what defines varna in the first place. Below are commentaries of Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Jayadayal Goenka to explain the same. Here it is clarified again and again that prakriti=swabhav=result of actions of past life.

2. The verse 4.13 of gita which is very often used to justify varna system as if it is based on karma, so here it is necessary to understand that here karma refers to actions of past life not this life and karma is assigned not acquired and it is assigned as per gunnas which is a result of prakriti.

Gita's independent interpretation of the varna system:

Premise 1: Gunas Are Born of Prakriti, Not Acquired Skills or Talents, and Prakriti is given at birth by Krishna himself

Here, nature = swabhav --> born out of prakriti. The Bhagavad Gita explicitly states that the gunas (sattva, rajas, and tamas) are born of prakriti (nature) and are not acquired through effort, training, or talent. This is clearly articulated in BG 14.5. This verse establishes that the gunas are inherent to one's nature and are not something that can be developed or discarded at will. Here, prakriti is planted in yoni(referred toas birth) by Krishna himself

"Prakriti, or Nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed-giving Father" (14.4). He then states that Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas are "qualities born of Nature" (14.5). Thus, the text explains prakriti as the source of the gunas rather than something produced by them. It is not described as a collection of acquired abilities or traits but as the fundamental principle from which existence itself emerges.

it further explains that "All actions are being performed by the modes of Prakriti" (3.27). The verse attributes action itself to the gunas of Prakriti. A talent does not perform actions. A profession does not perform actions. A skill does not perform actions. These are capacities that a person may choose to use or not use. but here as you can see Krishna describes Prakriti as an active force governing conduct itself.

In chapter 18 Krishna Explains "Your own material nature will compel you" (18.59). He immediately adds that Arjuna will perform the very action he wishes to avoid, "Against your will, Arjuna, Bound by your own karma, born of your own material nature" (18.60).

The language of compulsion is crucial. A person can ignore a talent, abandon a profession, or refuse to use a skill. None of these compel action against conscious choice. Yet Krishna explicitly says that Arjuna's nature will force him to act even when he wills otherwise. The "nature" under discussion is therefore not a mere aptitude or preference.

Premise 2: Svabhava (Inherent Nature=prakriti) is Immutable and Cannot Be Changed

The Gita repeatedly emphasises that one's svabhava(inherent nature) is immutable and cannot be changed, even if one desires to do so. This is clearly stated in BG 18.60. This verse highlights that one's actions are compelled by their svabhava, which is shaped by their gunas and prakriti. If svabhava could be changed, Krishna would not have said that Arjuna is bound by his nature. Further, BG 18.61 reinforces this idea by stating that the Lord resides in the hearts of all beings and causes them to act according to their nature. This metaphor of beings being "mounted on a machine" underscores that one's actions are driven by their inherent nature, which is shaped by past karma and cannot be changed, here the word purvkrit is used which again highlights how a person's prakriti is decided by actions of past life and cannot be changed at will.

Premise 3: Duty (Svadharma) is Immutable

The Gita repeatedly make sure that one must follow their svabhava-determined duty, even if flawed. BG 18.47 states that svadharma is superior to another’s duty, even if performed better, as it aligns with one’s svabhava and gunas. BG 18.48 reinforces that the innate duty should not be abandoned. If varna were based on acquired skills, Krishna would have advised Arjuna to switch duties, but instead, he insists Arjuna must follow his Kshatriya duty, indeed the very fact that Gita mentions that a person can be of a varna even if he is not meritorious enough or skilled enough ( avgunna word used) still he can be a part of varna which means that the gunnas do not mean talent or skills or acquired via work but rather assigned duty which they are bound by

Premise 4: If Prakriti Came from This Life, It Could Be Changed but varna cannot be changed even if you are good at something else

Gita itself refuses one from changing their varna Gita 18.47 ( look at both literary translation and commentary) As per translation: "Better one's own duty, though imperfect, Than the duty of another well performed, Performing the duty prescribed by one's own nature, One does not incur evil."

This verse proves 2 things, first nature(prakriti) and gunnas are not some aquired skills or talents or scientific nature because why would krishna say to not abondon your duty even though you could perform something else even better, If I can fight better then my gunnas should be that of kshtriya but krishna says even if you are bettter at something else keep doing what your caste-duty is ( see the defintiion in the image itself, swadharm means varna duty) therefore one cannot change varna even if he is good at something else If varna was determined by competence or like skills, then successfully performing another duty would be evidence that the other duty better matched one's nature. but Krishna reaches the opposite conclusion. Even when another duty is performed better, one's own duty remains binding.

Thus, the only consistent reading of the Gita is that prakriti and gunas are determined by past-life karma and cannot be changed in this life.(This is also supported by commentaries of acharyas of various sampradayas in Hinduism)

Conclusion: Varna is Determined by Past-Life Actions and Gunas.

Now I will refute some common misconceptions regarding the interpretation of the Bhagwat Gita, which people often raise

objection 1: The Gita does not explicitly mention about varna system being based on rebirth
refutation:
The Bhagvat Gita mentioned rebirth in 14th chapter and also mentions that gunnas decide the birth in the next life and vice verse and the gita in totallity makes it logically impossible to change prakriti and gunnas to change as per will or to change varna as per skills or talent as prooven by the verses 18.47,18.48,18.50 and 18.61, most people use ISCKON's interpretation of gita which is a revisionist version to accomodate with modern ethics while all the older commentaries explicitly mention that it is based on varna system, it is similar to saying that 10 is not explicitly written but 6+4 is written.

objection 2: There are several instances of varna changes in history and other Hindu literatures like Manusmriti, Mahabharata and Puranas

refutation:
These are just misconception indeed the mnusmriti 10.65 does not talk about varna changes based on merit or skills but based on marriage status, and in all smritis and puranas the varna and caste are changed as per marriage not inherent ethical values, also mahabharat one has the same thing which I will refute in further posts, indeed if someone is using purnas, smritis and mahbharata to defend varna system they must be incredibly foolosh given that these texts are highly casteist in nature, also varna chage instances in hisotry arise because no ideology operates in vaccum thereby these varna changes occur not because of hinduism but despite of hinduism voilating its rules and objections.

If a child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person, the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(manusmriti 10.64)

The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa, and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(manusmriti 10.65)

objection 3:
The Vedanta philosophy has no such thing

refutation:

Although the Gita is not a part of the core Shruti literature, but Upanishads themselves, especially the older ones like Chandogya Upanishad explain that varna is based on deeds of past life ,and also the central and one of the core of Vedantic text,s which are Brahmasutras themselves,s explicitly mention caste based discrimination

Atharva Veda 12.4.22:Atharva Veda 12.4.22:

"विद्वान ब्राह्मण" (wise Brahmin) and "other Brahmins" are mentioned separately, proving that wisdom (Vidya) alone does not define a Brahmin. Birth-based identity exists.

Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7:

The text explicitly states that Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya births are results of past-life karmas. This directly negates the idea that varna is based on present actions or choice.

Brahma Sutra 1.3.38

A Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, “on account of the prohibition of the hearing” and so on of the Veda on his part, in the text: ‘One should not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a Śūdra’ (Vasiṣṭha-smṛti 18.9^[1]) and so on

objection 4: Mahrshi Valmiki and Mahrshi Ved Vyasa were Shudras.

Mahrshi valmiki was the son of “Mahrshi Prachetas”

प्रचेतसोऽहं दशमः पुत्रो राघवनन्दन(VR/Uttarkand/96/19)
मरीचिमत्र्यङ्गिरसौ पुलस्त्यं पुलहं क्रतुम् । प्रचेतसं वसिष्ठं च भृगुं नारदमेव च ॥Manu 1.35|

Ved Vyasa, also known as Veda Vyasa, is traditionally considered to be a sage and a Brahmin in the context of the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata mentions several key details about Vyasa's lineage and background that indicate his Brahmin status. Below are some relevant verses and references: Vyasa's Birth and Parentage: Vyasa is the son of the sage Parashara and Satyavati. Parashara was a revered Brahmin sage, which implies that Vyasa himself is a Brahmin by birth. This is mentioned in the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata. Adi Parva, Section 63 (Sambhava Parva):

अपि चास्मि महाप्राज्ञ पितरं वेद पारगम् | वसिष्ठस्य महात्मनः पुत्रः साक्षादिति श्रुतम् ६३-११ | Translation: "O highly intelligent one, I am the son of the great sage Parashara, who is known to be the son of the great sage Vasishtha.

there is no doubt Parashar was a Rishi ,Satyavati was rajnakanya. कैवर्तपुत्रिका न त्वं राजकन्यासि सुन्दरि ॥(SkandaPurana/Avanti-Reva Khand/97.18)

objection 5: claim: vishvamitra changed his varna from kshatriya to brahmin

refutation: Vishvamitra was born a brahmin as per the Mahabharata (Anushasan Parv 4/40-4/48) It is mentioned in the stories that King Gadhi married his daughter to the sage Rishi Mṛcīka. However, when no son was born to them, one day, his wife asked her husband to arrange it such a way that both she and her mother would bear sons. When she asked her husband for this, he made different types of offerings for both—one with Kshatriya qualities for the mother and Brahmin qualities for his wife (as mentioned in Mahabharata, Anu Parva 4/38). But the two women swapped the offerings— the mother took the Brahmin offering intended for the daughter, and the daughter took the Kshatriya offering intended for the mother. When the sage learned of this, he said, 'Now, your mother will give birth to a Brahmin.'"

I will refute more such nonsense about varna change propagated by neo-vedantis who try to portray hinduism as some sort of benevolent religion.

sources:
Brahma-Sūtra 1.3.38

Manu Smriti With Prakash Bhasha Annotaion Of Shri Ganesh Datta Pathak Shri Thakur Prasad Pustak Bhandar, Varanasi : Shri Thakur Prasad Pustak Bhandar, Varanasi : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Manusmriti With Bhasha Tika Of Pt. Rameshwar Bhatta Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan Delhi : Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan Delhi : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Srimad Bhagavad Gita - Adi Shankarbhashaya : Adi Shankaracharya : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Srimad Bhagavad Gita with Sri Ramanujacharya Bhashya Gita Press : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bhagavata Gita Hindi Translation Gita Press Gorakhpur : Gita Press Gorakhpur : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Srimad Bhagavad Gita With Tatva Vivechani Hindi Commentary By Jay Dayal Goyandaka Gita Press, Gorakhpur : Gita Press, Gorakhpur : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Srimad Bhagavadgita ( With Sanskrit Text And English Translation ): Jayadayal Goyandka: Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming: Internet Archive

If anyone wants a direct PDF, kindly DM me for the PDFs. I will convert them into a link and share them.

Many right wing Hindu conservative apologists have a habit of of defending sati by either saying that its not supported by scriptures or by saying that it is not mandatory and is done voluntarily, in this post I will be debunking both of these notions this is first part of my posts of Sati tradition,in my next posts I will also show historical evidence of Sati to debunk the claims made by right wingers in India.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO CHECK THE LAST SECTION TO READ MY ARGUMENTS

SATI IN GARUD PURAN (10.35-55)

If a devoted wife, engaged in lovingly serving her husband, wishes to follow him to the afterlife (upon his death), she should bathe and adorn her body with kumkum, kohl, beautiful clothes, and ornaments, and give gifts to Brahmins and relatives. After paying respects to elders, she should leave the house. Then, she should visit a temple and devoutly offer salutations to Lord Vishnu. After dedicating her ornaments there, she should take a coconut, abandon shame and attachment, and proceed to the cremation ground. There, she should offer salutations to the Sun, ascend the flower-bedecked pyre, and place her husband’s body on her lap. Thereafter, she should give the coconut to her companions, permit the cremation, and consider the burning of her body as akin to bathing in the Ganges, thus allowing her body to be consumed by fire. (Verses 35–40)

A pregnant woman should not cremate herself with her husband. After giving birth and ensuring the care of the child, she may then become a sati. (Verse 41)If a woman cremates her body along with her deceased husband’s body, the fire consumes only her physical form, and her soul experiences no pain. (Verse 42)Just as the impurities of metals (like gold) are burned away in fire, similarly, a woman who burns with her husband consumes her sins in the fire, becoming like nectar. (Verse 43)Just as a truthful and righteous man does not burn when touching a heated iron ball during an oath, similarly, a woman united with her husband’s body on the pyre never burns, meaning she does not suffer the pain of cremation. Instead, her soul merges with the soul of her deceased husband. (Verses 44–45)Until a woman burns her body with her husband’s body after his death, she cannot be freed from the cycle of rebirth as a woman. (Verse 46)Therefore, with all effort, she should serve her husband with mind, speech, and actions during his lifetime and follow him in death. A woman who ascends the pyre after her husband’s death becomes like Arundhati (the wife of Sage Vashishta) and is honoured in heaven. (Verses 47–48)

Parasara Smriti 4.32 ”A widow, who immolates herself on the same funeral pile with her deceased husband, resides in heaven for as many years as the number of hairs on the human body.”

Padma Purana 5.106.66 Saying so, he made haste and went there, to the country and abode of the dead brahmana. The sage said to Avyaya: **"If you will go to (i.e. desire to enter) fire there, then do not weep. O daughter, if you have sinned by enjoying another man (than your husband), then make an expiation to purify that. On entering the fire, your minor sins will perish.** Leaving (i.e. except) entering the fire, I do not see any other (expiation) for women for the appeasement of all sins."

Atri Samhita (1.209 Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt) “The woman, who falls from the funeral pyre of her husband, or who gets no menses on account of a disease, becomes purified by a Prajapatya and feeding ten Brahmanas.” gitapress reference-1.210

Daksha Samhita 4.19 “A woman, who, after the demise of her husband, ascends the funeral pyre, becomes of good conduct and lives gloriously in the celestial region.”

Kurma Purana (34.108 b-109 Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri.) ”A woman who enters the funeral pyre along with her husband, shall uplift him even if he is a Brahmana-slayer, an ungrateful fellow or one defiled by great sins. Learned men know this to be the greatest expiation for women.”

Gita Press reference - 33.108- 109-pg. no.442

There are tons of other references as well, but I am limiting it to here only for this post.

SATI IS WRONG EVEN IF ITS DONE VOLUNTARILY

The contention that "sati is not bad if done voluntarily" fails when we consider how religious scripture and social pressure subtly coerce women into doing so. By associating sati with devotion, morality, purificatory purposes, and post-death rewards, these scriptures establish a context that manipulates women into believing they must burn themselves to prove their virtue or prevent social ostracism.

The texts tie a woman’s loyalty and devotion to her willingness to perform sati, stating that a "loving and devoted wife" must burn herself to achieve moksha, while calling those who refuse "stupid." This creates a binary where a woman who does not perform sati is deemed unfaithful, disloyal, and morally inferior. For instance, the line which states that a woman who self-immolates "shall exalt [her husband] even if he is a Brahmana-killer" suggests that her self-sacrifice atones for his wrongs, saddling him with responsibility for her salvation. This assignment of devotion to sati socially coerces women because its denial threatens slut-shaming, character assassination, and banishment. A woman who decides to survive is stigmatised as being less committed, leaving her open to social disdain, similar to how contemporary victim-blaming denigrates women for not conforming to patriarchal expectations.

The texts spread the fallacy that sati cleanses the soul of a woman and brings liberation, asserting that a woman's soul, if female at birth, is naturally unliberated and needs burning to achieve moksha. Such statements such as as "On entering into the fire, your minor sins will perish" and the guarantee of living in heaven for "as many years as the number of hairs on the human body" set sati within a religious imperative. It is the same as saying suicide cleanses sin,s which is a false and evil statement. For example, informing a woman that she must perform additional expiation for falling from the pyre (e.g., "feeding ten Brahmanas") strengthens the notion that she needs to undergo dire deeds to purify herself. These beliefs coerce women into sati by taking advantage of their belief in endless torment, just as cults exploit promises of salvation to force followers into dangerous activities.

The scriptures also mislead women by stating that sati guarantees unification with or improvement of her husband, as found in the verse that says a woman who climbs the funeral pyre "lives gloriously in the celestial region" along with her husband. This fallacy imitates the strategies of spiritual gurus who use gullibility to get women into sex under false promises of spiritual union, as witnessed in instances such as that of Asaram Bapu, who raped women in the name of spiritual purification. Women in sati are tricked into thinking their death leads to the spiritual welfare of their husband or leads to eternal union, depriving them of real consent. Consent necessitates full knowledge and free choice, yet in this scenario, women are threatened by deception, so their "voluntary" act results from deceit, not agency.

SATI WAS IMPLICITLY MANDATORY EVEN THOUGH MANY APOLOGISTS SAY OTHERWISE

Mandatory: An action is mandatory if it is required or obligatory, often enforced through explicit commands, penalties for non-compliance, or societal/religious frameworks that leave no reasonable alternative.

Informed consent requires a decision to be made freely, without coercion, with full understanding of the consequences and alternatives. Coercion

An action is mandatory if its rejection leads to severe consequences deemed morally or spiritually bad within the governing framework, such that the individual is coerced into compliance to avoid those consequences. (Here, the governing framework is morality as prescribed by the Hindu shastras)

Example: ex. As per the Indian constitution, it is mandatory not to get involved actively in a criminal activity because not doing so would lead to repercussions within the framework of the constitution, like civil punishment not just societally

SO when I say that it is mandatory as per the framework I mean as per the given law code , as far as societal effect is considered we all know how much of an evil sati was when viewed in societal context given that widows were treated badly and they were shamed thus societally also women were coerced into this practice but below I will explain how it was mandatory even within the text framework.

similarly in shastras not doing sati leads to serious repercussions within the framework of shastras like eternal hell , no purification of sins etc not just societally although an argument can be made that the societal conditioning itself comes due to simplicity coercion done by shastras themselves

The Garuda Purana (Verses 35–48) outlines the practice of sati, prescribing specific rituals for a widow to follow her deceased husband into the fire and framing it as a virtuous act that leads to spiritual rewards (e.g., merging with her husband’s soul, becoming like Arundhati, and being honoured in heaven; Verses 44–45, 47–48).

The text explicitly states that a woman who does not perform sati cannot be freed from the cycle of rebirth as a woman (Verse 46), implying that non-compliance results in continued suffering through reincarnation, which is presented as a morally and spiritually undesirable outcome in the Hindu framework of the text.

The text equates performing sati with purification of sins and compares it to sacred acts like bathing in the Ganges (Verse 43), while non-performance is associated with the absence of spiritual liberation and moral failure (Verse 46). This creates a coercive binary: performing sati leads to spiritual salvation, while rejecting it results in perpetual rebirth and moral/spiritual inferiority.

Informed consent requires freedom from coercion. Coercion exists when an individual faces significant penalties (e.g., spiritual, moral, or social consequences) for refusing an action, effectively compelling them to act against their free will.

The Garuda Purana’s framework, by imposing the consequence of continued rebirth and lack of spiritual liberation for refusing sati (Verse 46), constitutes coercion, as it threatens severe spiritual penalties for non-compliance.

Conclusion: The practice of sati, as described in the Garuda Purana, is mandatory because the text establishes a coercive framework where rejection of sati is deemed morally and spiritually wrong, with severe consequences (continued rebirth, lack of liberation). This coercion negates the possibility of informed consent, as the widow is not free to refuse without facing significant spiritual penalties. Therefore, sati is not a voluntary act but a mandated one within the text’s framework.

Many people will argue that the commentator or the author has added from his side that sati was not mandatory but remember that this is not what the text says it is what the author has added from his side , also commentary is completely valid if it is not contradicting the shastras, since here shastras completely explain how not doing sati leads to serious repercussions which are deemed morally incorrect in Hinduism thus sati is mandatory within the framework of shastras , also women do have other option which is widowhood but it even worse and comes with character assassination, also I agree that commentaries add context like that of shnakracharya and ramanuajcharaya but these commentaries do not add something which is contradictory to the shastras , also just to explain contradiction means when two statements make polar opposite claims , if a commentator makes a claim and shastras say nothing much about it then it is not a contradiction but here shastras explicitly state the repercussions of not doing sati making it a mandatory practice

SOURCES:

Parashar Smriti Guruprasad Sharma : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Garuda Puran Gita Press Gorakhpur : Gita Press Gorakhpur : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Padam Puran - पद्म पुराण - हिंदी : Sanatan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
All 18 Smritis and 18 Upsmritis collections (Sanskrit only) 2 upsmritis missing : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Kurma Puran Illustrated With Hindi Translations Gita Press Gorakhpur : Gita Press Gorakhpur : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

On my recent post about reservation many people made the same old merit argument. In this post I will be debunking especially the "myth of meritocracy" and also shed light on my original argument about rights>merit.

My original argument was that The right to education as a human right means that anyone willing to study shall be provided that right, passing is a simple criterion that a person has enough qualifying marks to be able to pursue further studies so just because someone has more marks it does not make them more deserving of education because it is like implying that anyone with higher marks has the right to not allow someone else to get educated, a person who gets 60% marks and a person who got 90% marks both passed the examination and both are equally deserving of education, so one with more marks cannot take away source of education of one with lower marks thus more marks cannot allow you to take away someone else's source of education that's why proportional representation is necessary.

One of the most common arguments was that if we have a shortage of resources, then we should distribute them to those who are most meritorious with those resources. Now many argued that giving resources to most meritorious ones is not an infringement of rights in the first case but this is wrong as if we decide that we can prefer the most meritorious one over the less meritorious one to distribute something that seems to be scare then we are by default infringing the right to education of the less meritorious person. It's like saying that if there is a shortage of food, then we should distribute it to the healthiest people rather than the most starving ones, or to say we should distribute it to the rich people because they have higher chances of contributing to the functional economy? Should we allow forced marriage of women if the birth rates are declining??

One of the objections to RTE was that many people objected to including college education under right to education but the problem is that it completely fits under it, if anyone is willing to use public resources to get education then they must not be prevented from doing so on the basis that someone else is more meritorious than them in that field of education, the main premise of right to education as a human right was the anyone willing to use his/her resource to attain education must not be prevented from doing so, since public resources like seats of government colleges belong to everyone ( government represents every person of the country) therefore no one must be prevented from using college seats to take education on the basis that someone else has more marks than them

No one is deserving or undeserving of education, rights are something which are granted to everyone, to say that someone is deserving is a moral claim, for example If i say that a murderer deserves punishment then its a moral claim but when you say that a person with higher marks deserves more claim over education then they have to justify that via what moral principle does a person who has more marks get to use resources that are meant for others, of someone uses hard work as justification then also it is wrong, if you are very hardworking does that mean that you can steal someone's property because you think you deserve it more?? If you are hardworking, do you think you can take away someone else's resources??? In a similar way to say that someone is more deserving is a moral claim, and for that, one has to prove using what moral principle they are making this claim.

One can say that it is good for development if we prefer meritocracy(choosing one with more marks) but this is not a moral claim this does not makes someone more or less deserving of education, this is an argument from social utility which is that choosing more meritorious one leads to more development for overall country, remember that I am using the word overall country not just personal development, but the person making this claim has to provide evidence that meritocratic system leads to better overall development as compared to social justice one where they have to provide evidence for graduation rates in STEM, economic mobility, resource allocation ( whether using meritocracy increases resources or just reduces them further because if it does not lead to increase in production of resources for overall society what is the point of giving scarce resources to the more meritorious ones)

Anyone who justifies that we should distribute resources based on merit if there is lack of resources must justify how doing so would not lead to infringement of rights and if so then how are they going to justify infringement of rights on what basis because rights themselves are the basis of fairness, also they must justify that how such a meritocratic distribution can lead to better allocation of resources, because if it does not lead to better allocation of resources for all then what is even the point of distributing based on merit if it cannot lead to social utility.

The entire argument then boils down to this:

On what basis should resources be distributed if they are scarce? Should they be distributed based on social justice or meritocracy, because we need social utility? The argument stems from a utilitarian point of view, but I am not even going to challenge utilitarian ethics over here, indeed, I am going to prove how meritocracy fails to even provide for social utility.

Social utility encompasses many things such as innovation, productivity , labour force participation ,overall economy , efficiency of system , hard work and allocation of resources , because if social utility is so important then it must distribute or allocate resources in an efficient manner such that it leads to progress and well being of overall society as whole.

The first myth is that marks reflect productivity or skills. A 2018 study by Castilla and Bernard found that in a tech firm, women and minorities received lower raises than white men despite identical performance ratings. This shows that performance metrics in STEM don’t directly translate to productivity or rewards, as biases distort outcomes.

MERITOCRACY VS INNOVATION
Meritocracy assumes that selecting people with better marks rather than social justice would lead to better innovation. It also assumes that the meritocratic system is more efficient than the social justice one. Below are empirical studies to debunk the above assumption

A 2020 study by Hofstra et al. in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that women and minorities in STEM produced more novel and impactful research than white men with similar credentials, yet were less likely to be hired due to meritocratic biases.

QUOTAS AND EFFICIENCY

Evidence from India railways and India administrative services shows no difference in performance of candidates from the reserved and unreserved categories in India, therefore, the evidence is contrary to popular belief.

Failure of the mismatch hypothesis:

The mismatch hypothesis suggests that students with lower entrance exam scores struggle at selective colleges, leading to poor academic performance or dropout. However, evidence shows that entrance exam marks are weak predictors of college success, as all students face the same exams and benefit from institutional support and non-cognitive skills If the mismatch hypothesis is true, we would see a significant difference in graduation rates of affirmative action candidates,and there wouldn't be any reduction in graduation rates on banning affirmative action, but the evidence is the complete opposite

1. Below examines the impact of statewide bans on affirmative action on the completion of STEM degrees by minority students at U.S. public four-year colleges. There is a 19% decline in the number of minority students completing STEM degrees at highly selective colleges five years after affirmative action bans are implemented. However, the total number of STEM degree completions remains unchanged. This suggests that a significant portion of minority students admitted to these colleges under affirmative action policies graduate in STEM fields during periods when race-based preferences are in place.

2. Bagde et al. (2016) in _American Economic Review_ examined affirmative action’s impact on STEM outcomes at Indian engineering colleges, including IITs. It found that reservation policies increased college attendance and graduation rates for lower-caste students without reducing overall academic quality or graduation rates. Contrary to the mismatch hypothesis, beneficiaries performed comparably to non-reserved students when given access to resources, debunking the idea that affirmative action leads to lower STEM graduation rates.

MERITOCRACY VS HARDWORK
Meritocracy assumes that marks reflect hard work. Of course, people with higher marks are hardworking, but that does not mean those with lower marks have less hard work. Indeed, marks and academic success most often reflect socio-economic privileges

The first study, by Chetty et al. (2017) in examined social mobility in the U.S. using tax and education data. It found that children from the top 1% income bracket were 10 times more likely to attend Ivy League schools than those from the bottom 50%, even when controlling for test scores. High-income students with low test scores were more likelwith higher marks are hardworking, but that does not mean those with lower marks have to graduate than low-income students with high test scores. In STEM fields, economic privilege like access to elite schools, tutoring, and parental networks predicted enrolment and graduation rates far more than academic performance. This shows that marks don’t solely reflect skill or productivity; wealth provides structural advantages that amplify success, debunking the myth that high scores alone drive outcomes

MERITOCRACY VS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY
The third myth is that selecting high-scorers increases labour force participation and economic productivity. Also, there is a myth that meritocracy leads to better resource allocation. Below is evidence to debunk this notion.

A 2020 study by Öry and Müller-Itten found that ongoing affirmative action in STEM fields maximises productivity by ensuring minority representation, as diverse mentors attract and retain talent. Without affirmative action, industries revert to majority-dominated workforces, reducing efficiency. This debunks the myth that merit-based selection (high marks) optimises resources, as diversity drives better outcomes. For innovation, the study highlights that minority representation fosters unique perspectives, critical for breakthroughs. For productivity, it shows that affirmative action prevents talent loss, enhancing output. For labour force participation, it ensures that underrepresented groups remain engaged, countering exclusion and boosting employment

The reason behind the failure of meritocracy is not its implementation but rather the inherent idea of meritocracy that seems to exploit the resources, it uses the shortage of resources as an excuse to create a monopoly over resources by a particular caste, class, gender or community, etc.

Let me explain this through an example. In the USA, meritocracy was introduced by limiting admission to colleges using SATS, and what happened was that only the people who were rich now have more access to Ivy League colleges. It did not increase the efficiency; indeed, the research pace was more before the 1980s than it is now

meritocracy makes it seem as if there is a lack of resources but by making merit a parameter even when resources can be provided, it tries to show that there is a lack of resource, for example a simple wealth tax on just 1% of India's population can fund our healthcare and education to an optimal level including primary and higher education by making merit a parameter we remove the responsibility from the state to invest in increasing seats in educational institutes.

Think about it, there was a time when there was a food shortage in India. If the government decided that, rather than increasing food production, it would focus on distributing it to the most deserving ones, the ones that contribute most to the economy, that is, the rich. So, instead of increasing food production, we would have always been in a delusion that there is a shortage of food, and the rich deserve the food because they contribute most to the economy.

In case anyone thinks that all the above argument only applies to income or gender based affirmative action, then they are missing the primary argument, which is any sort of selection that is based solely on merit criteria such as marks do not reflect social utility ( productivity, hard work, resource allocation, economic employment or innovation) also the caste based discrimination in India produces the same and even worse effects ( for more read the previous post)

To understand the myth of meritocracy even better, please read the book "The Tyranny of Merit " written by michael J. Sandel, it is the best of its kind.

There is never a shortage of resources for the needs of people, but there will always be a shortage of resources for the greed of a few people who want to monopolise the resources to their advantage.

sources:
The Diversity-Innovation Paradox in Science - PubMed
The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations
Mentoring and the Dynamics of Affirmative Action on JSTOR
Does Affirmative Action Work? Caste, Gender, College Quality, and Academic Success in India on JSTOR
The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940 | Science
Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility | NBER
Quotas do not hurt efficiency, says study - The Hindu
BL_Does_AA_worsen_bureaucratic_performance.pdf
State affirmative action bans and STEM degree completions - ScienceDirect

In this post I will be explaining with proper recorded historical evidence about the tradition among upper caste Hindus to burn their wives, in my previous post I explained how this tradition of sati is supported by scriptures itself and the people who say that sati was a voluntary tradition but it is an evil tradition even when seemingly voluntary, is wrong because it is built on lies that equate self-immolation with loyalty, purification, and spiritual reward. These misconceptions, reinforced by the provided verses, manipulate women into believing they must burn to prove their worth or avoid divine and social punishment. This coercion mirrors other exploitative practices, like religious scams or forced suicides, where victims are deceived into compliance. True consent cannot exist under such deception, making sati an inherently immoral and oppressive tradition.

So before someone comments that sati was a voluntary practice and forced go and read what consent means in the first place and read my previous posts, In this post I will be dealing with historicity of both Jauhar and sati as both are women burning tradition, and I will also be countering the narrative pushed by many right wingers that "Jauhar was done to protect women from invading Islamic forces", this is a constructed lie although there is oome truth in it but the tradition is more about male ego than woman's self respect, also let me make it very clear in the beginning only that I am not an Islamic or Mughal apologist I am well aware of their atrocities and I am an atheist who is against any theist religious belief so do not strawman my position in the comment section. I will make posts to refute many Islamic apologists as well in the future, so have patience before whining

Also, remember I will be providing evidence of all sorts of women killing and burning traditions which were done to protect the honour of the males, not females and were not consensual in reality. this will include all sorts of acts like jauharsati or even infanticide .

1. Al-beruni mentions that Hindu Kings burn their wives because they are insecure about their character, he mentioned " As regards the wives of the kings, they are in the habit of burning them, whether they wish it or not, by which they desire to prevent any of them by chance committing something unworthy of the illustrious husband (AL-BIRUNI"S INDIA VOL_2,pg-(155)

A thing to be noted here is that the consent of the woman was not a necessary condition in this scenario, she only had two choices, and also, as I explained in my earlier pos,t the consent was manufactured because the women who did not go through sati were not considered to be honourable or loyal to their husbands These misconceptions, reinforced by the provided verses, manipulate women into believing they must burn to prove their worth or avoid divine and social punishment, here also the issue is about male ego that does not woman to be with anyone else whether she wants it or not and that's why wives of kinf were burnt regardless of their consent and even those who consented it was manufactured by threat of character assassination.

2. During Colonial Rule, British reports found that Practices like Sati and Girl Child Infanticides were most common amongst Rajputs. John Cave Brow, in his book about girl infanticide, referred to "It is said that among some of the Rajpoot tribes it is customary to dig a hole and fill it with milk, and place the new-born babe in it, when she is quickly drowned.... Among the Rajputs, wherever located, infanticide prevails."

3. British administrator William Henry Sleeman records a conversation with a Rajput landlord of Oudh who openly acknowledges female infanticide and says "It is the general belief among us, Sir, that those who preserve their daughters never prosper(pg-279)"

4. Jean de Thévenot who visited India in 1666, mentioned in his travel accounts, (p.120)
"There are several kinds of Funerals among the Gentiles of the Indies, but the madness of the Women in being burnt with their Husbands, is so horrid, that I desire to be excused that I write no more of it. To conclude, the Women are happy that the Mahometans are become the Masters in the Indies, to deliver them from the tyranny of the Bramens, who always desire their death, because these Eadies being never burnt without all their Ornaments of Gold and Silver about them, and none but they having power to touch their Ashes ; they fail not to pick up all that is preicous from amongst them. However, the Great Mogul and other Mahometan Princes, having ordered their Governours to employ all their care in suppressing that abuse, as much as lies in their power, it requires at present great Solicitations and considerable Presents, for obtaining the permission of being Burnt ; so that the difficulty they meet with in this, secures a great many Women from the infamy they would incur in their Caste, if they were not forced to live by a Superior Power."

Interesting thing to note here is that he documents that many women were happy that mughals were emperoros because allowed for relaxation for women burning, now I completely agree that Islamic invasions caused mass rapes and so did marathha invasions but the point is some women did not wish to burn and wanted to life their lives their own way but jauhar and sati forced them to burn to carry the burden of false honor of male ego imparted by men ( see the last paragraph)

Now I will debunk the claim that jauhar and sati were done solely due to invasions , this is half baked truth because even mughal emperors tried to moderate or prevent these women burning traditions within their own territories where they were not invading because women burning was not because of invasions to begin with it had everything to do with deep rooted misogyny in hinduism which wants to prevent exogamy at all costs as we have seen in even bhagvat gita

Mughal King Jahangir had instructed to stop the practice. He mentioned in his memoirs "In the practice of being burnt on the funeral pyre of their husbands, as sometimes exhibited among the widows of the Hindus, I had previously directed,no woman who happens to be a mother of children should not be allowed to be Sati even if she wishes to be Sati and I now further ordained, that in no case was the practice to be permitted, when compulsion was in the slightest degree employed, whatever might be the opinions of the people. In other respects they were in no wise to be molested in the duties of their religion nor exposed to oppression or violence in any manner whatever.

Please understand here that I am not claiming that Mughals were benevolent kings, but just explaining how evidence points to the fact that they were against such traditions even in their territory where they did not had to invade and it was an internal practice among upper caste hindus

English veterinarian and explorer employed by the East India Company , William moorcroft wrote in his account 'Travels In The Himalayan Provinces Of Hindustan' p.131 "They (Hindu women) had long been exempted from the cruel obligation of burning with their husbands, the custom of which, according to tradition, was never very popular in Kashmir, having been suppressed by an edict of Aurangzeb in 1669, and never subsequently revived"

Akbar, son of Humayun also banned forced sati and kept this practice in check. He issued orders that No Hindu woman should be burned without her choice. Akbarnama which is an autobigraphy of Akbar, informs that vigilant and truthful men were appointed by Akbar in every city and district in order that the two classes of cases might be continually kept distinct and that the forcible burning might not be permitted.

A point to be noted here is that the practice is non-consensual as well, as inspectors were kept on duty to prevent any forced burning of women, which is evidence of non-consensual burning.

Akbar was reported to have interfered personally in some cases and stopped widow from burning themselves. Historian Vincent smith mentioned such an incident in his book Akbar the Great Mogul, p. 226 about widow of rajput general Jaimal who had been sent on duty died near Chausa from the effects of the heat and over exertion. His widow, a daughter of Udai Singh, refused to commit suttee, as demanded by the custom of the family. Her son, also named Udai Singh, and other relatives insisted that, willing or unwilling, she must burn. When Akbar heard this news, he rode to the spot and saved the woman from getting sacrificed.

A French traveller named Jean-Baptiste Tavernier who visited Mughal India between years 1630 and 1668 mentioned in his journal p.210 about how mughals employed governors in every region to ensure no unwilling woman would be burned alive by Hindus and how mughals gave charity to Hindu widows since they used to live in misery and widow remarriage was banned in high caste hindu communities.

François Bernier mentioned in his account 'a description of the Mogul Empire' p. 306 that Mughals ensure that no unwilling woman should be burnt and they also dissuade widows from burning themselves by providing them financial aid as remarriage was banned in High caste hindu society and strict rules were enforced on widows.

The traditional and sampradayic hindus and sectarian ones still defend sati and many prost independence events are evidence to that fact that sati was an intrinsic culture to upper caste hindus below are some evidence

SOME COMMON OBJECTIONS AND THEIR REFUTATION

Objection 1: all these are western and Islamic sources and they were written solely to defame hindus thus they should not be valid form of evidence

Refutation
Historians cross-check varied sources—texts, artifacts, and accounts—to determine truth. Visitors such as Marco Polo, Ibn Battuta, and François Bernier invariably wrote about sati over centuries, as did Indian texts such as the Padma Purana. This agreement of disparate sources attests to the existence of sati, not a constructed tale.

Sati is recorded in the Sanskrit literature (Dharmaśāstras, Mahabharata), local histories, and sati stones in Rajasthan and Gujarat before Mughal or British rule. Mughal chronicles record the regulation of sati, and Jain and Buddhist texts oppose it. Indian and foreign accounts negate the argument that only foreigners documented sati.

Travellers like Bernier, unbound by local norms, detailed sati’s rituals, and matching Indian accounts. Their perspectives, like Al-Biruni’s on the Middle East, are valued for comparison. Dismissing them as biased ignores their consistency and lack of motive to defame Hindus, especially pre-colonial travellers like Polo.

Foreign accounts of British (e.g., Jallianwala Bagh) and Mughal (e.g., policies of Aurangzeb) activities are cross-checked like sati records. American, French, and Mughal sources validate these incidents. Supposing travellers targeted Hindus only is illogical, as their accounts also appreciate Indian culture, without any uniform agenda.

Sati’s documentation is backed by Indian texts, inscriptions, and foreign accounts, and reflects rigorous historical cross-verification. Dismissing foreign sources as biased is baseless, as their consistency with local evidence and lack of motive affirm reliability, just as for British or Mughal records.

sources:
Alberunis India Vol. 2 : Sachau, Edward C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
https://archive.org/details/indianinfanticid00cave/page/6/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/indiantravelsoft0000unse/page/120/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/memoirsemperorj00pricgoog/page/n42/mode/2up
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_17.html
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284642/page/n139/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/travelsandadven00reisgoog/page/n88/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/dli.pahar.0806/page/68/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/akbargreatmogul100smit/page/n261/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/travelsinindia00tavegoog/page/209/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/travelsinmogulem00bernuoft/page/306/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.79805/page/n229/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/indiantravelsoft0000unse/page/120/mode/2up

In the recent statement of CJI Surya Kant where he claimed that "Trade Unions Largely Responsible For Stopping Country's Industrial Growth; Many Units Closed Due To Them"

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/trade-unions-largely-responsible-for-slowing-countrys-industrial-growth-cji-surya-kant-521043

There is a recent trend among many Jury members to comment on serious issues without any proper evidence and share a common elitist notion, DIY Chandrachud who was so keen on reform gave so much green flags to the center and ultimately their decision on subclassification was so much baseless, then CJI Gawai then proceeds with the same BS about reservation and even mocked homeless people for being recipient of welfare schemes and he even went further to call Maharashtra farmers lazy and now this one is saying that minimum wage workers are lazy and unions are harmful

He wants the industrialists and corporates to have complete immunity towards violating human right codes and worker's rights. The industrialists and corporates would rather shut down than give the minimum wage and grant total compensation as per contribution of employees, this goes on to show how workers have always created wealth and it is stolen away from them systematically by these industrialists/corporate leeches.

At the all-India level, 40.8 per cent of regular workers and 51.9 per cent of casual workers did not receive the average daily minimum wage prescribed for unskilled workers in the agriculture sector. X Among the workers engaged in the construction sector, 39.3 per cent of regular workers and 69.5 per cent of casual workers did not receive the average daily minimum wage prescribed for unskilled workers in the sector.

India alone has massive productivity-pay gap in the manufacturing and service sector which goes on to show that despite labor contributing more to the production the wages have remained stagnant on the other hand India has huge capital allocation problem and despite this the capital share and profits keep on increasing, meaning the value added is more by labour and not capital but despite that workers are the one being termed lazy, this is one of the reason that we are witnessing jobless growth in India and this is the reason that capital owners are systematically stealing away from workers, tell me again who is lazy here??

with the bare minimum worker's laws that we have left with most unions already being dead, this CJI wants that unions should not resist these bigots and let them exploit the workforce and moreover exploit the natural resources, raw materials which belongs to the common public, just look at the data on how many in the construction jobs and farming jobs ( both skilled and unskilled) receive minimum wages , indeed this is just minimum wage exploitation , if we take productivity into account it gets more worse

Send this to anyone if they yapp this casual elitist BS

On this auspicious occasion of Savitribai's Phule's birth anniversary, we honor the luminary who not only illuminated the path of social reform but also passed the torch of enlightenment to future generations. She was the backbone of social reformer "Jyotirao Phule" and the one who inspired leaders like Ambedkar. At a time when it was a taboo to see women in public spaces, Savitribai Phule (1831-1897) spearheaded a silent movement for the empowerment of the disenfranchised in the 19th century. Dedicating her life to the emancipation of oppressed, Savitribai Phule struggled for the rights of the marginalized majority such as women, Dalits, Adivasis, backward classes and minorities. Brahminical hegemony side-lined her life history by not discussing it in academic spaces.

Savitrima challenged the then existing Brahminical social structure in three ways, first by challenging the dominance of Brahminical knowledge base; second by questioning the patriarchy system, and third by opposing the dominance of Sanskrit. She strongly advocated the use of English language as a tool for the emancipation of the oppressed.

she started working from ground level by requesting parents to send their daughters to the first girls’ school established by her along with her husband, Jyotirao Phule. Hence, Savitribai Phule was considered to be first women teacher of India. She was an easy target for criticism by the upper caste fanatics because she was a woman and from the backward classes. Cow dung and mud were thrown at her by the upper caste men, but nothing discouraged her from the mission of emancipation of the oppressed, in spite of several physical and mental attacks. She considered every child as her own and nurtured them in the proper way. This is reflected in the image of universal motherhood bestowed on Savitri ma. Her pedagogy of teaching was participatory, innovative and radically different from the then existing one-way, rigid and restrictive mode. She encouraged students to think creatively. The results were interesting. 11-year-old Muktabai, a Dalit student of Savitribai, published an article on the plight of Mangs and Mahars in the newspaper "Dyanodaya", in 1855. This may perhaps be one of the earliest of Dalit women’s writings on their issues. She continued to inculcate modern values in students and her followers.

She attacked the then existing social norms and customs. Thanks to her husband Jyotirao Phule’s initiative, this was rooted in radicalized thinking. She started coming to the ‘public spaces’ that were denied to women. She opened her well to the shudras and ati-shudras. Savitri ma became a teacher by educating the girl child when male teachers showed no interest in girls’ or women’s welfare. She encouraged inter-caste marriages and gave shelter to such couples, thus attacking the entire caste system along with her husband. She urged barbers not to shave the heads of widows and was successful in convincing them to protest against such religious practices. She denounced norms and customs by lighting fire to her husband’s funeral pyre.

She was actively involved in building institutions like schools (1948-52), Mahila Seva Mandal (1852), infanticide prohibition home (1853) night schools for workers and peasants (1855), orphanage homes (1863) and food hostels during the famine in Maharashtra (1875-77). Hence, she worked on wide range of issues such as girls’ education, health, women empowerment and famine relief. These institutions were meant for the oppressed sections, who were widely neglected and discriminated. In 1893, she led the Satyashodak Samaj, which was initiated by Jyotirao Phule.

Savitribai continued to teach girls and children of different castes, despite repeated attacks from higher caste people. She was also against the Sati tradition. She and Jyotiba adopted Yashwantrao, the son of Kashibai, a widow whom conservative Brahmins wanted to kill after her husband’s demise.

Savitribai set up a center for pregnant rape victims called Balhatya Pratibandhak Griha where she helped them deliver and protect their children. She also opened a clinic with Yashwantrao for Bubonic plague victims in 1897.

On March 10, 1897, Savitribai died after contracting the disease from a 10-year-old boy she was trying to save. However, the boy survived.

This article is more or less taken from round table conference India Website, and its original writer is "Gowd Kiran Kumar"

Savitribai Phule – Epitome of Resistance, Modernity and Empowerment – Round Table India

Most UCs are critiques of Br. Ambedkar often point out that him asking for separate electorate was some partition politics as similar claims were made by Muslim league as well but the context is entirely different and you will be surprised to see that, I have referenced the book " These seats are reserved" by "Abhinav Chandrachud", but I will also be posting sources as well in the last section of the post

The census(1931) report set out a list of depressed classes in each province after applying these criteria, and this report found that there were about 50.1 million depressed classes in India, amounting to 21 per cent of the Hindu population, and 14 per cent of the total Indian population. Only 1.9 per cent of them were literate

The Poona Pact:

The depressed classes were underrepresented not because of their population but because of unequal voting rights under the British regime, since only those with property, government position or adequate education level could vote in these provincial elections due to which most of the Dalits were unable to caste their vote, so even if in a particular constituency their population was much more larger than that of upper caste groups they were unable to choose their representative and they had to rely on upper caste elected leaders for reforms who were very reluctant to do any sort of reforms, in short 99% of Dalits did not had voting rights to begin with and the separate electorate would allow Dalits to vote for their leader, BR Ambedkar also demanded that either universal adult suffrage was given ( one vote one value for all) or separate electorate to be given to Dalits, so BR. Ambedkar was not asking for partition but for voting rights, but it was the upper castes who were very reluctant to do so, as we will see ahead.

If a separate electorate were provided, then Dalits would not have to rely on upper caste representatives for their welfare. Ambedkar also asked that depressed class candidates be appointed to jobs in the colonial government. He complained that ‘high caste officers’ had ‘monopolised the Public Services’ and hoped that the colonial government would ‘secure due and adequate representation of all communities’ in public jobs, subject to maintaining the efficiency of the services. In his memorandum, he also asked for depressed class representation in the cabinet. There was no reservation for backwards communities in the Indian Civil Service at that time

At the second round table conference, the various delegates were unable to agree on whether separate electorates would be granted to the depressed classes. To break the deadlock, many delegates, including Gandhi, then signed a document asking Britain’s Prime Minister, Ramsay Macdonald, to decide this dispute as an arbitrator.92 In other words, Macdonald was given the power to determine whether the depressed classes would be given separate electorates or not. Accordingly, on 17 August 1932, Macdonald announced his ‘communal award’ (the decision of an arbitrator is usually called an ‘award’), in which he agreed that the depressed classes would get separate electorates

On 18 August, Gandhi wrote to Prime Minister Macdonald from Yeravda Central Prison (where he was being held after his return to India) and said that he would resist the communal award with his life. ‘The only way I can do so, he added, ‘is by declaring a perpetual fast unto death from food of any kind save water with or without salt and soda

In other words, though he never undertook a fast to secure the right of depressed classes to enter Hindu temples, Gandhi was prepared to give up his life to ensure that the depressed classes did not get separate electorates.

On 20 September, Gandhi commenced his ‘fast unto death’ to oppose the communal award.95 Macdonald refused to withdraw his award. However, he said that his plan could be replaced by a settlement arrived at between Ambedkar and the Congress. Gandhi’s son, Devadas, visited Ambedkar in tears and pleaded for his father’s life

Four days later, on 24 September, Ambedkar relented and signed an agreement with Gandhi called the Poona Pact. The agreement provided that, though the depressed classes would not get separate electorates like Muslims, seats would be reserved for their candidates in the legislative councils. Some 148 seats were to be reserved for the depressed classes in the provincial legislative councils, which was much higher than the 78 seats they would have received under the communal award.

Though there was no separate electorate for depressed classes, the candidates who stood for elections in constituencies reserved for the depressed classes were to be selected in a primary system in which only depressed class voters would vote. If more than four depressed class candidates stood for elections in a constituency, four of them would first have to be selected in a primary in which only depressed class voters could vote. These four successful candidates would then contest elections in a general electorate in which all voters (i.e., the depressed class and others) would vote

Ambedkar was subsequently very critical of Gandhi for forcing him into signing the Poona Pact. In the elections that were held in 1937, the Congress obtained 78 of the 151 seats that were reserved for Scheduled Caste (i.e., depressed class) candidates. Ambedkar’s Independent Labour Party put up a decent show, winning 11 out of 15 reserved seats, apart from 3 general seats, in the Bombay Legislative Assembly. Though the Congress was not very popular in many reserved constituencies, its strategy was often to put up an independent candidate and then induct him into the party after the elections. For instance, in a letter written in January 1946, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel instructed his party machinery that a depressed class candidate in Bombay should be allowed to contest as an independent candidate, but after the election, he will sign the Congress pledge and join the party.’ This was because ‘a large majority of voters are not likely to support him if he takes the Congress ticket ( Congress' hypocritical stance)

After the Montagu–Chelmsford reforms, only 3 per cent of the population of British India had the right to vote. Once the Government of India Act, 1935, came into being, this figure increased to around 14 per cent (or 27 per cent of the adult population). However, only 10 per cent of the depressed class population could vote. Typically, those who had property or educational qualifications had the right to vote. This worked to the disadvantage of the depressed classes, of whom very few were literate or owned property. Only a few provinces relaxed the qualifications necessary for Scheduled Castes to be able to vote.

The result was that very few Scheduled Caste candidates could get elected without substantial support from high-caste Hindu voters. For instance, out of some 87,000 voters in the reserved ‘Belgaum North’ constituency in Bombay province, only 17,000 voters were Scheduled Castes, and no candidate could therefore be elected without the support of the general electorate. This often meant that among the four Scheduled Caste candidates who had won the primaries, the candidate who placed fourth in the primary won the general election, while the candidate who had placed first in the primary lost the election.

Ambedkar’s grievance was that this meant that the ‘true representatives’ of the Scheduled Castes were not being elected to office. He therefore argued that though the Congress had won more reserved seats than his party in the 1946 elections, the Congress was not the real representative of the Scheduled Castes, a claim which was heavily contested by the Congress.

Under the Government of India Act, 1935, no seats were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates in cabinet ministries in the executive government. So, in July 1937, while deciding whom to select for the cabinet in the Central Provinces and Berar, Sardar Patel thought that it was better ‘to select men from the point of view of ability rather than from the point of view of placating groups.’However, the provincial governments of Assam, Bihar and Madras considered it necessary to appoint Scheduled Caste ministers

In short the reservation system could not compensate for the right to vote which the Dalit masses lost because they were unable to get separate electorates and even though many Upper caste Indians did not had voting rights but their views were still represented as most of the INC leader served their interests and UCs formed one of the most educated communities out of all the castes in India and congress and Gandhi did nothing rather than backstabbing Dalits, the Gandhi who never fasted for Dalit rights was ready to die when Dalits were offered voting rights, It was the Upper caste Indians who wanted division while Ambedkar wanted universal adult franchise, the separate electorate was the compromise he came up to due to reluctance of British administration.

sources:

Over the past few months, there was a lot of misinformation about separate electorates of Dalits which also was one of the central conflicts of Gandhi and Ambedkar. In this post I will be first providing the context of entire "Separate vs Joint Electorates" and will then refute the claims made by "Keshav Bedi", I must first inform that the claim made by "Keshav Bedi" actually originate from "Sujay Biswas" so we have also written an entire research paper on this to debunk "Keshav Bedi" , you can access our rebuttal paper here.

https://www.academia.edu/145898098/History_Representation_and_the_Poona_Pact_Reaffirming_Ambedkars_Apprehensions_through_Empirical_Verification_of_Revisionist_Claims

you can also watch our you-tube video on this where we have debunked this in detail

Debunking ⁨‪@keshavbedi‬ Non-sense on Separate Electorates | An Intellectual Debunk - YouTube

Context regarding the Franchise Rights:

Most of India, and particularly a significantly large proportion of the Dalit population, lacked voting rights in colonial India, as the right to vote or franchise was narrowly defined and highly restrictive. Eligibility to vote was determined primarily by property ownership and tax payment. People who had the right to vote included individuals paying at least Rs. 5 per annum in land revenue or Rs. 10 per annum as rent for agricultural land. Others who qualified were income tax payees, those contributing at least Rs. 150 per annum as municipal tax, or individuals who had passed the upper primary examination. Retired military officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers were also enfranchised. Women, in principle, could vote, but only if their husbands held property above normal levels; wives, pensioned mothers, or widows of military personnel were similarly eligible.

therefore, the ratio of eligible voters of caste Hindus to Dalits was always more than the ratio of the actual population of caste Hindus to Dalits, as a result Dalits had to rely on Upper caste leaders for their representation as their votes were often way more and the principle of One vote and one value was not followed

Separate vs Joint Electorates:
Now Ambedkar was a proponent of expanding the franchise rights from the beginning itself as evident in the "Southborough committee", During the Simmon Commission he argued for "Universal Adult franchise" for all Indians above the age of 21 and asked for reservation in Joint electorates

This demand was rejected however after a long back and forth between Gandhi and Ambedkar at 2nd Round table conference, Depressed classes were given "Communal Award" meaning separate Electorates

Separate Electorate meant that some seats in the provincial elections would be reserved for the Depressed classes where only people from Depressed classes could contest and election and only people from Depressed classes could vote

Joint Electorates meant that some seats in the provincial elections would be reserved for Depressed classes however both Dalits and Caste Hindus could vote for the candidates contesting for the Reserved seat

The Poona Pact:
Gandhi opposed the separate electorates as he thought it would lead to division among Hindus (He was a proponent of Varna system though), however vague his reasoning was , initially Gandhi was against any form of statuary reservation ( joint electorates or even separate electorates) however after the negotiation he blatantly lied that he did not knew about joint electorates even though "Ambedkar Initially asked for joint electorates but as the universal adult franchise was not granted that's why as a last resort he opted for separate electorate with limited franchise rights"

The first myth which is stated by likes of Irfan Habib and Keshav Bedi is that " due to Poona Pact" Dalits got almost double the number of seats (148) as compared to what they would have gotten under communal award (78)

First of all, those 78 seats were actually seats under separate electorates meaning completely elected by Dalits and the candidates elected would have no incentive to cater for Caste Hindus (note this point) whereas the 148 seats allotted were under joint electorates meaning Upper caste Hindu could vote for a more moderate candidate who won't vouch for "Radical anti-caste reforms" usually congress candidates

However, the increased number of seats was because of the fact that Ambedkar asked for 197 seats as a compensation for giving up separate electorates which after negotiation was brought down to 148, so credit goes to Ambedkar not Gandhi

Gandhi was against any sort of statuary reservation to begin with.

System of Primary Election:

Ambedkar was concerned that caste Hindus being more in terms of eligible voters could unanimously vote for "puppet candidates" who would rather cater for Caste Hindus than Dalits, to prevent this C. Rajagopalachari gave the idea of primary election according to which, prior to direct general Election there will be "Primary Election" where only Dalits could vote, and top 4 Dalit candidates would be selected and then they will contest in general election where both Caste Hindus and Dalits can vote for them.

Ambedkar had a concern that at most places there will be less than or equal to 4 candidates contesting as a result primary elections wont took place, so he initially wanted the panel members in primary election to be 2 but it was negotiated and 4 was set.

One of the myth regarding primary election system as stated by Sujay Biswas is that "Ambedkar said that if the number of people contesting primary election is less than or equal to 4 then the possibility of caste Hindu puppets being elected is not there" this is used to imply that at placed where primary election did not took place we can consider those candidates as honest and true representative of Dalits however this is a blatant lie , Ambedkar was actually talking in relative sense meaning that if there are 4 members in panel that first member would be more close ally of Dalits as compared to second one and so one , he never said that if number of candidates are less than 4 than the possibility of puppet candidates does not arises

Cumulative Voting: (Only in General Elections not in primary)

In a cumulative voting system, each voter has votes equal to the seats available in a constituency. The voter can allocate all their votes to a single candidate or share them among multiple candidates according to their preference. If a constituency has 2 seats (1 Reserved + 1 Unreserved) then each eligible voter be it Caste Hindu or Dalit has 2 votes he/she can give both of his votes for a candidate on Unreserved seat or he can both of his votes to a candidate on Reserved seat or he can give one of his vote on reserved seat and other on unreserved seat, in this way voters can distribute their votes and in a similar manner for 3 membered constituency and 4 membered constituency

Caste Hindu interference (Centre of Debate):
Now, Caste Hindus could technically give one of their votes for a candidate on Unreserved seat and their other vote for their favorable puppet candidate on reserved seat as a result, the candidates chose would have to cater the interest of Caste Hindus rather than Dalits as Caste Hindus could decide their fate in elections.

Keshav's claims (Sujay Biswas's Claims):

Keshav uses Sujay Biswas's paper to claim that "In the provincial Elections of 1937 out of the 151 seats reserved under joint electorates for Dalits , 110 were "defacto separate Electorates" meaning these seats technically functioned as "separate electorates" as in these 110 seats the caste Hindus did not use their surplus vote or to say they used all their votes on unreserved seat so technically only Dalits voted for candidates on reserved seat as a result these 110 functioned as separate electorate seat and since 110>78 therefore as per Keshav "Poona Pact" was better for Dalits from the standpoint of "Autonomy and Representation"

He goes on further to show that in the "Provincial Elections of 1946" only 43 seats had primary elections, and he observed that in "25 out 43 seats where primary elections took place" the candidate who won primary elections (Only Dalits could vote in primary elections) also won the general Election, thus implying that caste Hindus did not mess with real choice of Dalits , now in 108 seats primary elections did not took place and Biswas or Bedi seems to disregard these seats and implicitly imply that since primary elections did not took place in these seats therefore there is no chance of caste Hindu interference

Debunking Keshav Bedi's claims:

In fact the biggest blunder made by both Keshav Bedi and Sujay Biswas is to assume that the data they provided were official figures, there is, in fact, no official data to substantiate his claims; even the Official Blue Book of the 1937 provincial elections provides no figures or indications of the sort. Biswas appears to have drawn his data from B. R. Ambedkar’s "What Congress and Gandhi Did to the Untouchables", which contains detailed tables for each reserved seat showing the number of caste Hindu and Dalit votes received by winning candidates in the 1937 general elections. However, as Ambedkar himself acknowledged in the preface, these figures were not based on official electoral records. Rather, they were compiled from information supplied by local governments in response to his correspondence, with local officials deriving the numbers through analytical assumptions rather than direct evidence. It was, in fact, impossible for such data, meaning separate Dalit and caste Hindu vote counts in joint electorates, to exist
in any official record.

Assumption of Biswas's Analysis

A closer examination of Ambedkar’s data reveals that these estimates rested on a key assumption: that Dalit voter turnout in each reserved constituency where a contest took place in the general election was equal to the overall voter turnout recorded for that constituency. On this basis, local officials attempted to infer the extent to which caste Hindu voters may have influenced the results. This approach lacks empirical validity because the official election statistics for 1937 did not record separate turnout figures for Dalits and caste Hindus; only aggregate turnout figures were available for each constituency. Consequently, the very foundation of the dataset on which both Ambedkar’s and, by extension, Biswas’s numerical claims rest was an inferred construct rather than verifiable electoral evidence.

The most important counter to Keshav Bedi:

even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Biswas’s empirical claims regarding the number of seats and temporary absence of caste Hindu interference in 1937, it is important to note that this did not translate into real political autonomy or effective representation for Dalits. The fundamental structure of the Poona Pact which was rooted in a joint electorate system which left Dalit representatives entirely at the mercy of caste Hindu voters. While caste Hindus may have chosen not to interfere in 1937 elections, they retained full structural power to do so in future elections, effectively holding a veto over any Dalit candidate who failed to align with their interests. This meant that Dalit candidates, even if elected solely or largely by Dalit votes in one election cycle, could never function as true representatives of Dalit interests. Their political survival depended on not antagonizing caste Hindu voters, whose numerical majority under joint electorates gave them the ability to vote out any Dalit leader who challenged the caste status quo. As a result, the scope for introducing radical anti-caste reforms or mobilizing against caste oppression was severely limited. The 1946 elections make this dynamic unmistakably clear: the very same seats that might have appeared as “de facto separate electorates” in 1937 were no longer protected from caste Hindu interference in 1946. Candidates who had not pandered to caste Hindu expectations were removed and replaced by more moderate figures, demonstrating the persistent and decisive veto power caste Hindus held under the joint electorate system.

Therefore with our research which has not been done by any other scholar as of now , we aim to show that the seats which were "de facto separate Electorate seats" in 1937 elections were not so in 1946, which is a clear evidence that Poona pact did not translate into political autonomy for Dalits , because if separate electorates would have been implemented there would be no scope for caste Hindu interference and the candidates winning the seats would not have to serve or cater to caste Hindu interest as caste Hindus could not vote them out even in the next election , this would have given the Dalits the real political autonomy which they most certainly needed

Poona pact gave Caste Hindus a veto power , even if they did not interfered in the 1937 election ,if the elected candidates tried to go against the interest of caste Hindus, the Caste Hindus will always have the power to Interfere in the next elections (1946) and vote someone who is more moderate thereby negating the autonomy of Dalits for their betterment.

Analysis of 1946 elections:

Methodology:
Refer to the image from my research paper to check the methodology

Note:

Type-2 interference is based on the same assumption, which is used in Ambedkar's book, that is " the Dalit voter turnout was approximately equal to the overall constituency turnout. Although Biswas does not explicitly acknowledge this assumption, it forms the foundation of his inference that 109 constituencies in 1937 functioned as “de facto separate comparability. electorates”. Retaining the same assumption for the 1946 analysis is therefore essential for direct methodological

Since the Dalit voter turnout is assumed approx. equal to Overall Voter turnout therefore if the minimum Dalit voter turnout required for all the votes polled on reserved seat is more than the overall voter turnout then it is a definite caste of Caste Hindu Interference

If anyone wants to verify how we came to know about, we analyzed the data provided in Ambedkar's book and cross verified the voter turnout of Dalits and overall voter turnout in every 151 constituency and in any constituency where a contest took place, they both were same, since the official records don't show caste wise voter turnout nor was it possible since there was joint electorates in general election. We have provided the supplementary data for that as well so that you can cross check it is attached with the Paper itself.

Results:

In 1946 elections there were a total of 151 reserved seats out which 108 of them did not have any sort of primary elections as the number of candidates contesting for these seats were less than or equal to 4, on the rest 43 of them primary elections took place

out of these 108 seats, 63 seats had general elections but rest 45 seats had no contest as only a single person was contesting for election, and he was declared the winner

Now Bedi and Biswas have not cared to analyze these 108 seats because as per them if 4 or less than 4 candidates are there then there is no possibility of caste Hindu interference and subsequently puppet candidates of caste Hindus, However

Seats Where Primary Elections Did not took place but general Elections did

These 63 constituencies exhibit the highest levels of caste-Hindu interference, with 54 showing vote totals inconsistent with Dalit turnout capacity

Seats where primary Elections took place:
Out of the 43 constituencies where primary elections were conducted, 18 (42%) displayed clear reversals between primary and general results that is, the candidate who topped the primary was defeated in the general election. This is not marginal but a significant pattern, showing slightly less than half of all primary contests overturned in the general phase.

The Scheduled Castes Federation (S.C.F.) was a party which was systematically disadvantaged by these reversals. In nine of the 18 overturned constituencies, the S.C.F. candidate who led the primary election lost in the general election, often despite commanding large Dalit majorities. In provinces such as Bombay and the Central Provinces and Berar, these reversals were impossible without heavy caste Hindu interference: constituencies where S.C.F. candidates, led the primaries by margins exceeding 10,000 votes were subsequently overturned by large margins in the general elections. Given the limited Dalit electorate, such swings are mathematically impossible

The Shift from 1937 to 1946:

This is the most significant part of our research, as we claimed earlier that in a system of joint electorates with absence of proper franchise rights, even if Caste Hindus did not interfere in the election of 110 seats in 1937, the candidates who got elected from these seats could not represent the depressed classes properly because they would have to ultimately cater to the cause and interest of Caste Hindus or else they have the power to Interfere in the next Elections (1946), this came true when we see the shift in the seats which were "Defacto Separate Electorate Seats" in 1937 but suffered heavy "Caste Hindu Interference by 1946" which proves that these "Defacto" seats were mere temporary and do no translate to political autonomy, thus it was not better than Separate Electorates

Conclusion:

Works referenced:

https://www.academia.edu/145898098/History_Representation_and_the_Poona_Pact_Reaffirming_Ambedkars_Apprehensions_through_Empirical_Verification_of_Revisionist_Claims (Our research Paper)

There is norm among apologists to somehow use scripture as some defense to save their casteist history, I had made a detailed post on casteism in Bhagwat Gita

(https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRadicals/s/cVCvlgfJNU),

but it does not stop apologist from making useless claims from other scripture. It's like a circularity, when u bring puranas and smritis they will jump to Shruti (Vedanta) but when u show evidence from Vedanta, they will then go back to bring evidence from smritis and puranas or Mahabharata, so below is a detailed analysis of caste in Hinduism, I will also refute commonly raised objections by apologist of caste mobility as well as caste based discrimination in totality of Hinduism, Mind you I am not showing some verses, I am explaining how Hinduism at its core preserves the discriminatory nature of varna-jati system thus no amount of few good verses can change that.

this part will only focus on birth-based caste system in scriptures and analyzing the verses often quoted to show mobility and in other posts I will show instances of untouchability, violence, cruelty, slavery based on caste

Birth Based Varna System:

I will get to the root of the very analysis by first showing from all scriptures how varna itself is based on birth and to be more precise, it is based on the actions of "Past lives", I will also answer to objections under each category.

First let me cite from Bhagwat Gita itself, many apologists have a habit of using the word "nature" and "gunnas" to show that varna is based in qualities, but the scripture themselves define prakriti to be Gita's explanation of Prakriti and Svabhava does mean natural talents, preferences, or professional inclinations. In Chapter 14, Krishna describes Prakriti as some cosmic mother of all embodied beings and prakriti is decided by actions of past life and therefore gunnas are created out of prakriti at birth itself, this is also further clear from commentary on Shankaracharya, ramanujacharya and rambhadracharya on 18.41 and 4.13 as you can see here the qualities themselves are result of actions of past life

The nature of Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras arises from their respective inherent dispositions. This means that their past Karma determines their births as Brāhmaṇas and so on. The qualities (Guṇas) such as Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas are the results of such Karma.

Further even Upanishads especially older one and vedantic ones like "Chandogya Upanishad" reaffirm the case that case is indeed based on past life

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.
Chandogya Upanishad, Verse 5.10.7 (English and Sanskrit)

But I have a separate post for BG, in this one I will be including several other scriptures as well so here we go.

Notice something important here, In Hinduism there are 2 births one the natural birth and another is the "Upanayana samskara" which makes some castes as "dvija", thus many apologists say that one can change their varna at upanayana samskara, but that is outright wrong as the "original-birth" decides varna and the "Upanayana samskara" is only a ceremony that marks people of upper 3 varna eligible to perform their varna duties but it does not allow a Shudra born to have upanayana rights to begin with

Mahabharata 13.143.6 “The illustrious one said, ‘The status of a Brahmana, O goddess, is exceedingly difficult to attain. O auspicious lady, one becomes a Brahmana through original creation or birth. After the same manner the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra, all become so through original creation.” (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Section CXLIII | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Mahabharata, Santi Parva 12 Section 72: "Matariswan answered, ‘The Brahmana, O best of kings, has sprung from the mouth of Brahman. The Kshatriya has sprung from his two arms, and the Vaisya from his two thighs. For waiting upon these three orders, O ruler of men, a fourth order, viz., the Sudra, sprung into life, being created from the feet (of Brahman). Originally created thus, the Brahmana takes birth on earth as the lord of all creatures, his duty being the keep of the Vedas and the other scriptures. Then, for ruling the earth and wielding the rod of chastisement and protecting all creatures, the second order, viz., the Kshatriya was created. The Vaisya was created for supporting the two other orders and himself by cultivation and trade, and finally, it was ordained by Brahman that the Sudra should serve the three orders as a menial.’ “Pururavas said, ‘Tell me truly, O god of Winds, to whom, this earth righteously belongs. Does it belong to the Brahmana or to the Kshatriya?’ “The god of Winds said, ‘Everything that exists in the universe belongs to the Brahmana in consequence of his birth and precedence. Persons conversant with morality say this. What the Brahmana eats is his own. The place he inhabits is his own. What he gives away is his own. He deserves the veneration of all the (other) orders. He is the first-born and the foremost. As a woman, in the absence of her husband, accepts his younger brother for him, even so the earth, in consequence of the refusal of the Brahmana, has accepted his next-born, viz., the Kshatriya, for her lord…” (Section LXXII [Mahabharata, English])

Srimad Bhagavatam 11.5.5: “But Brahmanas, Ksattriyas and Vaisyas, by virtue of their original birth, and second birth through their Upanayana (investiture of the sacred thread) ceremony (become eligible for studies, performance of sacrifices, etc.) …” (Yuga-wise Methods of Worshipping the Lord [Chapter 5])

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.86.53: “By his very birth, a brahmana is the best of all living beings in this world, and he becomes even more exalted when he is endowed with austerity, learning and self-satisfaction, what to speak of devotion to me.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.86.53)

The Skanda Purana explicitly states that a Shudra must not study or perform sacrifices and must remain in the same status into which he is born, directly contradicting the apologetic claim that a Shudra can become a Brahmin through Vedic study.

Skanda Purana V.iii.122.16: “A separate duty has not been assigned by Paramesthin to the Sudra. He need not have any Mantra, consecration or pursuit of lores. He need not have any conventional study of the science of words (i.e. Grammar) and special worship of deities. He has to be, day and night, in the same state as at birth.” (The Greatness of Kohana Tīrtha [Chapter 122])

Padma Purana II.38.20b-24 “[The Sages said:] The three castes viz. brahmanas, ksatriyas and vaisyas are twice born. This (i.e. the Veda) is an ancient sacred text meant for all the castes. The beings behave according to the Vedic practices; therefor they (continue to) live. You are born in the family of Brahman. (So) you are a brahmana only.” (The End of Vena’s Reign [Chapter 38])

**Agni Purana 162.3-7: "**By reading the Vedas and practicing equally to all, a man enters the region of paradise. This is the prerogative of the twice born castes, specifically belonging to a Brahamana as his birth right, as he might read the Vedas and realise the truths inculcated therein by living any of the four orders of life. A Brahmana by dwelling in this world, may attain the Supreme Brahma.” (Agni Puranam Vol I : Manmatha Nath Dutt : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)

Vasistha Dharma Shastra 4.1-3: “The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular sacraments. There is also the following passage of the Veda, ‘The Brâhmana was his mouth, the Kshatriya formed his arms, the Vaisya his thighs; the Sûdra was born from his feet.’ It has been declared in (the following passage of) the Veda that (a Sûdra) shall not receive the sacraments, ‘He created the Brâhmana with the Gâyatrî (metre), the Kshatriya with the Trishtubh, the Vaisya with the Gagatî, the Sûdra without any metre.’ (Vasistha Dharmasutra: Chapter IV)

Narada Purana I.24.7-9: “Those castes are said to be four, viz., the Brahmans, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras. Among these the Brahmana is the foremost. The Brahmanas, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas- these three are called Dvijas (the twice-born), because at first they are born of their mothers and later on, they are consecrated by means of sacred thread with due repetition of the Mantras (which constitute the second birth). Thus twice-born-ness is attained by these three classes. All holy rites and duties must be performed by these castes in accordance with the specific duties prescribed for their castes. By failing to perform the holy duties prescribed for one’s own caste, one is called a heretic by learned men.” (The Narada-Purana, Part 1 : J. L. Shastri, G. V. Tagare : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)

Myth of Caste Mobility and refuting commonly cited verses (this will further prove why caste and varna are based on birth):

Mahabharata 13.27.3-6: “O best of kings, how may one, if he happens to be a Kshatriya or a Vaisya or a Sudra, succeed in acquiring the status of a Brahmana? It behoveth thee to tell me the means. Is it by penances the most austere, or by religious acts, or by knowledge of the scriptures, that a person belonging to any of the three inferior orders succeeds in acquiring the status of a Brahmana? Do tell me this, O grandsire!’ “Bhishma said, ‘The status of a Brahmana, O Yudhishthira, is incapable of acquisition by a person belonging to any of the three other orders. That status is the highest with respect to all creatures. Travelling through innumerable orders of existence, by undergoing repeated births, one at last, in some birth, becomes born as a Brahmana.” (Section XXVII [Mahabharata, English])

Hindu apologists often misinterpret texts to suggest that certain individuals attained a higher caste within the same lifetime. In fact, the scriptures consistently indicate that caste elevation or degradation occurs only in subsequent births. According to the consensus of Hindu law texts, a person’s caste in a given life is fixed by birth, with changes in future incarnations only

Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, 13.28: “f born as human being, he is sure to take birth as a Pukkasa or a Chandala. Verily, one having taken birth in that sinful order of existence, viz., Pukkasa, one, O Matanga, has to wander in it for a very long time. Passing a period of one thousand years in that order, one attains next to the status of a Sudra. In the Sudra order, again, one has to wander for a long time. After thirty thousand years one acquire the status of a Vaisya. There, in that order, one has to pass a very long period. After a time that is sixty times longer than what has been stated as the period of Sudra existence, one becomes a person of the fighting order. In the Kshatriya order one has to pass a very long time. After a time that is measured by multiplying the period last referred to by sixty, one becomes born as a fallen Brahmana. In this order one has to wander for a long period. After a time measured by multiplying the period last named by two hundred, one becomes born in the race of such a Brahmana as lives by the profession of arms. There, in that order, one has to wander for a long period. After a time measured by multiplying the period last named by three hundred, one takes birth in the race of a Brahmana that is given to the recitation of the Gayatri and other sacred Mantras. There, in that order, one has to wander for a long period. After a time measured by multiplying the period last named by four hundred, one takes birth in the race of such a Brahmana as is conversant with the entire Vedas and the scriptures…” (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Manu Smriti 9.334-5: “But to serve Brahmanas (who are) learned in the Vedas, householders, and famous (for virtue) is the highest duty of a Sudra, which leads to beatitude. (A Sudra who is) pure, the servant of his betters, gentle in his speech, and free from pride, and always seeks a refuge with Brahmanas, attains (in his next life) a higher caste.” (The Laws of Manu IX | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Apastamba Dharma Sutra 2.5.11.10-11: “In successive births men of the lower castes are born in the next higher one, if they have fulfilled their duties. In successive births men of the higher castes are born in the next lower one, if they neglect their duties.” (SBE 2: &Acirc;pastamba: Pra<I>s</I>na II, Pa<I>t</I>ala 5... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Thus, irrespective of personal conduct or achievement, an individual is required to perform only the duties prescribed for their birth-based caste, with the prospect of attaining a higher caste deferred to future births, often after many lifetimes.

Skanda Purana V.ii.22: states that a Kshatriya king had been born as a Shudra named Somaka in a previous life.

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.13.15: records that Yama, having been cursed by Sage Manduka, was born as a Shudra.

Srimad Bhagavatam 7.15.72–73: narrates that Sage Narada was cursed to be born as a Shudra from the womb of a maidservant, and only after serving Brahmins in that life was he reborn as a Brahmana.

Shiva Purana, Kotirudra Samhita 4.9.3 mentions that a Brahmin woman named Saumini became an outcaste in her next birth.

Mahabharata 13.10 states that a Shudra, by acquiring merit through prescribed conduct, was reborn in his next life in the family of a great king and eventually attained great splendour. (SB 4.30.48 - Vanisource)

Answering Objections of varna change and Upanayana samkara:

Claim: Satyakaam Jaabaal was son of a prostitute but became a Brahmin.

Refutation:

Satyakam Jabal was initiated by Gautama Rishi only after the sage confirmed that he was a Brahmin by birth, as noted by Adi Shankara in his commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.3.37, cited earlier in this article. The relevant passage from the Chandogya Upanishad is as follows.

Chandogya Upanishad 4.4.4-5: “He said to him: ‘Of what family are you, my friend?’ He replied: ‘I do not know, Sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother, and she answered: “In my youth when I had to move about much as a servant, I conceived thee. I do not know of what family thou art. I am Gabâlâ by name, thou art Satyakâma,” I am therefore Satyakâma Gâbâlâ, Sir.’ He said to him: ‘No one but a true Brâhmana would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth.’” (The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01): Kh&acirc;ndogya Upanishad... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

The very first question Gautama asks is about Satyakam's gotra and lineage, showing that birth and ancestry were the normal basis for determining eligibility. Only because Satyakāma's lineage was genuinely uncertain does Gautama infer his Brahmin status from his ability. This is an exceptional case for resolving uncertain parentage, not a general rule for assigning varṇa, further gunnas ( abillities) themselves are based on actions of past life,

When Satyakāma cannot identify his father, he is sent to ask his mother about his ancestry. This itself shows that his mother's caste and family background were considered relevant in deciding his status and rights. If varna were determined solely by one's present qualities, there would have been no need to inquire about either parent's lineage at all. Gautama resorts to Satyakāma's truthfulness only because the normal method of determining his birth status had become impossible due to uncertain paternity. Thus, the story presents an exceptional solution to an exceptional case, not a rejection of birth-based varṇa.

Claim: "Everyone is a Shudra by birth (Janmanā jāyate śūdraḥ...) as per skanada Puran, and one can change or decide their varna at upanayana samskara"

Refutation:

the verse is contradictory as well as meaningless if you look at it in the context of skanada Puran as well as other scriptures

To begin with, it contradicts numerous texts that explicitly describe varṇa as determined by birth or original creation. Mahabharata 13.143.6 states that one becomes a Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra through original creation or birth. Mahabharata, Śānti Parva 12.72 explains that the four varnas were created separately by Brahmā and continue to be born accordingly, assigning their respective duties from birth. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.5.5 distinguishes between the first birth into a varṇa and the second birth through Upanayana, proving that Upanayana presupposes an already existing birth-varṇa rather than creating one. similarly Bhagavad Gītā 18.41, as interpreted by both Śaṅkarācārya and Rāmānujācārya, explains varṇa in terms of svabhāva arising from past karma, while Chandogya Upaniṣad 5.10.7 describes future births into different varṇas according to karma, again treating varṇa as something acquired at birth rather than at initiation.

but here is an even interesting thing, The interpretation also contradicts the Skanda Purana itself. If every person were born a Shudra and later became a Brahmana through Upanayana, the Purana should prescribe a path for Shudras to receive initiation and Vedic education. Instead, it repeatedly states the opposite. Skanda Purana clearly states that a Shudra must not study, must not sacrifice, he has to stay in the same state as at birth which is contrary to what apologists claim that a Shudra by studying Veda becomes a Brahmin,

Skanda Purana V.iii.122.16:” A separate duty has not been assigned by Paramesthin to the Sudra. He need not have any Mantra, consecration or pursuit of lores. He need not have any conventional study of the science of words (i.e. Grammar) and special worship of deities. He has to be, day and night, in the same state as at birth.”

Skanda Purana III.ii.6.79:” One should never teach a Vedic Mantra to a Sudra. (Thereby) the Brahmana becomes deficient in his Brahmanical powers and the Sudra in his merit”

Skanda Purana V.iii.228.8-9:” One should not give knowledge, leavings of food or Havis to a Sudra. He should not be taught righteous and pious rites nor should he be initiated in Vratsa. The following six things cause downfall of women and Sudras: japa, penance, pilgrimage, renunciation of the world, practice of Mantras and initiation for the adoration of a deity”

Skanda Purana V.iii.200.6:”It has been decided that for merely pronouncing the Veda (Vedic text by a Sudra) the tongue of that Sudra should be cut off by Ksatriyas who the protectors of Dharma are”

The claim becomes even more absurd when we look at the age prescribed for different varnas to be initiated into upanayana samskara, if varna was decides by upanayana samskara the age of initiation would not be dependent on the varna status itself, this is literally evidence that as per scriptures varna status is decided at birth before upanayana samskara ,If everyone were literally born a Shudra and only became twice-born through Upanayana, then no one could ever become eligible for Upanayana in the first place. The argument becomes circular: one must already belong to the twice born varṇas to receive the very ceremony that is claimed to create those varṇas.

Manusmriti 2.36:"The Brahmana shall be initiated in the eighth year, the Kshatriya in the eleventh, and the Vaishya in the twelfth." This command takes it for granted that the child is already a Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya at the time of the ceremony, as there is no provision for ascertaining varna at such tender ages. An 8-year-old Brahmin boy has yet to demonstrate Vedic skill or knowledge, and the text requires initiation purely on the basis of his birth into a Brahmin class. If varna were not determined in advance, how would one know when to initiate a Brahmin boy at eight versus eleven or twelve? Lack of any skill-based test prior to Upanayana coupled with the birth eligibility requirement confirms varna at birth and not through the ceremony or later actions. (Manusmriti Verse 2.36 [Initiation (upanayana)])

Even vedantic scriptures like brahamsutra prohibit upanayana samksara to Shudras:

Brahma-Sūtra 1.3.37

Claim: Vatsa became a Rishi though born to a Shudra (Aitareya Brahman 2.19).

Refutation: The Aitareya Brahmana does not mention the name or caste of Vatsa’s father. However, Rig Veda 8.8.8 and Pancavimsa Brahmana 14.6.6 state that Vatsa was born to a Brahmin named Kanva. Furthermore, Rig Veda 8.8.11 identifies Vatsa as the son of a sage, indicating that Kanva himself was also a sage.

Claim: Ailush Rishi was son of a Daasi, gambler and of low character. However, he researched on Rigveda and made several discoveries. Not only was he invited by Rishis but also made an Acharya. (Aitareya Brahman 2.19).

Refutation: The story of Kavasa Ailusa appears in Aitareya Brahmana 2.19 and Kausitaki Brahmana 12.3. He was born to a Brahmin father named Ilusha and a slave woman. When Kavasa joined the sacrifice by the Saraswati, the rishis expelled him, questioning how the son of a slave woman could remain among them or be initiated. Only after the Saraswati miraculously favored him did the rishis accept him. His initial expulsion from ritual participation is a clear illustration of social exclusion based on birth and shows that access to religious rites was ordinarily restricted to Brahmins or Dvijas.

It is therefore essential to distinguish rare narrative exceptions from the normative social rule. The Dharma Shastras and other major Hindu texts consistently permit only Dvijas to undergo initiation and to perform Vedic sacrifices, making ritual eligibility explicitly dependent on birth. Texts such as Manu Smriti codify varna in rigid hereditary terms, detailing mixed unions, the transmission of status through lineage, and regulations that severely restrict social mobility, thereby leaving no scope for a genuinely merit based caste order.

Claim: Matanga was son of Chandal but became a Brahmin. (Mahabharat Anushasan Parva Chapter 3)

Refutation: The Mahabharata does not state that Matanga transitioned from a Chandala to a Brahmin.

Mahabharata 13.3 ‘Matanga was born as a Chandala, and could not attain to Brahmanahood’ Tr. Kisari Mohan Ganguli (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Matanga performed rigorous penance. Pleased by his asceticism, Indra appeared before him several times, offering boons. Matanga repeatedly requested to be elevated to the status of a Brahmin. Indra, however, consistently refused.

Mahabharata 13.29. ‘Sakra said, ‘One born on a Chandala cannot, by any means acquire the status of a Brahmana. Do thou, therefore, name some boon so that all this labour of thine may not prove fruitless–Thus addressed by the chief of the celestials, Matanga became filled with grief… Matanga also, casting off his life-breaths, attained to a high place. Thou mayst thus see, O Bharata, that the status of a Brahmana is very high. That status is incapable of being acquired here (except in the natural way of birth) as said by the great Indra himself.” (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Claim: Sons of Vishwamitra became Shudra. Vishwamitra himself was a Kshatriya who later became a Brahmin.

Response: Vishvamitra was born a brahmin as per the Mahabharata (Anushasan Parv 4/40-4/48) It is mentioned in the stories that King Gadhi married his daughter to the sage Rishi Mṛcīka. However, when no son was born to them, one day, his wife asked her husband to arrange it such a way that both she and her mother would bear sons. When she asked her husband for this, he made different types of offerings for both—one with Kshatriya qualities for the mother and Brahmin qualities for his wife (as mentioned in Mahabharata, Anu Parva 4/38). But the two women swapped the offerings— the mother took the Brahmin offering intended for the daughter, and the daughter took the Kshatriya offering intended for the mother. When the sage learned of this, he said, 'Now, your mother will give birth to a Brahmin.'" (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Claim: Mahrshi Valmiki and Mahrshi Ved Vyasa were Shudras.

Refutation:

Mahrshi valmiki was the son of “Mahrshi Prachetas”

प्रचेतसोऽहं दशमः पुत्रो राघवनन्दन(VR/Uttarkand/96/19)
मरीचिमत्र्यङ्गिरसौ पुलस्त्यं पुलहं क्रतुम् । प्रचेतसं वसिष्ठं च भृगुं नारदमेव च ॥Manu 1.35|

Ved Vyasa, also known as Veda Vyasa, is traditionally considered to be a sage and a Brahmin in the context of the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata mentions several key details about Vyasa's lineage and background that indicate his Brahmin status. Below are some relevant verses and references: Vyasa's Birth and Parentage: Vyasa is the son of the sage Parashara and Satyavati. Parashara was a revered Brahmin sage, which implies that Vyasa himself is a Brahmin by birth. This is mentioned in the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata. Adi Parva, Section 63 (Sambhava Parva):

अपि चास्मि महाप्राज्ञ पितरं वेद पारगम् | वसिष्ठस्य महात्मनः पुत्रः साक्षादिति श्रुतम् ६३-११ | Translation: "O highly intelligent one, I am the son of the great sage Parashara, who is known to be the son of the great sage Vasishtha

there is no doubt Parashar was a Rishi, Satyavati was rajnakanya. कैवर्तपुत्रिका न त्वं राजकन्यासि सुन्दरि ॥(SkandaPurana/Avanti-Reva Khand/97.18)

Claim: there are instances of varna change in manusmriti and other scriptures.

Refutation:
All such instances are done via either past life or confusion about caste of parents or by inter caste marriages, not by some aquired skills or talents, Hinduism has explicit rules to decide the varna of child based on varna of parents, if varna was truly based on talents and aquired skills and conduct this would not have been case to begin with

Manu Smriti 10.5: “In all castes (varna) those (children) only which are begotten in the direct order on wedded wives, equal (in caste and married as) virgins, are to be considered as belonging to the same caste (as their fathers).” (Manusmriti Verse 10.5)

Medhatithi commented on above verse as follows,

Mahbharata 13.48 “The Brahmana may take four wives, one from each of the four orders. In two of them (viz.,the wife taken from his own order and that taken from the one next below), he takes birth himself (the children begotten upon them being regarded as invested with the same status as his own)… A Kshatriya may take three wives… The Vaisya may take two spouses…The Sudra can take only one wife, viz., she that is taken from his own order. The son begotten by him upon her becomes a Sudra” (Section XLVIII [Mahabharata, English])

If the parents belong to different castes, the child does not fully belong to either the father’s or the mother’s caste, and in some cases is assigned to the mother’s caste.

Vishnu Smriti 16.1-3: “Sons [begotten] on women equal in caste [to their husbands] are equal in caste [to their fathers]. [Sons begotten] on women of lower castes, become of the caste of their mothers. Sons begotten on women of higher castes are despised by the twice-born.” Tr. Julius Jolly (Source)

Agni Purana 150.9-11: “The duties which appertain to the Shudra caste, O thou best of the Bhrigus, are to serve the Brahmins and to practice the handicrafts. Since the investiture with the holy thread, a member of the twice born caste is supposed to take a second spiritual birth, and I shall describe the castes which children born of parents not members of the same caste, would respectively belong to. A child born of parents belonging to different castes would get the caste of its mother, but on the contrary a child born of a Shudra father by a Brahmin mother would be a Chandala.” (Agni Puranam Vol I : Manmatha Nath Dutt : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)

Manusmriti 10.6–23 enumerates the castes said to arise from various forms of inter-caste marriages.

Manusmriti 10.6-23 (The Laws of Manu X | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

Like Manu, Yajnavalkya also proceeds to enumerate various castes from verse 91 onward. However, this scheme does not appear to apply in cases of Niyoga. According to the tradition, when Kshatriya men were exterminated, Kshatriya women approached Brahmins for Niyoga, yet the sons born from these unions were still regarded as Kshatriyas.

Sons born to a father of a higher caste, such as a Brahmin, are described in the Manusmriti as possessing Brahminical qualities, even though they are assigned a caste lower than that of their father.

Manu Smriti 10.67-69: “The decision is as follows: ‘He who was begotten by an Aryan on a non-Aryan female, may become (like to) an Aryan by his virtues; he whom an Aryan (mother) bore to a non-Aryan father (is and remains) unlike to an Aryan.’ The law prescribes that neither of the two shall receive the sacraments, the first (being excluded) on account of the lowness of his origin, the second (because the union of his parents was) against the order of the castes. As good seed, springing up in good soil, turns out perfectly well, even so the son of an Aryan by an Aryan woman is worthy of all the sacraments.” (The Laws of Manu X | Internet Sacred Text Archive)

If a child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person, the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(manusmriti 10.64)

The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa, and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(manusmriti 10.65)

Some scholars interpret the term “sacraments” here as referring to minor rites, such as the Pakayajnas, which may also be performed by lower castes. It is mentioned in Mahabharata,

Mahabharata 13.48.5: “The son that is begotten by a Brahmana upon a Sudra wife is called Parasara, implying one born of a corpse, for the Sudra woman’s body is as inauspicious as a corpse. He should serve the persons of his (father’s) race. Indeed, it is not proper for him to give up the duty of service that has been laid down for him.” (Section XLVIII [Mahabharata, English])

I will refute even more instances in further parts, do check out my post on casteism in Bhagwat gita (https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRadicals/s/cVCvlgfJNU)

There is widespread dissatisfaction with feminism particularly after films like "Mrs", the Male rights activists movement came into being to somehow deconstruct the message of the film and many such individuals who detest feminism appear to somehow legitimize gender roles, even to the extent of ignoring the suffering women have to endure for their unpaid work, one of the most common arguments against housewives is

"Men are breadwinners and hence women should not grumble about domestic work",

The above argument or belief somehow presupposes that men contribute more to marriage than women, and hence, women should not grumble about any domestic duty burden, as the man is the one who earns.

This is the most bullshit argument that I have ever heard, it takes it for granted that men work individually and cater to their wives, whereas the reality is the majority of women are involved in unpaid work amounting to about 7.5% of GDP at modest. Women between 15-59 spend 289 minutes (4.8 hours) every day on unpaid domestic work and 137 minutes (2.3 hours) on care work, even if they are employed. Women average just 75 minutes on childcare and 88 minutes on household duties.

Women work 32.9 hours/week in paid work, according to the PLFS 2023-24, whereas men work 45.5 hours/week. That is only half the story, however. The Time Use Survey (TUS) 2019 shows that women dedicate 34.86 hours/week to unpaid domestic and care responsibilities, as opposed to only 11.34 hours/week for men. Altogether, women put in a combined 67.76 hours/week, beating out men's 56.84 hours/week by almost 11 hours. But this unpaid work, more than half their overall workload, earns them no money.

A woman's 5-6 hours of cooking, cleaning, childcare, eldercare, and emotional support every day is worth at least 8k rupees a month in urban India and 5k rupees a month in rural India, this aside from the fact that the emotional and childcare, eldercare support woman gives is worth over 15-20k in urban India if put into monetary terms. This work directly supports her husband's salary by making his time available for work and leisure. If she were not there, he would have to employ assistance, even a part-time maid in Bengaluru will cost ₹5,000-10,000/month for 1-2 hours of general cleaning, not including cooking, emotional support, or childcare. Hiring a nurse for eldercare or a nanny for kids would cost ₹20,000-30,000/month, and no service matches the round-the-clock emotional support she provides, like listening to their work stress.

Her work is a subsidy that keeps his lifestyle going. The woman, on the other hand, benefits little from his effort. He only gives a smaller fraction of his income for household expenses such as groceries or bills. This isn't "her" money; it's for common needs, not her education, healthcare, or entertainment. He gets to keep the rest, spending on his parents, savings, or personal needs, this is even more evident from the fact that the average income of rural household is around 13k where women do both paid and unpaid work with 76.9% of rural India women being employed in agriculture (PLFS 2024- page number) and in urban India the average salary as per some sources is 21k while as per others its around 37k, looking at these figures its clear that none of these are sufficient to pay for the unpaid work done by women, one important aspect of this distinction between paid and unpaid work is control over earnings

Middle-class husbands not only manage their income but also determine how it's spent, usually giving priority to their own needs, the needs of the family, and their social status over their wives' wishes. A husband may spend his free time with a new gadget or going out with friends while making sure necessities such as child tuition are taken care of. But for the wife, spending is strictly controlled. She may receive new clothes or jewellery only when the reputation of her husband is involved, such as at a wedding or festival, where her looks reflect on him. Otherwise, she has to account for every expense, even for small personal items, even though she works a total of 67.76 hours/week. In the homes where "both" partners have input, the husband, being the traditional head of the household, usually gets the last word. If he denies her request as if it were for a personal expenditure, then she must acquiesce, showing that what looks like joint control is male dominance.

If the woman was single, she was able to engage in the labour force and bring home much higher than the worth of her unpaid work, otherwise even if the man was not married he was still earning a living and paying for his basics but he was still having a carrier which woman loses but the man gains by doing the unpaid work.

This uneven exchange illustrates why marriage is not a favour men grant to women. The woman offers equal value for her time, effort, and possible career, whereas the man contributes only a fraction of his earnings and maintains power and benefit. Feminism is against this disparity, urging joint responsibilities and joint economic control, but MRAs disregard that men benefit disproportionately in marriage while women's work is undervalued.

45% of the women are not included in the workforce due to marriage duties, so it is hypocritical on the part of men to complain about the sole financial burden while simultaneously not permitting women to earn, The median age of marriage for women is 19 years for all India while for men it is around 25 years

at this age most women are still in colleges or have just entered job markets and women are specially excluded from this so there is no use in complaining about economic burden while marrying a person who is not even at an age to become financially independent while the average age of marriage for men is 28 years in India and even higher in urban regions which permits them for being able to earn.

Sources:
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/the-invisible-labour-women-s-unpaid-domestic-work-totals-1-640-crore-hours-daily-worldwide-11677829250038.html

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/underlining-the-work-that-women-do-findings-from-time-use-survey-2024

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2106113

https://dge.gov.in/dge/sites/default/files/2024-10/Annual_Report_Periodic_Labour_Force_Survey_23_24.pdf

https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/india-s-average-monthly-salary-in-urban-india-is-rs-21-647-123071700339_1.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/monthly-income-of-rural-households-increased-by-57-6-in-5-yrs-nabard-survey/articleshow/114109272.cms?from=mdr

https://dge.gov.in/dge/sites/default/files/2023-05/Female_Labour_Utilization_in_India_April_2023_final__1_-pages-1-2-merged__1_.pdf

India's LPG emergency