The ugly face of caste has once again shown its face. This discussion on IBN shows how the ill-phrased quote of a politician turned into a heated debate on caste for a long while before refocusing on the issue at hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=U4IOWYarsZs#

This thread is meant to address one point that was raised in the discussion about Lord Buddha opposing caste system. I know this was discussed in a previous thread, but several points were not made. This is also a response to a shabby article by the anti-Hindus from Nirmukta
http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/16/hindu...i-sankara-era/
Although there is emphasis in this article about a pre-Adi Shankara period of class based discrimination, the author sneaks in a timeline after 350BCE to make his point because he accepts the opinion of one DD Kosambi. Mind you, the guy who writes the article is not an expert on history and neither am I. However, the article in question barely has any historical evidence and we are left to accept the 'inferences' drawn by the sickularist in question.

First of all, in his book "Identity and Genesis of Caste System in India", Prof. Ramesh Chandra puts forth the idea that Sudras were not disallowed from Vedic study until the pre-Mauryan period (pg59), which we know is just before 322BCE. Remember that Gautama Buddha lived during the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. The timeline of events from then to the Mauryan Empire remain sketchy, but historically, there is no dispute that Buddhism took off before the Mauryan period. Since the Manu Smriti, which is placed in the second C. BCE is clearly anti-shudra, and Buddhist texts talk of oppression by the Sunga dynasty (also 2nd C. BCE) under a Brahmin, it starts to become clear why Buddhists felt like they were oppressed by Brahmins during the Sunga age, when in fact that was not the case at all. In fact, the Sungas were if anything generous to Buddhists
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/bar.htm and Etienne Lamotte mentions: "To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof.""
Koenraad Elst and Romila Thapar also have come independently to this conclusion.
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.co...cat/ch2.htm#5a

Prof. Chandra further argues that "Rhys Davis has shown the fallacy of complimenting Buddha with breaking caste barriers"
http://books.google.com/books?id=bvG...page&q&f=false
If anything, it appears from early Buddhist writings that Buddha wanted Kshatriyas and Brahmins to be revered. Besides, the reason Buddha became an ascetic was after looking at the condition of the sick, the old and the poor. It was not because of brahminical orthodoxy. From this it follows that Buddhist opposition to caste system came about not because "there appears to be evidence that by the end of the Mauryan Empire and the start of the Sunga era, stratification of society into varnas and jatis was expanding in spite of the Buddhist onslaught on Brahminic ideological hegemony during the latter Mauryan era." Rather, Ashoka had several Brahmin counsels in his ministry as Emperor. And as ridiculous as the assertions are that evil Brahmins had schemed to overthrow Ashoka and the Mauryan dynasty just because Pusyamitra Sunga (a Brahmin General) assasinated Brhadrat, this is grasping at straws at best. In fact, the Sunga dynasty was supportive of Buddhist philosophy. And so was the Gupta empire
http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad...as/guptas.html
So this idea that Hinduism (namely Brahmins) had persecuted Buddhists is a fallacious one indeed. After the Gupta decline, Harsha Vardan gained power and he was a Buddhist. The decline of Buddhism was a philosophical one. The rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism greatly reduced Buddhism and then Adi Sankaracharya nailed the coffin shut.

From this it follows that caste system actually started to take hold after the decline of the Gupta era, as Brahmin-led control of state had become inevitable since there was no active monarchy.
[Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard University Press, 2000]

So, the conclusions from historical evidence are that the caste system actually came about due to Brahminical influence on kingdoms that had started to fall into anarchy. This was after or perhaps during the fall of Sunga and Gupta dynasties and was NOT in place before the Maurya dynasty as is falsely claimed. They may have started to form, but why so remains a mystery. It was certainly not a reaction to Buddhist prevalence, since untouchability was largely occupation based and Manu Smriti itself states that it was a reaction against intermixing of castes.

Furthermore, Gautama Buddha did NOT leave Hinduism because of the caste system. Neither do we have evidence that he objected to it at all. In short, 'ancient India' did not support caste system and Hindus and Buddhists lived in peace with one another for a great deal of time and continue to do so.