I said he did more. His views are irrelevant. Obviously in principle the British paid lip service to a caste-free society, but in practice they were the authors

I said he did more. His views are irrelevant. Obviously in principle the British paid lip service to a caste-free society, but in practice they were the authors of apartheid. Also when you look at his views closely, especially after 1925 or so, he moves into a position very similar to that which you will see of modern Christian theology, where you hear much talk of the importance of personal choice. So people should follow a caste and so on, but that's not the place of the government to enforce. That's a much more moderate and workable position than abolition, and much easier to implement. Absolutes do little good when aiming for radical societal reinvention. Even Sati was pushed out bit by bit, by various reformers. But again, from a vegetarian Hindu perspective large-scale livestock slaughter is a similar if not worse evil than Sati, and unless you can provide a proof that animals don't have souls, your rationalism has no place in that discussion. You might as well commend the Communist party for bringing about gender equality as a counter argument to someone railing against the gulags. All it shows is that we always have some places where we cannot accept cultural relativism.