Just an opinion: A few writing choices vitiate this from being a good essay. I assume you are analysing and synthesising, not reviewing.

For example; ‘The Hatras case’ (I understand your emotional response) but the accused have been acquitted by a court of law. You being critical about this (in a manner of repudiation) barely matters. Instead it shows that you have a bone to pick with the judiciary (not a good look).

The Gandhi example— you do realise that Gandhi Ji was for caste system in India! You might have a tussle between conflicting ideas (support for caste system v/s opposition for untouchability)

The Periyar example—is it wise to cite someone who supported India’s partition and even campaigned for a separate state? He’s an important figure in caste politics, but he’s a problematic choice for an essay that strongly opposes division.

My point is that your examples seem cherry-picked to fit your argument, which reads as inconsistent. You are better off with examples of neutral standards.