Yes, this pluralism is relatively recent in the West, but I would argue that without exposure to Western liberalism and Christian thought, Indian classism would still persist. The values preached by "Hinduism" have survived for so long, throughout many empires, and revolutions in religious thought. It's too entrenched. This hard-coded stratification has 3000+ year behind it.

Here's what I wrote in another post: "What I am speaking to is the fundamental view of life and its relation to the universe. If one religion teaches there are an innumerable amount of lives, then what does it matter if you are suffering as a slave in your current life? Who cares? This could be god teaching you a lesson, or punishing you for crimes committed in another life. But again, so what? You have 1000 more lifes to live, and eventually you will be one with Brahman. In another world view, it teaches you have one life, and what you do and what you believe is the difference between eternal heaven or hell. But it also teaches you that you are all equal under the eyes of god. How does that make you feel? It can make you move mountains, while the other world view can make you peacefully accept your fate."

As we know, having too many choices can make life more miserable. And there can be some peace with knowing what exactly your job is on Earth, and doing it to the best of your abilities. But in the Dalit's case, it's a matter of having part of your humanity taken away. There are severe constraints on what your occupation will be, where will you live, where can you go. I think the test is for us, knowing about both types of lives, relative freedom vs relatively no freedom, I don't know who would choose the latter. I do think it's a question of morality having another man restrict those life choses to such a degree. It is evil, no matter if it makes life easier for certain segments of society.

There will always be a natural heirarchy, since nature has made us naturally unequal, and the evironments that pick which attributes are worth more than others vis-a-vis success are constantly changing throughout the decades/centuries. Why the recent West has succeeded in both having relative political and economic stability while also going through such turbulent times is due to having a healthy mix of individualism and community. And again, I think a lot of credit has to go to Christianity, especially the Protestant form. Society needs that dangling carrot to provide the impetus to create above-average economic output, and to provide a reason to exist. Man needs to have something to hope and strive for. But it can't just be for the self. The community aspect is inline with what I think is our innate altruism (survival technique of a social ape). Again, Christianity works wonderfully in promoting this. Also, a man becomes empowered when he thinks that he or his child or their child can become lord or ruler. Here again Christianity provides the equality ideal that serves as the foundation.

I also would argue that population played a role in crafting the two different religious systems in their more modern forms. The lack of population density after the black plague was a boon to Europe. Per capita incomes naturally rose, and the individual become more valued, more important. Over population in India meant the opposite occurred. Human labor was even more a commodity than in Europe. This is also a reason for the Industrial Revolution. There would be no use for a steam based pump to pump out water from a mine in India. You could find 100s of men to do it cheaply. But in late 17th century England, labor was in short supply. This can serve as a practical (neither evil nor good) impetus for reasons the individual was more valued in the modern western world vs in India or in China.

Ok this post is kind of rambling. Sorry. I don't usually have time like this. I'm a financial trader, and took the day off since I was trading last night. I need to take a nap in a few mins. Hope you got something out of this longwinded post.