My Take ...

“No two people are equal - not even the so-called identical twins. People r born unequal, have unequal intelligence, unequal capabilities, unequal opportunities, unequal value systems and so on.” Thus spake IAWIT. What exactly do we mean by equality is perhaps the foremost idea we must reflect upon here. Everything else remaining constant (which is most often not the case) no two children are born exactly ‘equal’, not even twins. Given. But is that the launching pad for the notion of ‘superiority’? Are some human beings superior to others? I think not. Given that each may contribute differently to society, his family and fellow beings, some more significantly than others, the contributions nonetheless remain. Each has his own space carved out in the fabric of society. Cataclysms were wrought by a man, who thought that the Aryan race was superior to others; by the fair skinned men who wished to dominate my brown skinned brethren. People may be better skilled at one or the other task or profession…but what makes one man superior to the other?
The division of a caste-based society was more professional and aptitudinal, I believe. Even Plato’s Republic advocates the same, India is no exception. The division of class was based on the different methods by which one could contribute to society; but never do the shastras mention that the contribution of one class was less significant than the other. The shastras also allow for changing of one’s caste, Vishwamitra being a significant example. Ancient India was, then, much more liberal than we are willing to be.